"Our mission is to persuade the American people -- and people elsewhere in the world - of the importance and urgency of adopting and implementing effective and comprehensive solutions for the climate crisis." www.climateprotect.org
No research, no solutions. Just PR - to tell us how urgent it is to find solutions.
"The Peace Prize goes out to individuals who raise global awareness of issues that affect the peace of the entire world, right? Wouldn't you say that climate change is in that category?"
No. What is affecting the peace of the entire world at the moment is war. There are wars between nations, wars of nations against their citizens and wars between ideologies.
This is just silly. Pure PR and marketing. Even the group Gore is giving his share to is a PR firm. They're mission is to do nothing more than tell people about climate change. No research, no solutions, just PR.
"Everyone's got a credit limit. Even the federal budget. Equals less funds available for the occupation of Iraq. "
A "credit limit" that can be raised by the very entity who it is purportedly limiting is no limit at all. Congress just raised it again this past week.
The only way to reduce funding for the occupation of Iraq is for Congress to vote to reduce funding for Iraq. Which, in their cowardice, they refuse to do.
What any of that has to do with not buying a laptop from a Chinese company I have no idea. My personal experience with Lenovo computers has been very positive. Politically speaking, at least they are partially owned by IBM, retain manufacturing and development facilities in the US, and have a name that sounds more Italian than Chinese.
Why exactly did they want to be a cell phone provider? So far the iPhone has generated more negative press for Apple than anything since the Newton. I sincerely doubt that they'll decide it was a bad idea and just bail out, but given Apple's history I am surprised that they're in it in the first place.
I do not care if a firmware update kills unlocked phones; I don't believe Apple ever said that they would support unlocking the iPhone, and they did warn against applying the update to an unlocked phone. I'm just amazed that Apple would want to be involved in the phone business at all.
you reminded me of an actuary who worked for a company I was hired in. he would enter numbers into a column in Excel, and then use his calculator to add them up.
Thank you. A voice of sanity appears out of the chaos that is Slashdot.
I, too, read this as simply a warning from Apple that the update MAY cause an unlocked phone to cease operating. If anything, they just did a favor to everyone who has unlocked their phone; they told them to avoid the update.
"Windows NT - Finally, a business class desktop OS."
completely invalidates your argument. NT was NEVER a business class desktop OS, especially when it was first released. I would have accepted, "Netware replacement for very small offices,: or perhaps, "an OS to run MS SQL Server on."
I've been involved with software licenses that restrict transfer of the license; most often it's allowed, but the purchaser has to pay a fee, usually one that makes the transfer cost more than an original purchase. It seems that breach of contract would be more appropriate here, but Autodesk has always been a nasty company to deal with.
The GPL, even according to Stallman, is a necessary evil. It exists primarily, not to assign freedom to software, but to prevent others from removing freedom from software. If copyright didn't apply to software at all, the GPL obviously would not be necessary. Thus his coining of the "copyleft" definition.
GNU defines what they mean by freedom in this context very clearly. Operational definitions are important in a debate. By ignoring their definition of their terms, you cannot mount a cogent argument against them. You don't have to accept their premises, but you can't redefine them and then argue against your redefinition.
Funny, I read the same article and didn't get any "with us or against us" out of it. I found it to be a clear delineation of the distinction between "free software" and "open source software", and a rationale of why Stallman is committed to "free software."
I understand that it's appealing, in a "rubbernecking the auto accident" way, to frame the discussion as a flame war between Stallman and Torvalds, but such an approach does nothing to further either man's position. Stallman is a political creature, and freedom, as he defines it, is obviously important to him. Torvalds is a practical creature, apparently uninterested in the political nature of Stallman's model, and develops accordingly. Fortunately for many of us there is an overlap that allows us to run GNU software on a Linux kernel and reap the benefits of both worlds.
"Freedom" in Stallman's world is neither easy or convenient. Committing to his approach means rejecting some software that may be useful or interesting or fun. "Freedom" in Torvalds' world is, as noted in the article, is simply a means to an end; the end being collaborative development of useful software. For now, neither could exist without the other, which makes most of the flaming I anticipate in this discussion somewhat ironic.
No. Your "legend" isn't true. Word was never that good. At best it was number three, after WordPerfect and WordStar. Excel was Microsoft's killer app, and they leveraged that quite nicely to encourage corporate Windows installations. At first Excel came with a runtime version of Windows; after Windows 3.0 was released it didn't anymore.
1 - Accounting practices. Retailer already paid for product. Manufacturer already recognized income. If retailer lowers price it looks like lower margin, or even a loss. If manufacturer gives money to retailers profits go down, or other retailers scream "collusion" or "price-fixing." WITH rebates the retailer gets original price and margin, and manufacturer can write off amount as marketing expense.
2 - Test marketing. Product selling fair quantity at $100. Offer $10 rebate. Sales remain flat. Don't lower price. Sales increase? Lower price and make more. (no, YOU do the math)
Re:The Saddam/911 myth persists because powerful
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 5, Informative
"What I want to know is, who in the Administration EVER said that Saddam plotted 9/11? I never heard that said. I have heard people who oppose the Bush Administration say that the Bush Administration said it, but I have never heard a quote from the Bush Administration saying (or implying) it."
That's the point! They didn't have to say it. They only had to keep mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentence, or in close proximity, to make the association become real for many people. Shit like, "But come back to 9/11 again, and one of the real concerns about Saddam Hussein, as well, is his biological weapons capability; the fact that he may, at some point, try to use smallpox, anthrax, plague, some other kind of biological agent against other nations, possibly including even the United States." (Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 9/8/2002), did the job just fine.
Or this one, same interview: "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
Pretty cute, huh? "I'm not here to make a SPECIFIC allegation", just a general one.
So, yes. The Bush administration did set out to imply that Hussein was involved with 9/11, but more importantly, to create the illusion that we could seek justice/revenge for 9/11 by attacking Iraq.
Not really myth we're talking about here
on
Why Myths Persist
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This article, and the study it references, is more about how to make people believe lies than about why myths persist. Defining your terms is important, and this just cries out to be misconstrued (and based on what I see in this discussion, it already is being used to foster the tedious "science vs. religion" argument.
The phenomenon being studied is more about how to associate two unrelated pieces of information so that people will begin to think they are connected, or how to plant a lie so that people will eventually believe it to be true. This is nothing new: everyone from politicians to writers to artists to horny teenagers have been doing this forever. The current studies are showing more of the details of how it happens.
Dr. Thompson recognized and clearly defined this phenomenon: make your opponent deny that he rapes barnyard animals and you're home free. "I am not a pigfucker", no matter how true a statement, will not get you elected.
"What, you think physicists just came up with superstring theory because they were bored one day? String theory is an attempt to theorize the *evidence* unaccounted for by other theories on the workings of the universe."
yeah, that's prety much how it happened. a physicist happened across an old mathematical formula and thought it looked interesting. yadda, yadda, yadda.... string theory.
don't get me wrong. it's fascinating stuff (I'm no scientist, I'm currently working at my cigar store), but string theory led to some strange developments (exactly how many dimensions does it need?). theorizing about bizarre physical states solely because the math leads you there doesn't seem to me to be physics, exactly.
I open up the one copy of PC Mag I have sitting by desk, and read Dvorak's column from 1998 in which he predicts that Windows 98 on a Pentium 2 is more power than anyone will ever need, and that WebTV will make home PCs obsolete.
Slashdot Mirror
"Our mission is to persuade the American people -- and people elsewhere in the world - of the importance and urgency of adopting and implementing effective and comprehensive solutions for the climate crisis." www.climateprotect.org
No research, no solutions. Just PR - to tell us how urgent it is to find solutions.
"The Peace Prize goes out to individuals who raise global awareness of issues that affect the peace of the entire world, right? Wouldn't you say that climate change is in that category?"
No. What is affecting the peace of the entire world at the moment is war. There are wars between nations, wars of nations against their citizens and wars between ideologies.
This is just silly. Pure PR and marketing. Even the group Gore is giving his share to is a PR firm. They're mission is to do nothing more than tell people about climate change. No research, no solutions, just PR.
This woman's lawyer needs to be disbarred. He called no defense witnesses and rested the entire case on "well, it could have happened this other way".
HOV lanes do not reduce traffic. They create it. Drive on the NJ Turnpike during rush hour sometime.
"Everyone's got a credit limit. Even the federal budget. Equals less funds available for the occupation of Iraq. "
A "credit limit" that can be raised by the very entity who it is purportedly limiting is no limit at all. Congress just raised it again this past week.
The only way to reduce funding for the occupation of Iraq is for Congress to vote to reduce funding for Iraq. Which, in their cowardice, they refuse to do.
What any of that has to do with not buying a laptop from a Chinese company I have no idea. My personal experience with Lenovo computers has been very positive. Politically speaking, at least they are partially owned by IBM, retain manufacturing and development facilities in the US, and have a name that sounds more Italian than Chinese.
Why exactly did they want to be a cell phone provider? So far the iPhone has generated more negative press for Apple than anything since the Newton. I sincerely doubt that they'll decide it was a bad idea and just bail out, but given Apple's history I am surprised that they're in it in the first place.
I do not care if a firmware update kills unlocked phones; I don't believe Apple ever said that they would support unlocking the iPhone, and they did warn against applying the update to an unlocked phone. I'm just amazed that Apple would want to be involved in the phone business at all.
you reminded me of an actuary who worked for a company I was hired in. he would enter numbers into a column in Excel, and then use his calculator to add them up.
Thank you. A voice of sanity appears out of the chaos that is Slashdot.
I, too, read this as simply a warning from Apple that the update MAY cause an unlocked phone to cease operating. If anything, they just did a favor to everyone who has unlocked their phone; they told them to avoid the update.
They aren't changing the law, merely making a new law that the old one won't be enforced.
With all due respect, this comment:
"Windows NT - Finally, a business class desktop OS."
completely invalidates your argument. NT was NEVER a business class desktop OS, especially when it was first released. I would have accepted, "Netware replacement for very small offices,: or perhaps, "an OS to run MS SQL Server on."
what do you guys have against AA anyway?
...therefore you should have been exercising your 2nd amendment rights and shot the bastard.
"I'd be more worried for the large number of people that shorted the stock and haven't cleared the short yet."
Why? You sold shares you don't own, you already got the money from the sale, and now you don't have to buy them back. You won.
I've been involved with software licenses that restrict transfer of the license; most often it's allowed, but the purchaser has to pay a fee, usually one that makes the transfer cost more than an original purchase. It seems that breach of contract would be more appropriate here, but Autodesk has always been a nasty company to deal with.
The GPL, even according to Stallman, is a necessary evil. It exists primarily, not to assign freedom to software, but to prevent others from removing freedom from software. If copyright didn't apply to software at all, the GPL obviously would not be necessary. Thus his coining of the "copyleft" definition.
GNU defines what they mean by freedom in this context very clearly. Operational definitions are important in a debate. By ignoring their definition of their terms, you cannot mount a cogent argument against them. You don't have to accept their premises, but you can't redefine them and then argue against your redefinition.
Funny, I read the same article and didn't get any "with us or against us" out of it. I found it to be a clear delineation of the distinction between "free software" and "open source software", and a rationale of why Stallman is committed to "free software."
I understand that it's appealing, in a "rubbernecking the auto accident" way, to frame the discussion as a flame war between Stallman and Torvalds, but such an approach does nothing to further either man's position. Stallman is a political creature, and freedom, as he defines it, is obviously important to him. Torvalds is a practical creature, apparently uninterested in the political nature of Stallman's model, and develops accordingly. Fortunately for many of us there is an overlap that allows us to run GNU software on a Linux kernel and reap the benefits of both worlds.
"Freedom" in Stallman's world is neither easy or convenient. Committing to his approach means rejecting some software that may be useful or interesting or fun. "Freedom" in Torvalds' world is, as noted in the article, is simply a means to an end; the end being collaborative development of useful software. For now, neither could exist without the other, which makes most of the flaming I anticipate in this discussion somewhat ironic.
No. Your "legend" isn't true. Word was never that good. At best it was number three, after WordPerfect and WordStar. Excel was Microsoft's killer app, and they leveraged that quite nicely to encourage corporate Windows installations. At first Excel came with a runtime version of Windows; after Windows 3.0 was released it didn't anymore.
A few legit reasons for rebates:
1 - Accounting practices. Retailer already paid for product. Manufacturer already recognized income. If retailer lowers price it looks like lower margin, or even a loss. If manufacturer gives money to retailers profits go down, or other retailers scream "collusion" or "price-fixing." WITH rebates the retailer gets original price and margin, and manufacturer can write off amount as marketing expense.
2 - Test marketing. Product selling fair quantity at $100. Offer $10 rebate. Sales remain flat. Don't lower price. Sales increase? Lower price and make more. (no, YOU do the math)
"What I want to know is, who in the Administration EVER said that Saddam plotted 9/11? I never heard that said. I have heard people who oppose the Bush Administration say that the Bush Administration said it, but I have never heard a quote from the Bush Administration saying (or implying) it."
That's the point! They didn't have to say it. They only had to keep mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in the same sentence, or in close proximity, to make the association become real for many people. Shit like, "But come back to 9/11 again, and one of the real concerns about Saddam Hussein, as well, is his biological weapons capability; the fact that he may, at some point, try to use smallpox, anthrax, plague, some other kind of biological agent against other nations, possibly including even the United States." (Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 9/8/2002), did the job just fine.
Or this one, same interview: "I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
Pretty cute, huh? "I'm not here to make a SPECIFIC allegation", just a general one.
So, yes. The Bush administration did set out to imply that Hussein was involved with 9/11, but more importantly, to create the illusion that we could seek justice/revenge for 9/11 by attacking Iraq.
This article, and the study it references, is more about how to make people believe lies than about why myths persist. Defining your terms is important, and this just cries out to be misconstrued (and based on what I see in this discussion, it already is being used to foster the tedious "science vs. religion" argument.
The phenomenon being studied is more about how to associate two unrelated pieces of information so that people will begin to think they are connected, or how to plant a lie so that people will eventually believe it to be true. This is nothing new: everyone from politicians to writers to artists to horny teenagers have been doing this forever. The current studies are showing more of the details of how it happens.
Dr. Thompson recognized and clearly defined this phenomenon: make your opponent deny that he rapes barnyard animals and you're home free. "I am not a pigfucker", no matter how true a statement, will not get you elected.
"We are very excited about the obvious opportunities that will be open to WordLogic in the near future."
I'll bet you are....
"What, you think physicists just came up with superstring theory because they were bored one day? String theory is an attempt to theorize the *evidence* unaccounted for by other theories on the workings of the universe."
yeah, that's prety much how it happened. a physicist happened across an old mathematical formula and thought it looked interesting. yadda, yadda, yadda.... string theory.
don't get me wrong. it's fascinating stuff (I'm no scientist, I'm currently working at my cigar store), but string theory led to some strange developments (exactly how many dimensions does it need?). theorizing about bizarre physical states solely because the math leads you there doesn't seem to me to be physics, exactly.
Do we need a front page story on every interview Torvalds does? Let's save that for times he says something we haven't heard before.
I open up the one copy of PC Mag I have sitting by desk, and read Dvorak's column from 1998 in which he predicts that Windows 98 on a Pentium 2 is more power than anyone will ever need, and that WebTV will make home PCs obsolete.
I was wondering when Stephen Baxter's tech for those Xeelee books was going to get here.
as an aside, I love his stuff. no one ends a universe quite like him.