For so long, DirectX had to struggle and claw to keep up with OpenGL - they did just that, while OpenGL sat mainly idle (well, John Carmack was a big help to it)... Now it seems the shoe is on the other foot, and OpenGL is going to have to move deftly to surpass DX9, and soon enough 10...
I sincerely hope it happens. I wish developers felt more inclinded to make their 3D engined GL based rather than DX based, so the day where I can play any game in linux may actually arrive. Of course, we have to give massive amounts of respect to those who do make OpenGL platforms for their games (ID, Epic), but what about those who feel DX is easier and more practical for what they do(Valve).
Maybe if we're lucky, the Carmack will drop in to this discussion and tell us exactly what he thinks needs to happen to really make GL a reality for most gamaes again.
Weird - I submitted a reply here - somehow it didn't get posted, or something else happened along the way (at work, maybe replaced the tab before hitting submit.. hmm. anyway - it went something like this.
I don't think it was a poor analogy. I mean, the point you make is another good one, and I'm not interested in starting an argument.. I've agreed with a lot of your posts in the past, and have actually modded a few of them up.
I was trying to draw a bit of a metaphor with 'knowledge' as 'light'. On a brightly lit street, a person can avoid a predator using the knowledge/light around them, whereas a predator can use the same light to see their prey more clearly. If the hunted uses the knowledge properly, they should be able to avoid trouble, but if they walk blindly down the street, they could meet with an untimely end.
And although I respect your fear about the bad guys using the tools more than the good guys, I am reassured by my sense of neo-darwinism. Those who are unfit to be online, the insecure, the uneffective, the plainly stupid, will thin out as more and more of the truely fit propogate throughout the online gene/meme pool. I don't even think security needs to be mandated. It already is mandatory, in the sense that those who are insecure, will eventually either suffer so many setbacks that they are ruined, or learn the hard way that they have to spend a lot more of their resources securing themselves, or suffer dire consequence.
Completely. About 10 months ago I decided that I will no longer watch trailers. It was the best movie decision I have made. I mean you can't really tell if a movie will be good or not from a trailers. I've seen some bad movies with excellent trailers, and some great movies with terrible trailers. All in all, I really enjoy films a lot more now that all the high intensity parts aren't revealed to me in advance.
I recommend that everyone try this. See a few movies that you have absolutely no concept of when going in, it makes for a much more interesting ride.
I think if people want to watch something devoid of extremity, they should simply find movies that don't have this stuff in them in the first place. I mean - can you imagine how Incredibly Stupid 'Requium For A Dream" would seem if any scenes with drug use, sex, or violence were skipped? And yet its an incredibly touching film, and one that I shared with my 60 year old mother, who loved it.
Maybe its because I try not to watch bad movies, but I am a firm beleiver in artistic license... and if a GOOD director thinks there is a reason for me to see some sort of provocative scene, I'm going to assume it has an important part of the story, and shouldn't be skipped. Mind you, I don't really watch TV, but it seems that the gratuitous stuff you see on there probably has no point but ratings.
I grew up in a house where I saw some pretty intense films at a fairly early age. I had a parent that would discuss the films with me, and I never felt violated by anything I saw. Remember that anything that is hidden from us, we generally end up coveting. This kind of 'feature' could end up doing more harm than good.
This is some sort of convoluted question - 'do security tools make things worse'. Rather than explaining word for word why I feel its worse, I'll offer an analogy.
Should brightly lit streets at night be banned because they allow muggers to see us more clearly? Surely not.
Knowledge is power, and I'd much rather have as much knowledge available to me as possible, rather than have none and some an attacker has none either. The fact is, exploiters will always try to develop their own ways to get in, their own tools, so it would be incredibly stupid for us to decide the less we know about network security, the better.
Security testing is a GOOD thing, before anyone puts a server online, they should try to hack it on a closed network first - and then they should have their smartest friends try to hack it, with any tools available. This sort of introspection would mean a whole lot more security on the net in general.
Ok - well just to clear it up - in an unoffensive way, as someone who has worked in this industry for long before it became cool to...
Actually, I do think that motherboards should come without Network cards, without raid controllers etc. If the network card stops working, replace the network card
Well yeah - except you can disable the onboard nic from the BIOS - so its still just a nice added value. My home is all wireless, but its nice to be able to use the onboard nic when the need arises. Its really a convenient thing, and frees up a PCI slot for me.
"when something breaks I prefer to replace a component rather than replace the whole motherboard"
I've seen an onboard soundcard 'break' before - So a new soundcard was bought - no need to replace the motherboard.
Yes, while " As for security, the less it does, the less chance of a security flaw. That's all." feels pretty good, and can be true about a lot of things, as someone who works in network security, and who deals with some pretty complex corporate firewalls, its usually not true. If it were true, the big companies would keep little openbsd boxes to maintain their network connections - with really simply rulesets. This isn't the case. Most corporate firewalls are terrifying, intricate things.
As far as your "colloquial reference of modular stripped down linux vs Monolithic all inter-twined Windows"... Remember, that yes althought Linux is modular, It is hardly stripped down most of the time now. A default install will provide 5 or 6 Media players that all play the same media, 3 or more web browsers, a full office suite (or two if you include the KDE office suite), dozens of games and countless tools for almost anything. Windows - not so much. Maybe this is why most Linux installs are 3 or 4 cds now, while windows is one. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Linux user at work and home, and love Linux very much - but calling it stripped down is like calling a P4 RISC.
Oh come on, its nothing like what Microsoft does. Microsoft uses underhanded tactics to search and destroy any company that they think they can take over and profit from. These guys added a logical feature (a firewall), and made a logical progression (from 100base to gigabit ethernet).
You say security is what you look for in a motherboard - how is this motherboard, with a well designed, built in, hardware level firewall, any less secure than any other motherboard that is the same except for the firewall. Or are you complaining about the SATA? Motherboards with SATA should be banned, and we should all still stick with ATA alone? Or maybe its the onboard RAID? Or is 100base onboard ethernet somehow better than GB?
The more I think about it, the more I realize that I shouldn't respond to this at all, but should have given you a -1:Flamebait. I mean if " Security, stability, and performance are the top features I look for in a motherboard", then RTFA and notice that performance is ahead of its class, and its very stable, not to mention the extra steps taken for security. Hopefully some mods will take care of this.
Whoever modded this offtopic has the sense of humour of a brick.
See, what he is explaining is that due to Ciscos inherent stupidity at adding an override all password, their track record, that was once the shit, is now just shit. Get it???
As a recent newly found running geek, I really dig this. I started running In January, and went from a fairly soft 250 down to my current almost lean 215 (I've been eating properly too, 190 lbs of lean muslce/bone etc)... The thing that makes it easier than anything is the Ipod. I put that thing in, and I'm good to go - the biggest fear is dropping it - read any Ipod forums and find horror stories of people who's carrying cases have broken, and their expensive toys have fallen onto the road and under moving vehicles etc - So i always keey mine tightly clasped in my hands. As fas as GPS goes- I don't need it yet - I use mapquest to map out the distance of the run I just did, and then calculate my speed with a bit of math.
I'd recommend running to anyone willing to feel healthy quickly - but find a good well padded pair of running shoes... you only have one set of knees for your whole life - take care of them.
Well thats the thing. An exptremely covert message gathers more attention. Like "Wow - look at that random stream of data from that source - it must mean something because I can't decipher a bit of it - monitor all futher incoming and outgoing communications to that IP", whereas spam - well, like I said, nobody pays any attention - they think its just some slimeball trying to make a greasy dollar off a sucker who knows no better.
I know its ironic, but often the best hiding place is in plain sight.
Don't forget re-use... a lot of people like turning old macs in to aquariums
I'd Like to see my old 17-inch monitor that is Officially Dead swimming with a few goldfish. The next time family comes to visit: "Wow, that screensaver keeps getting better and better!"
Some of these people still exist. My mother owns a small weeky newspaper The Brighton Independent and has been trying to Do The Right Thing for over 30 years. And shes not the only one. The problem is this: she is being crowded and suffocated by large chains all around her only trying to make a buck. Most independent media outlets feel the same thing. Cheap, pandering rags that care nothing for the community around them or even for the people who buy their papers.
Its very hard for the precious few people that believe in real news and issues for the sake of the news and issues themselves, but they still exist.... and from what I've seen in my personal life - they almost never give up.
One of the best methods of not having your communications snooped in on is to use a busy, noisy channel. Communications inside of malls, clubs, whatever. It makes perfect sense. People don't expect sensitive information in soe sort of public form, so they don't listen for it. We're all so sick of spam that we erase it on sight - so if someone wants to use it to communicate - its perfect. It draws a hell of a lot less attention to ones self rather than forming a whole new covert form of communication.
What looks more suspicious - A spam with some seemingly random keywords to throw off the filters at the bottom, or a highly encrypted data transmission on an obscure port. I know what one would make me take notice first.
Are you kidding? I mean, If I'm reading an article, and I see part of it highlighted as a link - I'm going to assume its going to be more content for the story I am reading, maybe adding a deeper explaination or background to whatever phrase is highlighted. If I am seriously studying a story, and follow a link to somehting like "air saferty", I want to see an article on air safety, not some page with 100 flashing banner ads trying to convince me that i need to buy a 'terrorist detector 2000' for only 29.95.
The only way that I could ever see this justified AT ALL, and i still think its not cool, would be that Every ad linkd from the story is labelled "AD" somehow - either by bracketed text, or maybe the link being a different colour from normal links.
I find it very hard to see any way that this isn't a bad thing. I think it could turn in to a very bad think.
Remember - Adverts were first picked up by old paper media as a way to support the actual journalism - It would cover the costs to create and deliver the content. Now it seems we're getting closer and closer to the content being made to deliver the adverts. How long until articles are being changed to fit in certain key words from advertisers? Scary.
Maybe its because I'm from a journalistic background, but I really think that the one sacred ground is the journalistic content. You can add adverts and flying noisy banners, nags and clickthroughs, and i'll still read the article.. I won't like it, but it hasn't crossed That Line. This does. Hiding adverts inside of the content, appearing as part of the context, is disgusting. I'm sickened by the concept.
News 20 years from now: "This just in... McDonalds tastier than ever! More at 11." I only can hope something changes to destroy this trend by then.
"
"....My God! Is that your kitchen on fire?" "Err, no. It's Aurora Borealus." "An Aurora Borealus?" "Yes." "At this time of the day, at this time of year, in this part of the country, localized entirely in your kitchen?!" ".....Yes." "....Can I see it?" ".....No."
Its fine to get high and mighty with a "how dare you" but i think you need to re-read the post. I think the process is frightening, not the people. I have many friends from many places all over the world. And remember- I said that Everyone has an equal right to the pie.
So yeah - it is the companies i fear - and the government... but more so - i fear that deep down, on some moral level - its The Right Thing - from an egalitarian sense... but human instinct is based not on what is right but what is best for number one. And this doesn't feel best for my selfish self.
Yes, I am the first to admit my ignorance of a lot of places. I try my hardest, but its hard to know everything. The fact still remains that the cost of living is significantly lower in India, and if it comes down to a cent for cent competition, India will win. I hope there isn't some sort of blatant ignorance preventing me from seeing some sort of "deeper truth" to this statement... but right now, with the confirmation of the Indian workers in my office, i think its pretty true.
Yeah but i think the bigger picture is that they are hard-working, money-saving, tax-paying, contributing people who also really care about this "common good" in India as well, so why shouldn't they be given just a big slice of the pie - So its not politically driven drivel, as you so eloquently posted... but more so a consideration that I don't deserve it just because I have it - or moreso - that I don't deserve it more than anyone else does... and that I'm here in the position I am by the luck of birth more than anything else.
Other professions include farmers, truck drivers, dock workers, othodontists
The difference that i see is those are mostly locational services. You can form a union of people who all agree that they shouldn't work under a certain wage - and it Benefits Everyone. But on the other hand - a group of impovershed people overseas have no such benefit from everyone agreeing not to work under a certain wage. Well - actually they sort of do... as long as we don't bid down... they will suck up more and more jobs. And if we bid down - their cost of living will Always be able to keep them lower. Its terrifying to me.
I understand, this is how capitalism works, and this is saving so many businesses - and probably creating a lot of jobs somewhere else. I still get quite scared by it though. Its probably just my instinct as a human to try to preserve what I already have. I mean - yeah it should be a fair world and everyone deserves a piece of the pie, And I have no more right to work than anyone anywhere else - But the idea of going from the income that I barely get by on to a wage one third of what it is now, just to compete with someone who has never experienced indoor plumbing or a room of their own terrifies me.
I understand that i have no right to the lifestyle I live now (and its not extravagant by any western standard... but I've grown quite used to it). I fear the future if even the higher skilled jobs, like IT, become minimum wage - or worse.
Redundant - parents post isn't redundant. I'd score it at least a +4 (a mix of funny and insightful). I mean, it makes total sense. You'd expect the first RFC to quite clearly lay out a concept of how an RFC will work.
I'm probably burning karma with this post but i think its completely unfair that that post got knocked down.
People have to accept security as a regular part of life. There are LOTS of negative deliverables we subscribe to in our lives, and pay quite handsomly for. Off of the top of my head, I think of auto insurance. I mean - yeah we see nothing making it better.... but we know very well the hell that may arise if we don't have it.
Personally I rally liked D. J. Bernstein's (qmail, djbdns, daemontools) idea for a new mail protocol. The big difference between it and mail we have now is that only the notification of mail is sent, not the mail itself. The mail sits on the senders mailserver, waiting to be picked up, and if you want to retrieve it, your mail client does so from his server. Think about it - No more anonymous spam, since you KNOW where messages are coming from if you have to retreive them. Therefore, if spam is illegal, we can punish them... and there is no more faking of where its coming from.
The other cool concept to that is mailing lists vs bandwidth. In old mailing list styles, a message would go out to the list, bouncing back from all people whos boxes are gone or full- witha lot of traffic. In DJs new way, there is only notification of the message sent, and then only those who really want the message download it.
The more you think about it, the better of an idea it becomes. In the wold of terrifying ideas like "postage for emails" or "really super-mega-expensive domain names for mail only" Bernsteins has an elegance and practicality I haven't seen elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
For so long, DirectX had to struggle and claw to keep up with OpenGL - they did just that, while OpenGL sat mainly idle (well, John Carmack was a big help to it)... Now it seems the shoe is on the other foot, and OpenGL is going to have to move deftly to surpass DX9, and soon enough 10...
I sincerely hope it happens. I wish developers felt more inclinded to make their 3D engined GL based rather than DX based, so the day where I can play any game in linux may actually arrive. Of course, we have to give massive amounts of respect to those who do make OpenGL platforms for their games (ID, Epic), but what about those who feel DX is easier and more practical for what they do(Valve).
Maybe if we're lucky, the Carmack will drop in to this discussion and tell us exactly what he thinks needs to happen to really make GL a reality for most gamaes again.
Weird - I submitted a reply here - somehow it didn't get posted, or something else happened along the way (at work, maybe replaced the tab before hitting submit.. hmm. anyway - it went something like this.
I don't think it was a poor analogy. I mean, the point you make is another good one, and I'm not interested in starting an argument.. I've agreed with a lot of your posts in the past, and have actually modded a few of them up.
I was trying to draw a bit of a metaphor with 'knowledge' as 'light'. On a brightly lit street, a person can avoid a predator using the knowledge/light around them, whereas a predator can use the same light to see their prey more clearly. If the hunted uses the knowledge properly, they should be able to avoid trouble, but if they walk blindly down the street, they could meet with an untimely end.
And although I respect your fear about the bad guys using the tools more than the good guys, I am reassured by my sense of neo-darwinism. Those who are unfit to be online, the insecure, the uneffective, the plainly stupid, will thin out as more and more of the truely fit propogate throughout the online gene/meme pool. I don't even think security needs to be mandated. It already is mandatory, in the sense that those who are insecure, will eventually either suffer so many setbacks that they are ruined, or learn the hard way that they have to spend a lot more of their resources securing themselves, or suffer dire consequence.
Completely. About 10 months ago I decided that I will no longer watch trailers. It was the best movie decision I have made. I mean you can't really tell if a movie will be good or not from a trailers. I've seen some bad movies with excellent trailers, and some great movies with terrible trailers. All in all, I really enjoy films a lot more now that all the high intensity parts aren't revealed to me in advance.
I recommend that everyone try this. See a few movies that you have absolutely no concept of when going in, it makes for a much more interesting ride.
I think if people want to watch something devoid of extremity, they should simply find movies that don't have this stuff in them in the first place. I mean - can you imagine how Incredibly Stupid 'Requium For A Dream" would seem if any scenes with drug use, sex, or violence were skipped? And yet its an incredibly touching film, and one that I shared with my 60 year old mother, who loved it.
Maybe its because I try not to watch bad movies, but I am a firm beleiver in artistic license... and if a GOOD director thinks there is a reason for me to see some sort of provocative scene, I'm going to assume it has an important part of the story, and shouldn't be skipped. Mind you, I don't really watch TV, but it seems that the gratuitous stuff you see on there probably has no point but ratings.
I grew up in a house where I saw some pretty intense films at a fairly early age. I had a parent that would discuss the films with me, and I never felt violated by anything I saw. Remember that anything that is hidden from us, we generally end up coveting. This kind of 'feature' could end up doing more harm than good.
This is some sort of convoluted question - 'do security tools make things worse'. Rather than explaining word for word why I feel its worse, I'll offer an analogy.
Should brightly lit streets at night be banned because they allow muggers to see us more clearly? Surely not.
Knowledge is power, and I'd much rather have as much knowledge available to me as possible, rather than have none and some an attacker has none either. The fact is, exploiters will always try to develop their own ways to get in, their own tools, so it would be incredibly stupid for us to decide the less we know about network security, the better.
Security testing is a GOOD thing, before anyone puts a server online, they should try to hack it on a closed network first - and then they should have their smartest friends try to hack it, with any tools available. This sort of introspection would mean a whole lot more security on the net in general.
Ok - well just to clear it up - in an unoffensive way, as someone who has worked in this industry for long before it became cool to...
Actually, I do think that motherboards should come without Network cards, without raid controllers etc. If the network card stops working, replace the network card
Well yeah - except you can disable the onboard nic from the BIOS - so its still just a nice added value. My home is all wireless, but its nice to be able to use the onboard nic when the need arises. Its really a convenient thing, and frees up a PCI slot for me. "when something breaks I prefer to replace a component rather than replace the whole motherboard"
I've seen an onboard soundcard 'break' before - So a new soundcard was bought - no need to replace the motherboard. Yes, while " As for security, the less it does, the less chance of a security flaw. That's all." feels pretty good, and can be true about a lot of things, as someone who works in network security, and who deals with some pretty complex corporate firewalls, its usually not true. If it were true, the big companies would keep little openbsd boxes to maintain their network connections - with really simply rulesets. This isn't the case. Most corporate firewalls are terrifying, intricate things.
As far as your "colloquial reference of modular stripped down linux vs Monolithic all inter-twined Windows"... Remember, that yes althought Linux is modular, It is hardly stripped down most of the time now. A default install will provide 5 or 6 Media players that all play the same media, 3 or more web browsers, a full office suite (or two if you include the KDE office suite), dozens of games and countless tools for almost anything. Windows - not so much. Maybe this is why most Linux installs are 3 or 4 cds now, while windows is one. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Linux user at work and home, and love Linux very much - but calling it stripped down is like calling a P4 RISC.
Oh come on, its nothing like what Microsoft does. Microsoft uses underhanded tactics to search and destroy any company that they think they can take over and profit from. These guys added a logical feature (a firewall), and made a logical progression (from 100base to gigabit ethernet).
You say security is what you look for in a motherboard - how is this motherboard, with a well designed, built in, hardware level firewall, any less secure than any other motherboard that is the same except for the firewall. Or are you complaining about the SATA? Motherboards with SATA should be banned, and we should all still stick with ATA alone? Or maybe its the onboard RAID? Or is 100base onboard ethernet somehow better than GB?
The more I think about it, the more I realize that I shouldn't respond to this at all, but should have given you a -1:Flamebait. I mean if " Security, stability, and performance are the top features I look for in a motherboard", then RTFA and notice that performance is ahead of its class, and its very stable, not to mention the extra steps taken for security. Hopefully some mods will take care of this.
Whoever modded this offtopic has the sense of humour of a brick.
See, what he is explaining is that due to Ciscos inherent stupidity at adding an override all password, their track record, that was once the shit, is now just shit. Get it???
As a recent newly found running geek, I really dig this. I started running In January, and went from a fairly soft 250 down to my current almost lean 215 (I've been eating properly too, 190 lbs of lean muslce/bone etc)... The thing that makes it easier than anything is the Ipod. I put that thing in, and I'm good to go - the biggest fear is dropping it - read any Ipod forums and find horror stories of people who's carrying cases have broken, and their expensive toys have fallen onto the road and under moving vehicles etc - So i always keey mine tightly clasped in my hands. As fas as GPS goes- I don't need it yet - I use mapquest to map out the distance of the run I just did, and then calculate my speed with a bit of math.
I'd recommend running to anyone willing to feel healthy quickly - but find a good well padded pair of running shoes... you only have one set of knees for your whole life - take care of them.
Well thats the thing. An exptremely covert message gathers more attention. Like "Wow - look at that random stream of data from that source - it must mean something because I can't decipher a bit of it - monitor all futher incoming and outgoing communications to that IP", whereas spam - well, like I said, nobody pays any attention - they think its just some slimeball trying to make a greasy dollar off a sucker who knows no better.
I know its ironic, but often the best hiding place is in plain sight.
Don't forget re-use... a lot of people like turning old macs in to aquariums
I'd Like to see my old 17-inch monitor that is Officially Dead swimming with a few goldfish. The next time family comes to visit: "Wow, that screensaver keeps getting better and better!"
Some of these people still exist. My mother owns a small weeky newspaper The Brighton Independent and has been trying to Do The Right Thing for over 30 years. And shes not the only one. The problem is this: she is being crowded and suffocated by large chains all around her only trying to make a buck. Most independent media outlets feel the same thing. Cheap, pandering rags that care nothing for the community around them or even for the people who buy their papers.
Its very hard for the precious few people that believe in real news and issues for the sake of the news and issues themselves, but they still exist.... and from what I've seen in my personal life - they almost never give up.
One of the best methods of not having your communications snooped in on is to use a busy, noisy channel. Communications inside of malls, clubs, whatever. It makes perfect sense. People don't expect sensitive information in soe sort of public form, so they don't listen for it. We're all so sick of spam that we erase it on sight - so if someone wants to use it to communicate - its perfect. It draws a hell of a lot less attention to ones self rather than forming a whole new covert form of communication.
What looks more suspicious - A spam with some seemingly random keywords to throw off the filters at the bottom, or a highly encrypted data transmission on an obscure port. I know what one would make me take notice first.
Are you kidding? I mean, If I'm reading an article, and I see part of it highlighted as a link - I'm going to assume its going to be more content for the story I am reading, maybe adding a deeper explaination or background to whatever phrase is highlighted. If I am seriously studying a story, and follow a link to somehting like "air saferty", I want to see an article on air safety, not some page with 100 flashing banner ads trying to convince me that i need to buy a 'terrorist detector 2000' for only 29.95.
The only way that I could ever see this justified AT ALL, and i still think its not cool, would be that Every ad linkd from the story is labelled "AD" somehow - either by bracketed text, or maybe the link being a different colour from normal links.
I find it very hard to see any way that this isn't a bad thing. I think it could turn in to a very bad think.
Remember - Adverts were first picked up by old paper media as a way to support the actual journalism - It would cover the costs to create and deliver the content. Now it seems we're getting closer and closer to the content being made to deliver the adverts. How long until articles are being changed to fit in certain key words from advertisers? Scary.
Maybe its because I'm from a journalistic background, but I really think that the one sacred ground is the journalistic content. You can add adverts and flying noisy banners, nags and clickthroughs, and i'll still read the article.. I won't like it, but it hasn't crossed That Line. This does.
Hiding adverts inside of the content, appearing as part of the context, is disgusting. I'm sickened by the concept.
News 20 years from now: "This just in... McDonalds tastier than ever! More at 11." I only can hope something changes to destroy this trend by then.
And strangely fitting:
" "....My God! Is that your kitchen on fire?"
"Err, no. It's Aurora Borealus."
"An Aurora Borealus?"
"Yes."
"At this time of the day, at this time of year, in this part of the country, localized entirely in your kitchen?!"
".....Yes."
"....Can I see it?"
".....No."
Its fine to get high and mighty with a "how dare you" but i think you need to re-read the post. I think the process is frightening, not the people. I have many friends from many places all over the world. And remember- I said that Everyone has an equal right to the pie.
So yeah - it is the companies i fear - and the government... but more so - i fear that deep down, on some moral level - its The Right Thing - from an egalitarian sense... but human instinct is based not on what is right but what is best for number one. And this doesn't feel best for my selfish self.
Yes, I am the first to admit my ignorance of a lot of places. I try my hardest, but its hard to know everything. The fact still remains that the cost of living is significantly lower in India, and if it comes down to a cent for cent competition, India will win. I hope there isn't some sort of blatant ignorance preventing me from seeing some sort of "deeper truth" to this statement... but right now, with the confirmation of the Indian workers in my office, i think its pretty true.
Yeah but i think the bigger picture is that they are hard-working, money-saving, tax-paying, contributing people who also really care about this "common good" in India as well, so why shouldn't they be given just a big slice of the pie - So its not politically driven drivel, as you so eloquently posted... but more so a consideration that I don't deserve it just because I have it - or moreso - that I don't deserve it more than anyone else does... and that I'm here in the position I am by the luck of birth more than anything else.
Other professions include farmers, truck drivers, dock workers, othodontists
The difference that i see is those are mostly locational services. You can form a union of people who all agree that they shouldn't work under a certain wage - and it Benefits Everyone. But on the other hand - a group of impovershed people overseas have no such benefit from everyone agreeing not to work under a certain wage. Well - actually they sort of do... as long as we don't bid down... they will suck up more and more jobs. And if we bid down - their cost of living will Always be able to keep them lower. Its terrifying to me.
I understand, this is how capitalism works, and this is saving so many businesses - and probably creating a lot of jobs somewhere else. I still get quite scared by it though. Its probably just my instinct as a human to try to preserve what I already have. I mean - yeah it should be a fair world and everyone deserves a piece of the pie, And I have no more right to work than anyone anywhere else - But the idea of going from the income that I barely get by on to a wage one third of what it is now, just to compete with someone who has never experienced indoor plumbing or a room of their own terrifies me.
I understand that i have no right to the lifestyle I live now (and its not extravagant by any western standard... but I've grown quite used to it). I fear the future if even the higher skilled jobs, like IT, become minimum wage - or worse.
Redundant - parents post isn't redundant. I'd score it at least a +4 (a mix of funny and insightful). I mean, it makes total sense. You'd expect the first RFC to quite clearly lay out a concept of how an RFC will work.
I'm probably burning karma with this post but i think its completely unfair that that post got knocked down.
People have to accept security as a regular part of life. There are LOTS of negative deliverables we subscribe to in our lives, and pay quite handsomly for. Off of the top of my head, I think of auto insurance. I mean - yeah we see nothing making it better.... but we know very well the hell that may arise if we don't have it.
On his site :)
IM2000
Personally I rally liked D. J. Bernstein's (qmail, djbdns, daemontools) idea for a new mail protocol. The big difference between it and mail we have now is that only the notification of mail is sent, not the mail itself. The mail sits on the senders mailserver, waiting to be picked up, and if you want to retrieve it, your mail client does so from his server. Think about it - No more anonymous spam, since you KNOW where messages are coming from if you have to retreive them. Therefore, if spam is illegal, we can punish them... and there is no more faking of where its coming from.
The other cool concept to that is mailing lists vs bandwidth. In old mailing list styles, a message would go out to the list, bouncing back from all people whos boxes are gone or full- witha lot of traffic. In DJs new way, there is only notification of the message sent, and then only those who really want the message download it.
The more you think about it, the better of an idea it becomes. In the wold of terrifying ideas like "postage for emails" or "really super-mega-expensive domain names for mail only" Bernsteins has an elegance and practicality I haven't seen elsewhere.