it has been pointed out below, but I will re-point it out here. As mentioned in the article, it is the LARGEST, not the only ISP. Second, like group of people (company or not), they have the right to set their own business standards and practices. This is the church for crying out loud. Whether you agree with it or not... the only valid point in not liking your access filtered is this: change to another ISP. I am amazed at the sheer hypocracy of some people, who claim to be looking out for 'everyone' or 'the little guy' and have this Power to the People voice in their head.... yet when a group of people bring a service to people, their is much bitching, bleeding and crying about the particulars of it.
If this was some state run system, and users were forced to only go through it... or if it was a state enforced filtering, THEN you could bitch. I know of several bars in town that don't serve the beer I like, and I am not gonna gather all my lamer buddies and March against them or anything like it. Sheez people, dont be so closed minded when you are being "Open Minded". Here is how it works. I don't bother you, you don't bother me. I don't force you to live like I think you should live, you don't do the same to me. Enlightenment does not begin with a catch phrase or the thought, "eliminate all who eliminate any". It begins with giving the same respect and dignity to others as you would have them give to you... (sound familiar?)
While the argument of brining money in from the stadium to the community is valid to a degree (in theory, mind you) I think that the facts prove otherwise in reality. Most pro team stadiums do not allow you to bring in food, drink, etc. You gotta buy there. The internal vendors have to pay large sums of money to have the 'privelege' to set up shop there (one, but only one, of the reasons the prices suck so bad). Then there is the traffic problems / pollution that a stadium brings... unless the team sucks.
So, why is it that you pay taxes for this thing, yet tickets cost from 20 - 75 dollars depending on the teams sucess? Why does the franchise have so many tax exempt statutes, and why is the money to build it not considered a loan... payable by the team, or at least a group of people who lease it in turn to the team? Why do I not see a tax cut later to 'payback' the tax hike for building/supporting the team... actually I meant not just an elimination of the tax increase originally, but added cuts on top. That would be how the rest of the free market world operates, but then again, this is a socialist system. They might as well call the teams the "Comrades" or something.
If a team wants to come to a town (and the town wants them) then the only vote should be for if the public allows the team to be there, creating all the problems that comes along with them. As for construction and funding, that should come from banks and others, not the tax revenue. Furthermore, if it were some kind of tax funded scheme, than it should be a one time loan, with interest that the team must play.
Perhaps if they can't afford that, then they could cut a little off the top of the 30+ million average salaries of those overpaid whiney cry-babies. Lets see them work for a fire or police department (or enlisted military), live just above poverty level... risk their lives (especially the fire and police) on a DAILY basis. Then they might understand what a strike is for, what a lower salary really means, and what it really means to not make enough to "Live On"
Don't get me wrong, I make more money than I thought I ever would... but this is not about me, but rather about the above mentioned.
Stupid pansy jocks... "Uhh, I play foot... uhhhh, foot.... uhhh, yeah, Football" They do absolutely nothing for society IMHO (and no I am not talking about those who volunteer for United Way which is great, but is not their job) They definitely win the most awards for ego, stupidity, and criminal behavior... but as for helping further humanity, they strike out.
maybe this is a bit off topic (moderators, do your thing), but I in my vast 26 years of life have noticed that every time some new tech comes along, or an existing one is re-tooled, there is a large group of advocates for it whose sole reason (at least the one they hand to the public) for supporting it comes down to one thing. It will bring us all together ending war, hunger and disease. Now, don't get me wrong, the exchange of info is a plus in R&D efforts, not to mention the ability to create a world-wide "threat board" for everyone to find out about little Johnny Snotnose in Armpit, AR who [was oppressed | won an award | invented 'X' | fell down a well] (OK, so maybe only the first well victim gained planetary fame... I actually lived there, and came to know some of the rescuers later, but thats not exactly gonna get me an oscar)
Anyway, I expect the marketroids to push things on the note that it cures disease and 'brings us all together', but a LARGE segment of the general population (and the Media mainly) continue to evangelize the 'planet saving' idea of the product/tech.
Now, thermodynamics might suggest that there is always a Naysayers club (Patent Pending) that will go against said 'new thing' simply on the merit that it is new and they don't understand it. Most technology is useless to the general public by itself... offhand I can't think of anything in the past 30 years that actually CREATED something new. It simply made it easier/faster/cheaper to perform an existing task, or expanded an existing idea/task. Yet, many will scratch their heads (or bang them against a brick wall) in an attempt to 'solve' the 'problems' that this technology creates.
So, I guess my confusion lies with the naivety of people in general. I even had a bit of a problem with the Star Trek theme of how Warp Drive seemed to solve all of mankinds problems, how people banded together, etc, etc, etc... First Contact really played on this, IMHO, but an earlier book I read about how Zephram Cochran (sp? huh, like it matters at this point:) came about inventing the FTL drive. It was more realistic about peoples greed, hatred, and bigotry. It even had one of the characters mention how silly it is that every new thing is touted as the "THING" to save us all from ourselves.
Well, end of that mess for now... I just wonder, about FTL and all, if that will solve all our problems, and especially if establishing ties with non-Human civilizations is possible. If so, shouldn't the 'Galactic Expansion Beta 1.0.1.2' have proved that you can take the Human out of (off) the Earth, but not the Earth out of the Human? (i.e. Expansion into the Western Hemisphere)
more funding for space programs is always good... although, I am curious why NASA is the one getting increased funding. Also I wonder why tax dollars are being spent on it. I know of many people who would fund this kind of research and attempt to further develop the ebryonic space program. Nasa has proven that it cannot do many things right, but instead of admitting that and letting others also do R&D, they hoarde everything and require permits/liscenses/permission/pay-offs for other groups to pursue this.
Perhaps we should completely privatize them like was originally intended (at least that is what was announced).
The Big Government argument:
TAX MAN: "We must increase funding to these government programs!"
tax payer: "Why must I be forced to fund this, why must we ALL be forced to fund this... shouldn't you let people decide on their own what to fund?"
TAX MAN: "QUIET YOU!!! *bang* If we didn't force you to fund it, it wouldn't get funded... and that is bad because the people want this, and they yearn for it to be funded"
tax payer: (bleeding) "Ummm, if the people really want it, then logic suggests they will fund it themselves without the gross innefficency of the government. If you are afraid of giving them CHOICE, then not only does that show the flaw in your argument for what the people want, but you are going against the very foundation of Liberty, Freedom, Sovereignty and dignity of the people..."
from what the dreamers have been talking about, and from what has been tried on different levels, I think there are several things 'around the corner' for consumers.
First, barring the expense and room of multimonitors for the average gamer, I think that multimonitor will grow. As the monitors get smaller and cheaper (like processers I guess, hmmph) it would be nice to have a multi monitor setup that gives you different degrees of 360 'wrap-around' viewing (and even overhead). Second, some ol boy is gonna invent a stable 3D display sometime, and this would be a quantum leap in the rise of processing for it's display. And, what about integration? That seem to be the trend now. Gotta have a 200+ fps, DVD decoder, TV tuner, SPDIF out video card... NOW!!!
I recently had a discussion with a coworker about just this thing. As we discussed, the max fps might be overkill and lost, but it is always justified by its effect on the average and lower end fps. Perhaps a bigger move would be to work on stabilizing the fps... but then again, what do I know? As for the multi-display, at least for games, it would be great to have a home built simulator for the latest flight or space flight sim. I could just look up and around to track the action... and my bogey, without pressing buttons. It would appear as a real cockpit. Perhaps some of those flexible 640x480 displays all around me, with my 21+ incher in the middle.
Either way, I think there is a large area for growth, not to mention that the photorealism thing is rather far off IMHO. I personally can't wait to have an COTS card that I will plug in my server, sit in the living room with the wife next to me, and us both turn on our display projectors and fragging the hell. OK, so it will be awhile, but I can dream... and the distributed vs centralized thing will always be around I think.
I think that this falls under the heading of "we meant well, but..." I agree that human dignity life, and through that dignity, is precious. However, history has shown us (and ironically enough, history of Nazi Germany perhaps the most) that it is very difficult to enforce what is "offensive". I might find jews and Judaism to be offensive, and use this system to oppress Jews. Now, I might not be able to murder them, perform experiments on them, etc. But I could very well imprison them... if I have made it illegal to wear the Star of David, or have a Menora (sp?, sorry if this is wrong). Or if I mine electronic communication and jail or fine people for saying any 'Jew stuff' I don't like.
I believe that the vast majority of people agree with the sentiment that people and their 'dignity' should be protected... its just a question of, "Is this the best way to do it?" I personally am concerned that the very thing that was made to protect, as a result of the actions of a group of monsters, will in time become the very tool of destruction for those it is supposed to protect.
Here in the US, our founding fathers saw this. They realized that good intentions are the beginning not the end, and that it takes "Eternal Vigilance" to ensure Liberty and Freedom. Of course, many here have chosen to forget that, but reality does not change itself just becuase we wish it to.
One other thing:
The funny thing is that Europe is in total far more liberal than the US, although it is very regulative concerning Nazi propaganda. You can say a lot more in Europe without having to fear a lawsuit because you were politically incorrect. I think the US is very hypocritical in that respect...
I agree that the US if VERY hypocritical about many things... we have become the country that every one loves to hate. However, to clarify... people here are confused to what Liberal and Conservative means. Lately, more censorship has been wrought by 'liberals', but you are correct if you point at that and say that is a "conservative" ideology. Conservatives regulate social, and Liberals regulate economic... at least that is the technical way to 'define' them. Now, that is really muddy, and most don't realize that they all are mixed together. They ALL wish to control you, your thoughts, and your actions. They just differ in the excuses they give, but are all hypocrits.
I would give money to help fund this, because of the possibilities that this brings. However, I no more support it being tax funded than I would support a tax funded church.
Besides, there are a LOT of people out there who don't exactly have much faith in NASA right now... regardless if that is misdirected or not. With the handfull of private organizations attempting to make intra and even interstellar space travel a reality, I think we should push for NASA to let up on its restrictions.
Imagine... Open Space, with hoardes of geeks helping on the R&D (and funding if they choose), without a Federal Microsoft limiting everyones ability to innovate... would there be a "SpaceForge" on the net then?
I just can't wait until you can sit back at a carved wooden table, spit on the floor, tip back your pint of favorite beer (beer as in beer, not American Piss served cold in a pitcher) and look out the 'window' only to see the rings of Jupiter or Saturn right outside... mmmmmm.... cosmic beer
Ranked as good (and sometimes better) than nVidia. Great integration IMHO. What I expect to see will be nVidia improving their integration efforts and including Multimedia features to rival ATI... sometime. Matrox... who knows.
maybe I was just not in the mood, but it seemed like the third part was not only less exciting and a fizzle instead of a bang, but it even seemed like it was done in a different style. I joked that the series parts were written and filmed as seperate parts, and that a different writting and directing crew came on in the third part. Maybe some beer would have helped, I dunno.
It is cases such as this, why there is written law. In order to establish some consistency (unlinke my spelling), and avoid "bananna republic" situations, each state (and each county) establishes guidelines for what is acceptable, what the time frame is, and the methods for contesting. Since the timeframe was 7 days, and was passed illegally by the Florida Supreme court, this is why the Federal court did what it did. The Florida court had no businesses mucking with the legally established deadline for this current election. If after the election, it were to declare the law unconstitutional or anything similar, then the legislature would need to refine the law. However, to establish such an Expos Facto (or whatever) ruling, the Florida court sets a dangerous precident.
Since Florida had legally set what was acceptable and unnacceptable as far as votes, counting, and contesting of votes are concerned, it is not only foolish but completely illegal to go back on that now that the votes have been cast.
This would be like filming drivers on a road, then later reducing the speed limit, and then ticketing the drivers... who at the time were driving within the legally established speed limit.
I just hope that everyone takes heed of this and refines their respective counties and states voting process.
while I can sympathize with the broadcasters to a degree, I am once again confused by peoples techno-fear. Unless I am wrong, our world is always changing, people are always coming up with better, faster, and completely newer ways to perform the same tasks. Printing press, telegram, television, telephone, VoIP, etc. I wish people would not run in fear, but simply see the added potential of innovations. Simply put, why isn't the media making better use of the internet and streaming media to "inform" us? Why don't they simply adopt the very thing that is taking away their ratings. Sadly, this is what happens when you are inferior, or offer inferior products/services, but would rather tear down everyone else, rather improve yourself.
I just wonder what would have happened, if instead of media over the net, this was the move from BW to Color. I guess they would restrict any color broadcasts by anyone.
I guess the argument would be the same if instead of the net, it was other stations. Yet, other stations would only be parroting the "official" stations. This seems to be the same way, and warrants a closer look at how we define data after it is broadcasted to the public. Well, I will stop here... lunch time!!!
I sympathize completely, but do not believe that this is the way to go about ending Nazi-type attitudes. If you censor, then you are adopting the very tactics that you have labeled as evil that the evil organization that you are banning enacted... makes my head hurt.
Instead of pointing fingers as to "who killed who" maybe just being rational and recognizing the problem as just that... a problem all around is the first step in combating it. The best way to combat ignorance and fear is with education and reason. True, many prefer not to listen, but for every 9 people that censor you (censorship is so hypocritically applied) you reach 1 person who is enlightened. Like in America with the never ending story that is the presidential election, you see many people taking sides in name, but not in substance. They will claim to have EVERYONE's best interest in mind, yet only want to hear who they approve as being worthy of being heard. I don't like what the US has done on many occasions, just as I don't like what other countries have done. I will not play favorites and defend the "home team" and change my views just because "my country" did those things. Perhaps instead of making excuses, perhaps we could make solutions. In this case it becomes clear that yahoo really can not do anything to censor those products unless they instigate such a large task force of people (or idiotic filtering software) that many other decent things would end up being censored. If your view of nazi trinkets is that it implies sympathy towards Nazism, then choose not to support it. If you censor it from others, you cover up the deeper problem that is apparent in your area/country. Not to mention, that someone else will later find something else offensive that you do not, and then you will be restricted. THAT is why it is bad. To accuse those who are against censoring this of Nazism, is the same as accusing people against racist government policies (i.e. affirmative action) of being racist.
most, but not all IT managers IMHO go more for either: A) the thing they have heard about, but know very little about (the marketer's dream) or, B) pick something that will satisfy (A) for the customer. Either way, they are not really interested in functions, logistics, or even effeciency. Rather, they seem to just want to make popular decisions.... although who it is popular with must be more marketroids. That is why you end up with mission critical systems being run on M$, whether in e-commerce or the DoD. If managers didn't micro-mismanage but rather delegated, this would be greatly reduced. But then again, if peoples mind sets of controlling other people and everything they do or decide along the way, the government would shrivel up to next to nothing and we could go on living our lives as we choose...
I am weighing several things here. First, as a student, you are paying the school to learn. Like any other business, it is an exhange of good or services for money. Second, if the school is being funded by taxes (like some others have posted previously), then the taxes count as an investment and therefore have eligability to share in an equal portion of proceeds and profits. The question would be, how do you determine the amount. Third, what resources used were owned by which parties, whether yours, your roomate's, the schools (which could have been from tax dollars). Next, was the project specially funded... basically was this just a thesis or other large assignment, or was this some study funded by whoever, like from a grant or somesuch?
If, as a student, you specifically signed up for a project that was not part of your class, and not part of the required curiculum, and it was funded by taxes, a corporation, etc. Then it becomes clear that the univerity owns it, or at the very least are stewards of it. If your code was simply the result of a class project, or even your thesis, I think it belongs to you, but in monetary terms, if it ever turned a profit, I think the univeristy and contributers might have a stake in it. That would be a decision for the courts, or more specifically, the university lawyers. As a taxpayer, I think that in an organization that gets my money, but yet still charges tuition and other fees, I deserve some of the profit... so it should be public domain and GPL'd. On the other hand, if I was a university, I would also want a return on my investment. It works both ways, but then again.... I have always thought that a student should be considered a university's customer, not his or her employer. Just as a cable company is not the employer of a subscriber to a broadband subscriber.
OK, no real facts, just some observations and musings.
My main question is what would this situation be if the university received no grants, but only fees for service. I guess you would need to sign a contract saying you did not own the code you wrote, however I would fight to ensure that the university could not own it. It could be a cooperative ownership... I dunno
well, as a geek through school, I would have to say that the sour grapes seems like a cop out in and of itself. If you blame yourself for certain things, fine. I know I did not wear the right clothes, didn't even have a car, and had no money (my parents didn't have any, in other words). I am a bit bitter about attitudes and the values the school "kids" had and still have. However, like you, I worked around them. But I didn't reinvent myself. I am still the "nice guy" alot, but now it doesn't matter as someone who thought I was the nicest guy married me. I could really care less about appearance, but that does not mean I am one of these hypocritical "anti-everythings" that simply do the very OPPOSITE of what is popular under the guise of being "real". So, yes, I agree very much with what that student did. Maybe it was seen as rude to simply walk off the field. But think about this, he made a moral stand, then stuck by it when offered to sell out. Had he accepted, he would have been a hypocrit and a sell out. This was the best way for him to get his message out, that he was willing to sacrifice what many probably covet. That takes a lot of balls. Courage is doing what you think is right, regardless or how people will think about you. I say kudos to him, and that he shows a lot more character than MANY, whether adults or students.
You can disagree with his tactics, him, me, etc. But surely you can admit that he showed a lot of integrity by not accepting.
One other thing I learned that was real imporant. You questioned above whether the previous poster thought social "skills" equated to being mean and cruel, yet said it was sour grapes, bigotry and jealousy. Coming from a very forthright person, who is often looked at funny because he comes right up to people and says Howdy (translation: hi) and shakes hands, I initiate conversations and make jokes (not usually good ones though). And I have actually seen more cruelty and bigotry from the shy. On the other hand, I respect others personal space and don't intrude if I determine I am overstepping. Is that sour grapes? Am I jealous... of what, I have no idea.
I think it would be great if young adults (not like I am old, however) put more into constructive interaction and helping each other (is that cheese I smell?), as opposed to playing politics and popularity games. I often see many in awkward situations (me included), and I have NEVER viewed it as a reflection of their worth. I actually have observed that the "socialites" as they are often refered to are self centered and never "compete" by bettering themselves, but rather by tearing others down. That shows a lack of self respect, maturity and social skills. Just because it is chick to act like and arrogant elitist, does not make it a positive social skill.
Perhaps the most important thing, though, is that the social competing crap should really go out by the time junior high is over with. Notice how the high school aged are acting more and more like kids all the time, yet instead of trying to reverse this, many just shrug and turn around and treat them like kids. Yes, the ol' "what comes around goes around" is true, but works both ways. I have found that by respecting the 'young'ns' of that age, and acting respectfully, that they seem to grow up while in my presence. I have even seen 16 year olds slap or chastice their buddies for cursing, acting stupid, etc, after having a short conversation with the teenager.
Now, another thing I want to address is the excuses of "they are still growing up" regarding the predatory behavior or many teenagers. Yes, kids are cruel, but as I mentioned before, these are not kids (even though I think of myself as a kid, 26). I have heard of too many cases (mainly from people in college that helped counsel) of long term psychological damage from high school ridicule. I was ridiculed, but was lucky in that it mellowed out by grade 11 to a degree. Some of these teenagers are basically punished for being alive. Maybe they have a pizza face, maybe they have a lemon for a car, who cares. Its one thing for them to be an outcast. But to be actively picked on all the time is rediculous. Personally, if I ever have kids that tried that crap, they would find themselves in a military school faster than you can say, "haze me". I have seen teachers look the other way, or even worse help in the riducule. I once walked out of a class because the teacher was helping to ridicule another student over some superficial crap. While that was rather direct of the teacher, I have seen teachers play favorites, by punishing the ridiculed student if he/she retaliates back, but ignoring the attacks on him/her. Or, the teacher treats the attacking students like angels, but gives cold responses and sighs to the victim. Basically most school societies have their priorities backwards, IMHO.
ahhh, much better now... thats like tking a good 20 minute dump
seems like a small percentage of voters actually care about the "issues" that they use as fodder when justifying their votes. Everywhere, I see people claiming to be interested/concerned about certain issues and causes, yet will then vote for someone who has proven they care only for themselves not the issue they claimed to care for. I wonder if it is because people are so easily led, or if it is because of a complete lack of logic and reason, overshadowed by hysteric emotional reactivism from FUD. For example, if you like a particular restaurant, you don't avoid it because you were told not to like it, further, if you then go to another restaurant that you have found is disgusting, overpriced, has horrible service, and has a problem with its "Urine Content", then what does that say about you? I want to believe it is a joke, or perhaps something just sinister. At least then it would be easy to say, look people were mislead and abused by this two-faced rhetoric spewing hypocrit. But sadly I must face reality. Observation shows that people mislead themselves and do stupid things to themselves knowing full well it is stupid. Well, more power to them. However, what irks me is when they turn and blame it on their "opponents". Personally, I treat voting like any other choice of a consumer. I do my best to avoid emotional attachments to products based on superficial merits. If the product is inferior, does not do what it supposed to do, especially if it is restrictive and overpriced, I make a note of that and move on to try another one. If I find one that was manufactured with processes proven to be effecient and effective, with little overhead, and yet offers the most choice for customization, configuration, and adaptability, my choice becomes rather clear. Sort of like the "pepsi challenges" of yore. If I then open my eyes and see that my "product" is something I didn't expect, or rather from an unexpected manufacturer, I have grown from that experience. I surely will not just spite that product and manufacturer, just because I was told what to think. If facts show the truth, I will follow that truth, not depend on lies and rhetoric to overshadow reality, in an attempt to excuse my lack of wisdom and judgement. I will surely not lash out at those who offer facts and differing opinions and conclusions. This does not make me better than anyone, but does, IMHO, make me a better person. I just hope that everyone votes for who will do the most good for the entire country, not just their segment... and especially not support someone who is more interested in personal gain and fabrications than the actual cause or issue. If results matter, then research facts. If the process is more important than the goal, then go with FUD and emotional reactions.
God help us all make the most informed and honest choices.
destruction of environment... you mean like gore playing favoritism like he did with the paper plant. Or with racial enequality. equality means equal, not set up to be superior. The "level playing field" argument is weak, outdated, and has proven to do more harm (i.e. cause more strife, polarize people more, and degrade everyone) not to mention it makes people think that minorities are genetically inferior and unable to perform their job like anyone else can. Affirmative action and related programs are invented and supported by people that are more interested in the process than the cause. Coming from someone who only sees diversity as just that, diverse backgrounds (often rather interesting) I really can't fathom why people won't just drop it. Everytime someone forces the issue down my throat, or says I am racist because I don't support racial and bigotted favoritism, it only hurts. It does nothing to help the situation. Anyone else that hears it, then looks at the over emotional person in a negative light. On the other hand, if you work around people that hire by competence it rubs off on you. Affirmative action is like communism, it sounds real rosy on paper "level playing field and everyone gets 'their share'", yet in practice it is proven to do more harm than good. Many Universities have grudgingly admitted that in areas of non-affirmative action, racial tensions are much lower, profits higher, and attitudes more positive. When you control your neighbors, they tend to like neither you or your ideals. Educate them, and show a good example, and they will see the superiority of your ideals on their own. Again, this is about what works best, period
Man do I love Guiness, I really don't want to boycott them, so I will look into this more. Don't wanna let emotions overwrite ethics, but I really hope this was just a cyber-squatter lamer. I guess either way, I should wash the ol brewing supplies off and fire up a Thanksgiving batch.
to the person who moderated this, could you explain why? No biggie I suppose, but it was simply a silly little response. I am not sure how "overrated" was used, but oh well!
I read some snippet last year about some guy FROM Texas that was bringing fiber to small towns and rural areas. He started his own company I think from the money made by his grandparents starting, umm 7-11 I think. Either way, he brought fiber to little towns, because he knew the big companies would never get there until after every major urban area had been fibered. makes me want to retire to a little ranch with my dog at my side, and my MPEG4 and MP3 jukebox controller in my lap... downloading and converting whatever I didn't have at the moment. Hell, I might just set up my own little free multimedia station for others to "free-per-view" when they felt like it.
Ahhh, the possibilities.
you first said that the "deterrence is defense" statement was true
Oops, I meant deterrence AS a defense, meaning that deterence is currently being labeled a defense. Stupid fingers, there is no telling what they will tipe next.
Either way, I am not for eliminating listening stations completely, and then replacing the system with a true defense, rather making sure a defense is in place and working well before cutting all the others off. After reading (and hearing) all the de-classified reports of Soviet policies, and how close we came to full exchanges, I really don't think we should depend on the deterrent effect anymore. With fundamentalism as it is, that will not do anything to stop a terrorist group, or formal military of a fundamentalist nation from "pressing the button". After all, look at both world wars, and you will find that the military leaders of aggressive countries believed their opponents were fully able to put the hurt back on them, which is why the Nazi's performed the Blitzkreig (sp?).... they feared reprisal. At least the sane ones did, Hitler was a wee bit 'off'!
I agree that the cost would be great for a global defense, but you gotta start somewhere. And if it you end up with a system that is superior to our existing system, then you would weigh the cost of O&M on it against the O&M of the existing system (i.e. foreign deployment and policing actions).
perhaps a tiny little test of a free society, is whether you can say it sucks and get away with it. In a society that claims it is "open minded" yet censors all thought that the "open minded" group does not like, that tells you the truth about how open minded they are. Who was the fellow that said, "I disagree what you say and what you stand for, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." Well, it was something like that:)
Either way, where has that attitude gone today?
"We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech."
Kathleen Dixon, the director of the women's studies department, of the sociology department at Bowling Green State University. This in response to a professor quiting because he was blocked from teaching a class about Political Correctness and its Censorship.
someone moderated this up to 1-"Interesting", it is pure unsubstantiated flame bait.
I don't recall hearing anyone saying that everything that comes out of government is bad. After all, I think we can all agree that war is horrible and evil, however... look at all the advances that have come as a direct and indirect result of war. Does that mean that when I say that "I think EMS is a great thing that saves lives", and yet hate war, that I am contradicting myself?
I'll let you be the judge of that. When DARPA, I guess it was just Defense ARPA then, was tasked with producing what came to be the internet, it was both for classified information sharing, and to be the basis for a wide spread think tank made up of universities, labrotories, and governmental and defense institutions. It has obviously grown, but that no more negates the fact that big government does not work, than observing planes flying in the air disproves gravity. It is just an example of how something the government funded can turn into something so useful today. Your 'cry' statements only belittle yourself and speak of what little respect you have for other opinions, the people that make them, or yourself. I for one hope you get counseling for your problems.
Oh, one other thing. Wasn't the WWW created by a physicist on his own. Maybe he was tasked, I might be confusing that with HTTP in general. Oh well. I guess I could do an algore and just make up something. Yes, he invented it, but I cosponsered the bill... hahaha, oops, that joke might be considered flaimbait, I will think of a bush one later to make it "Interesting"
Since I was a child, I have always seen the value of protecting the environment. As an adult I see it even clearer now. Period. I care for the environment, many people do, but it is not just a question of enforcing your view (I mean your in a generic sense of us all) on others that don't care for the environment like you do. It is also about efficiency. THAT should be the sole concern of many who vote for Nader. After all, they have no problem with enforcing others to fund their wishes, so that becomes a moot point to argue about. (I am not judging here, merely stating observations)
I understand the fear that many have, they look around and see smoke stacks, toxic producing plants, and people littering everywhere. They then conclude that people, if left to their own devices, will slowly destroy what you (and I) consider sacred. That is based on sampling observation. Another observation would be that with all the locations that have anti-littering, anti-dumping, anti-corporate chemical producing, releasing, etc, we have not seen an elimination or even an overall reduction in the destruction of the environment. However, where you do see a vast reduction of this destruction is in privately owned places... whether they are parks, forests, front lawns, commons, beaches, etc. Why, because most people don't want that crap in their area.
I have a coworker that is fighting a "battle" with a rather large energy company that wants to put in a electric (gas operated I believe) plant close to her home. Everyone in the neighborhood is against it, and they organized on their own to fight it. The only potential snag is what is in Federal and State code, something about it being a state issue, not a public one. Meaning that if ol state congressmen bob and his bunch vote for this, regardless of what the local community wants, it would pass. THAT is the problem. The company is empowered by the very government that claims to be for "the working family" and "for the environment".
As usual, I am rather long winded, but this is a very important issue to me. I have seen more waste and blatant misappropriation in the government to trust that they can POSSIBLY have my best intrests in mind. Since the national forests are so horribly maintained (and often burned by "well-meaning" individuals) yet privately owned areas are so pristine, I think it becomes obvious what the most efficient means of environmental protection are.
**warning, spell checker currently disabled**
Slashdot Mirror
If this was some state run system, and users were forced to only go through it... or if it was a state enforced filtering, THEN you could bitch. I know of several bars in town that don't serve the beer I like, and I am not gonna gather all my lamer buddies and March against them or anything like it. Sheez people, dont be so closed minded when you are being "Open Minded". Here is how it works. I don't bother you, you don't bother me. I don't force you to live like I think you should live, you don't do the same to me. Enlightenment does not begin with a catch phrase or the thought, "eliminate all who eliminate any". It begins with giving the same respect and dignity to others as you would have them give to you... (sound familiar?)
So, why is it that you pay taxes for this thing, yet tickets cost from 20 - 75 dollars depending on the teams sucess? Why does the franchise have so many tax exempt statutes, and why is the money to build it not considered a loan... payable by the team, or at least a group of people who lease it in turn to the team? Why do I not see a tax cut later to 'payback' the tax hike for building/supporting the team... actually I meant not just an elimination of the tax increase originally, but added cuts on top. That would be how the rest of the free market world operates, but then again, this is a socialist system. They might as well call the teams the "Comrades" or something.
If a team wants to come to a town (and the town wants them) then the only vote should be for if the public allows the team to be there, creating all the problems that comes along with them. As for construction and funding, that should come from banks and others, not the tax revenue. Furthermore, if it were some kind of tax funded scheme, than it should be a one time loan, with interest that the team must play.
Perhaps if they can't afford that, then they could cut a little off the top of the 30+ million average salaries of those overpaid whiney cry-babies. Lets see them work for a fire or police department (or enlisted military), live just above poverty level... risk their lives (especially the fire and police) on a DAILY basis. Then they might understand what a strike is for, what a lower salary really means, and what it really means to not make enough to "Live On"
Don't get me wrong, I make more money than I thought I ever would... but this is not about me, but rather about the above mentioned.
Stupid pansy jocks... "Uhh, I play foot... uhhhh, foot.... uhhh, yeah, Football" They do absolutely nothing for society IMHO (and no I am not talking about those who volunteer for United Way which is great, but is not their job) They definitely win the most awards for ego, stupidity, and criminal behavior... but as for helping further humanity, they strike out.
Anyway, I expect the marketroids to push things on the note that it cures disease and 'brings us all together', but a LARGE segment of the general population (and the Media mainly) continue to evangelize the 'planet saving' idea of the product/tech.
Now, thermodynamics might suggest that there is always a Naysayers club (Patent Pending) that will go against said 'new thing' simply on the merit that it is new and they don't understand it. Most technology is useless to the general public by itself... offhand I can't think of anything in the past 30 years that actually CREATED something new. It simply made it easier/faster/cheaper to perform an existing task, or expanded an existing idea/task. Yet, many will scratch their heads (or bang them against a brick wall) in an attempt to 'solve' the 'problems' that this technology creates.
So, I guess my confusion lies with the naivety of people in general. I even had a bit of a problem with the Star Trek theme of how Warp Drive seemed to solve all of mankinds problems, how people banded together, etc, etc, etc... First Contact really played on this, IMHO, but an earlier book I read about how Zephram Cochran (sp? huh, like it matters at this point :) came about inventing the FTL drive. It was more realistic about peoples greed, hatred, and bigotry. It even had one of the characters mention how silly it is that every new thing is touted as the "THING" to save us all from ourselves.
Well, end of that mess for now... I just wonder, about FTL and all, if that will solve all our problems, and especially if establishing ties with non-Human civilizations is possible. If so, shouldn't the 'Galactic Expansion Beta 1.0.1.2' have proved that you can take the Human out of (off) the Earth, but not the Earth out of the Human? (i.e. Expansion into the Western Hemisphere)
Perhaps we should completely privatize them like was originally intended (at least that is what was announced).
The Big Government argument:
TAX MAN: "We must increase funding to these government programs!"
tax payer: "Why must I be forced to fund this, why must we ALL be forced to fund this... shouldn't you let people decide on their own what to fund?"
TAX MAN: "QUIET YOU!!! *bang* If we didn't force you to fund it, it wouldn't get funded... and that is bad because the people want this, and they yearn for it to be funded"
tax payer: (bleeding) "Ummm, if the people really want it, then logic suggests they will fund it themselves without the gross innefficency of the government. If you are afraid of giving them CHOICE, then not only does that show the flaw in your argument for what the people want, but you are going against the very foundation of Liberty, Freedom, Sovereignty and dignity of the people..."
TAX MAN: *BANG, BANG*
First, barring the expense and room of multimonitors for the average gamer, I think that multimonitor will grow. As the monitors get smaller and cheaper (like processers I guess, hmmph) it would be nice to have a multi monitor setup that gives you different degrees of 360 'wrap-around' viewing (and even overhead). Second, some ol boy is gonna invent a stable 3D display sometime, and this would be a quantum leap in the rise of processing for it's display. And, what about integration? That seem to be the trend now. Gotta have a 200+ fps, DVD decoder, TV tuner, SPDIF out video card... NOW!!!
I recently had a discussion with a coworker about just this thing. As we discussed, the max fps might be overkill and lost, but it is always justified by its effect on the average and lower end fps. Perhaps a bigger move would be to work on stabilizing the fps... but then again, what do I know? As for the multi-display, at least for games, it would be great to have a home built simulator for the latest flight or space flight sim. I could just look up and around to track the action... and my bogey, without pressing buttons. It would appear as a real cockpit. Perhaps some of those flexible 640x480 displays all around me, with my 21+ incher in the middle.
Either way, I think there is a large area for growth, not to mention that the photorealism thing is rather far off IMHO. I personally can't wait to have an COTS card that I will plug in my server, sit in the living room with the wife next to me, and us both turn on our display projectors and fragging the hell. OK, so it will be awhile, but I can dream... and the distributed vs centralized thing will always be around I think.
I believe that the vast majority of people agree with the sentiment that people and their 'dignity' should be protected... its just a question of, "Is this the best way to do it?" I personally am concerned that the very thing that was made to protect, as a result of the actions of a group of monsters, will in time become the very tool of destruction for those it is supposed to protect.
Here in the US, our founding fathers saw this. They realized that good intentions are the beginning not the end, and that it takes "Eternal Vigilance" to ensure Liberty and Freedom. Of course, many here have chosen to forget that, but reality does not change itself just becuase we wish it to.
One other thing:
I agree that the US if VERY hypocritical about many things... we have become the country that every one loves to hate. However, to clarify... people here are confused to what Liberal and Conservative means. Lately, more censorship has been wrought by 'liberals', but you are correct if you point at that and say that is a "conservative" ideology. Conservatives regulate social, and Liberals regulate economic... at least that is the technical way to 'define' them. Now, that is really muddy, and most don't realize that they all are mixed together. They ALL wish to control you, your thoughts, and your actions. They just differ in the excuses they give, but are all hypocrits.</soapbox>
Besides, there are a LOT of people out there who don't exactly have much faith in NASA right now... regardless if that is misdirected or not. With the handfull of private organizations attempting to make intra and even interstellar space travel a reality, I think we should push for NASA to let up on its restrictions.
Imagine... Open Space, with hoardes of geeks helping on the R&D (and funding if they choose), without a Federal Microsoft limiting everyones ability to innovate... would there be a "SpaceForge" on the net then?
I just can't wait until you can sit back at a carved wooden table, spit on the floor, tip back your pint of favorite beer (beer as in beer, not American Piss served cold in a pitcher) and look out the 'window' only to see the rings of Jupiter or Saturn right outside... mmmmmm.... cosmic beer
just my $.02
if even that
So, did anyone else notice an inconsistency?
Since Florida had legally set what was acceptable and unnacceptable as far as votes, counting, and contesting of votes are concerned, it is not only foolish but completely illegal to go back on that now that the votes have been cast.
This would be like filming drivers on a road, then later reducing the speed limit, and then ticketing the drivers... who at the time were driving within the legally established speed limit.
I just hope that everyone takes heed of this and refines their respective counties and states voting process.
I just wonder what would have happened, if instead of media over the net, this was the move from BW to Color. I guess they would restrict any color broadcasts by anyone.
I guess the argument would be the same if instead of the net, it was other stations. Yet, other stations would only be parroting the "official" stations. This seems to be the same way, and warrants a closer look at how we define data after it is broadcasted to the public. Well, I will stop here... lunch time!!!
Instead of pointing fingers as to "who killed who" maybe just being rational and recognizing the problem as just that... a problem all around is the first step in combating it. The best way to combat ignorance and fear is with education and reason. True, many prefer not to listen, but for every 9 people that censor you (censorship is so hypocritically applied) you reach 1 person who is enlightened. Like in America with the never ending story that is the presidential election, you see many people taking sides in name, but not in substance. They will claim to have EVERYONE's best interest in mind, yet only want to hear who they approve as being worthy of being heard. I don't like what the US has done on many occasions, just as I don't like what other countries have done. I will not play favorites and defend the "home team" and change my views just because "my country" did those things. Perhaps instead of making excuses, perhaps we could make solutions. In this case it becomes clear that yahoo really can not do anything to censor those products unless they instigate such a large task force of people (or idiotic filtering software) that many other decent things would end up being censored. If your view of nazi trinkets is that it implies sympathy towards Nazism, then choose not to support it. If you censor it from others, you cover up the deeper problem that is apparent in your area/country. Not to mention, that someone else will later find something else offensive that you do not, and then you will be restricted. THAT is why it is bad. To accuse those who are against censoring this of Nazism, is the same as accusing people against racist government policies (i.e. affirmative action) of being racist.
most, but not all IT managers IMHO go more for either: A) the thing they have heard about, but know very little about (the marketer's dream) or, B) pick something that will satisfy (A) for the customer. Either way, they are not really interested in functions, logistics, or even effeciency. Rather, they seem to just want to make popular decisions.... although who it is popular with must be more marketroids. That is why you end up with mission critical systems being run on M$, whether in e-commerce or the DoD. If managers didn't micro-mismanage but rather delegated, this would be greatly reduced. But then again, if peoples mind sets of controlling other people and everything they do or decide along the way, the government would shrivel up to next to nothing and we could go on living our lives as we choose...
If, as a student, you specifically signed up for a project that was not part of your class, and not part of the required curiculum, and it was funded by taxes, a corporation, etc. Then it becomes clear that the univerity owns it, or at the very least are stewards of it. If your code was simply the result of a class project, or even your thesis, I think it belongs to you, but in monetary terms, if it ever turned a profit, I think the univeristy and contributers might have a stake in it. That would be a decision for the courts, or more specifically, the university lawyers. As a taxpayer, I think that in an organization that gets my money, but yet still charges tuition and other fees, I deserve some of the profit... so it should be public domain and GPL'd. On the other hand, if I was a university, I would also want a return on my investment. It works both ways, but then again.... I have always thought that a student should be considered a university's customer, not his or her employer. Just as a cable company is not the employer of a subscriber to a broadband subscriber.
OK, no real facts, just some observations and musings.
My main question is what would this situation be if the university received no grants, but only fees for service. I guess you would need to sign a contract saying you did not own the code you wrote, however I would fight to ensure that the university could not own it. It could be a cooperative ownership... I dunno
well, as a geek through school, I would have to say that the sour grapes seems like a cop out in and of itself. If you blame yourself for certain things, fine. I know I did not wear the right clothes, didn't even have a car, and had no money (my parents didn't have any, in other words). I am a bit bitter about attitudes and the values the school "kids" had and still have. However, like you, I worked around them. But I didn't reinvent myself. I am still the "nice guy" alot, but now it doesn't matter as someone who thought I was the nicest guy married me. I could really care less about appearance, but that does not mean I am one of these hypocritical "anti-everythings" that simply do the very OPPOSITE of what is popular under the guise of being "real". So, yes, I agree very much with what that student did. Maybe it was seen as rude to simply walk off the field. But think about this, he made a moral stand, then stuck by it when offered to sell out. Had he accepted, he would have been a hypocrit and a sell out. This was the best way for him to get his message out, that he was willing to sacrifice what many probably covet. That takes a lot of balls. Courage is doing what you think is right, regardless or how people will think about you. I say kudos to him, and that he shows a lot more character than MANY, whether adults or students.
You can disagree with his tactics, him, me, etc. But surely you can admit that he showed a lot of integrity by not accepting.
One other thing I learned that was real imporant. You questioned above whether the previous poster thought social "skills" equated to being mean and cruel, yet said it was sour grapes, bigotry and jealousy. Coming from a very forthright person, who is often looked at funny because he comes right up to people and says Howdy (translation: hi) and shakes hands, I initiate conversations and make jokes (not usually good ones though). And I have actually seen more cruelty and bigotry from the shy. On the other hand, I respect others personal space and don't intrude if I determine I am overstepping. Is that sour grapes? Am I jealous... of what, I have no idea. I think it would be great if young adults (not like I am old, however) put more into constructive interaction and helping each other (is that cheese I smell?), as opposed to playing politics and popularity games. I often see many in awkward situations (me included), and I have NEVER viewed it as a reflection of their worth. I actually have observed that the "socialites" as they are often refered to are self centered and never "compete" by bettering themselves, but rather by tearing others down. That shows a lack of self respect, maturity and social skills. Just because it is chick to act like and arrogant elitist, does not make it a positive social skill.
Perhaps the most important thing, though, is that the social competing crap should really go out by the time junior high is over with. Notice how the high school aged are acting more and more like kids all the time, yet instead of trying to reverse this, many just shrug and turn around and treat them like kids. Yes, the ol' "what comes around goes around" is true, but works both ways. I have found that by respecting the 'young'ns' of that age, and acting respectfully, that they seem to grow up while in my presence. I have even seen 16 year olds slap or chastice their buddies for cursing, acting stupid, etc, after having a short conversation with the teenager.
Now, another thing I want to address is the excuses of "they are still growing up" regarding the predatory behavior or many teenagers. Yes, kids are cruel, but as I mentioned before, these are not kids (even though I think of myself as a kid, 26). I have heard of too many cases (mainly from people in college that helped counsel) of long term psychological damage from high school ridicule. I was ridiculed, but was lucky in that it mellowed out by grade 11 to a degree. Some of these teenagers are basically punished for being alive. Maybe they have a pizza face, maybe they have a lemon for a car, who cares. Its one thing for them to be an outcast. But to be actively picked on all the time is rediculous. Personally, if I ever have kids that tried that crap, they would find themselves in a military school faster than you can say, "haze me". I have seen teachers look the other way, or even worse help in the riducule. I once walked out of a class because the teacher was helping to ridicule another student over some superficial crap. While that was rather direct of the teacher, I have seen teachers play favorites, by punishing the ridiculed student if he/she retaliates back, but ignoring the attacks on him/her. Or, the teacher treats the attacking students like angels, but gives cold responses and sighs to the victim. Basically most school societies have their priorities backwards, IMHO.
ahhh, much better now... thats like tking a good 20 minute dump
Cheers
42, everyone knows it ends up really being 42... somehow
destruction of environment... you mean like gore playing favoritism like he did with the paper plant. Or with racial enequality. equality means equal, not set up to be superior. The "level playing field" argument is weak, outdated, and has proven to do more harm (i.e. cause more strife, polarize people more, and degrade everyone) not to mention it makes people think that minorities are genetically inferior and unable to perform their job like anyone else can. Affirmative action and related programs are invented and supported by people that are more interested in the process than the cause. Coming from someone who only sees diversity as just that, diverse backgrounds (often rather interesting) I really can't fathom why people won't just drop it. Everytime someone forces the issue down my throat, or says I am racist because I don't support racial and bigotted favoritism, it only hurts. It does nothing to help the situation. Anyone else that hears it, then looks at the over emotional person in a negative light. On the other hand, if you work around people that hire by competence it rubs off on you. Affirmative action is like communism, it sounds real rosy on paper "level playing field and everyone gets 'their share'", yet in practice it is proven to do more harm than good. Many Universities have grudgingly admitted that in areas of non-affirmative action, racial tensions are much lower, profits higher, and attitudes more positive. When you control your neighbors, they tend to like neither you or your ideals. Educate them, and show a good example, and they will see the superiority of your ideals on their own. Again, this is about what works best, period
Man do I love Guiness, I really don't want to boycott them, so I will look into this more. Don't wanna let emotions overwrite ethics, but I really hope this was just a cyber-squatter lamer. I guess either way, I should wash the ol brewing supplies off and fire up a Thanksgiving batch.
to the person who moderated this, could you explain why? No biggie I suppose, but it was simply a silly little response. I am not sure how "overrated" was used, but oh well!
I read some snippet last year about some guy FROM Texas that was bringing fiber to small towns and rural areas. He started his own company I think from the money made by his grandparents starting, umm 7-11 I think. Either way, he brought fiber to little towns, because he knew the big companies would never get there until after every major urban area had been fibered. makes me want to retire to a little ranch with my dog at my side, and my MPEG4 and MP3 jukebox controller in my lap... downloading and converting whatever I didn't have at the moment. Hell, I might just set up my own little free multimedia station for others to "free-per-view" when they felt like it. Ahhh, the possibilities.
Either way, I am not for eliminating listening stations completely, and then replacing the system with a true defense, rather making sure a defense is in place and working well before cutting all the others off. After reading (and hearing) all the de-classified reports of Soviet policies, and how close we came to full exchanges, I really don't think we should depend on the deterrent effect anymore. With fundamentalism as it is, that will not do anything to stop a terrorist group, or formal military of a fundamentalist nation from "pressing the button". After all, look at both world wars, and you will find that the military leaders of aggressive countries believed their opponents were fully able to put the hurt back on them, which is why the Nazi's performed the Blitzkreig (sp?).... they feared reprisal. At least the sane ones did, Hitler was a wee bit 'off'!
I agree that the cost would be great for a global defense, but you gotta start somewhere. And if it you end up with a system that is superior to our existing system, then you would weigh the cost of O&M on it against the O&M of the existing system (i.e. foreign deployment and policing actions).
Either way, where has that attitude gone today?
Kathleen Dixon, the director of the women's studies department, of the sociology department at Bowling Green State University. This in response to a professor quiting because he was blocked from teaching a class about Political Correctness and its Censorship.I don't recall hearing anyone saying that everything that comes out of government is bad. After all, I think we can all agree that war is horrible and evil, however... look at all the advances that have come as a direct and indirect result of war. Does that mean that when I say that "I think EMS is a great thing that saves lives", and yet hate war, that I am contradicting myself?
I'll let you be the judge of that. When DARPA, I guess it was just Defense ARPA then, was tasked with producing what came to be the internet, it was both for classified information sharing, and to be the basis for a wide spread think tank made up of universities, labrotories, and governmental and defense institutions. It has obviously grown, but that no more negates the fact that big government does not work, than observing planes flying in the air disproves gravity. It is just an example of how something the government funded can turn into something so useful today. Your 'cry' statements only belittle yourself and speak of what little respect you have for other opinions, the people that make them, or yourself. I for one hope you get counseling for your problems.
Oh, one other thing. Wasn't the WWW created by a physicist on his own. Maybe he was tasked, I might be confusing that with HTTP in general. Oh well. I guess I could do an algore and just make up something. Yes, he invented it, but I cosponsered the bill... hahaha, oops, that joke might be considered flaimbait, I will think of a bush one later to make it "Interesting"
I understand the fear that many have, they look around and see smoke stacks, toxic producing plants, and people littering everywhere. They then conclude that people, if left to their own devices, will slowly destroy what you (and I) consider sacred. That is based on sampling observation. Another observation would be that with all the locations that have anti-littering, anti-dumping, anti-corporate chemical producing, releasing, etc, we have not seen an elimination or even an overall reduction in the destruction of the environment. However, where you do see a vast reduction of this destruction is in privately owned places... whether they are parks, forests, front lawns, commons, beaches, etc. Why, because most people don't want that crap in their area.
I have a coworker that is fighting a "battle" with a rather large energy company that wants to put in a electric (gas operated I believe) plant close to her home. Everyone in the neighborhood is against it, and they organized on their own to fight it. The only potential snag is what is in Federal and State code, something about it being a state issue, not a public one. Meaning that if ol state congressmen bob and his bunch vote for this, regardless of what the local community wants, it would pass. THAT is the problem. The company is empowered by the very government that claims to be for "the working family" and "for the environment".
As usual, I am rather long winded, but this is a very important issue to me. I have seen more waste and blatant misappropriation in the government to trust that they can POSSIBLY have my best intrests in mind. Since the national forests are so horribly maintained (and often burned by "well-meaning" individuals) yet privately owned areas are so pristine, I think it becomes obvious what the most efficient means of environmental protection are. **warning, spell checker currently disabled**