When MS does stuff like take an existing protocol (Kerberos I believe comes to mind) and makes their own version (which granted is easier since it is based on a standard) of it (with the assimilate and enhance philosophy MS loves to promote), you can no longer use the original with the "new and improved"....open source folks normally cry bloody murder.
Now in this context, I give that the Open Source folks are just looking for Open (as in Freedom) version of the tool without any new bells or whistles, but as some people like to consider bugs (or missing features) as a "feature" (or lack there off).
The original tool was offered for free to use, so that solves the open (as in beer) requirements, but not the open (as in freedom) requirement.
I think a more relevant example, is if the open source world created a tool to read MS Word files and did not do so %100 and caused corruption of the word file preventing viewing of it, should MS be help responsible for the 3rd party tool?
My concern is, due to Linus close relation to Larry and Linus familiarity with some of the features (some of which were added with suggestions from Linus), is any tool or scripts Linus works on to follow up a competing tool prevented by the license agreement for bitmover?
Ummm....would spammers getting one of these anonymous addresses also be considered a bad use? Then when someone starts sending me spam and I try getting him to stop, besides spam blockers (that blocks the spam but does not stop it) there is no other way to do so. If the spammer feels they have a right to do so, I think I have a right to know who it is so that I can tell him to stop.
If you are fearful of anyone having your contact information...hire someone else to maintain your web site.
I agree, though, that having this information available can be malicious use, so some checks are needed as well.
Looking at the Linux and GNU section I noticed one of the last paragraphs which reads:
"Addendum: Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was developed at UC Berkeley. It was non-free in the 80s, but became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
"People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped persuade them, but the code had little overlap with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation."
I'm confused on this...isn't the reasons for calling linux GNU/Linux because it makes use of GNU products (like the compiler, libraries, applications - EMACS, etc) as part of the environment or distribution as a whole? By that same logic, I still don't see way GNU/BSD does not fit by RMS's own words. Does BSD have a completely different set of libraries, applications, compilers, etc that aren't GNU based?
I know of the split between ATT based Unix and the Berkley version of UNIX, but still...
Oh well...I guess in the end it's a to-mA-to, verses to-mah-to symantic argument..
Okay...I think in the end...the amiguity could be resolved by changin "free software" to "freedom software" (tm). Then people avoid the whole "free as in beer" confusion. May not be grammatically correct but I think it's still more reasonable...
Would it be fair to say those same individuals could look for areas were there are gaps in technology (did that whole business to business every quite work out yet) and come up with new ideas and innovate to fill those gaps that would trigger more work in country verses outsourcing the existing products (with minor upgrades) on more of the same old thing?
In the end, outsourcing is a way of cutting costs and/or gaining value (either added efficiency or improved quality). To avoid that, it becomes necessary to either be willing to work for less, or to find a way to become a more valuable asset (I hate being referred to as an asset, but there you have it).
I don't suppose this could be a place for PKI type of trust model could it?
How does this avoid duplicates?
I could see where as with DNS you have POC information for the admin type person for this type of configuration you would need more unique information about the indivudal like birthday (time included if possible), birth location, and maybe even some bioinformatic type of information (finger prints, retna scans, etc).
Maybe they should use RFID tags for this type of things kept with each individual. The RFID tage would go with the individual, and you would need a means of retransmitting the id to a proxy type component to allow for movement and new home locations.
I'm sure this is one of those things that I need to RTFA some more...
What criteria are used to dermine that climate is changing? Isn't it relative? Is it cyclical?
Hmmm...Problem Solving mode kicks in:
* Is the climate changing ?
** If climate is changing, is it man made?
*** Is it caused by automobiles? *** Is it caused by something else?
** If climate is changing, is it non-man made?
*** Is it caused by volcanos? *** Is it caused by cosmic rays / space phenomenon? *** Is it caused by cows farting? *** Is it caused by something else?
Turning off problem solving mode...we now return to previous chain of though...
With Time Warner - AOL, I would have figured with a little support, guidances, and push from AOL to push music delivery services to take advantage of WinAmp as the player, this should have been a perfect venture, but I guess as was stated, the independent nature of the WinAmp folks didn't seem to quite feel the same way. And with so many links to M$, this also may have been a factor in AOLs mind.
My experience with DCE at least was that it was a distributed environment that took a lot of coordination between systems, which unfortunately was not done very well in the environment I'm familiar with. As a result of this it did not prove robust enough for the systems it was used for. It had some possibilities, but if not done properly, can be a major confusing thing to deal with.
With CORBA, as I understand it (I've never directly worked with CORBA), it is suppose to represent similar services in a more Object Oriented way and easier to program with. Not an expert, but I believe this is ingrained into Java world along with other RMI type interfaces or peer to peer intefaces (like JXTA).
With these types of services, both DCE and CORBA offer distributed network services such as directory services, distributed file systems, and security services on hetrogenious environements. The interfaces are defined (see IDL) and compiled in to stubs for client/server services to develope and use on any compatible platform.
For a given issue, people tend to be advocates for a specific point of view. This advocacy represents a bias in favor of a specific point of view in favor or against a view. As such that person will tend to avoid looking at things from another side. If someone heavily believes in this, it is more difficult for them to consider another perspective.
If a die hard Conservative Republican expresses a view, they are not as likely to accept views from Liberal Democrates and if anything act defensive against anything someone says. While if that some Republican is talking at an National Rifle Association Anti-Abortion Rally, he would be preaching to the choir as the case may be.
If you go into a conversation realizing these views a head of time, it is possible to realize how to address the conversation.
Okay...I'm curious...for the Slashdot - Politics section, is there any way to have a user preference indicating there political bias?
I am interested in some idea as to how much a persons bias effects there posts. I think peoples beliefs in a specific item can add some karma or weight to a specific article. If they respond one way to a article about a candidate, then they may be saying it just because they are a Democrat or a Republican supporter. If an opposing opinon says something against the opposed, there may be less credibility because they are saying it just because they support the opposition.
Maybe you could have some issue criteria (how do you feel about death penalty, how do you feel about abortion, how do you feel about certain types of drug use, etc) which can help establish your polticial bias settings. I could see this almost like a Ok Cupid or related matching site type of meta data.
Much of this is interesting, but I'm still not convinced..
I believe a majority of the questions were slightly directed questions...like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" types of questions.
Why are so many of the questions "To Be Released"?
Indications are that "people without computers" are provided with one to take the test while people without are allowed to take it with their own computers. This kind of gets me wondering about what types of people (how informed on the issues were they) they asked the survey.
I think in general the questions are also weighted based on known information. For example, questions regarding Iraq having WMD BEFORE the war, suprisingly the Kerry supports all magically believed they didn't have it prior to the war even though Kerry himself before the war believed they did. Something doesn't match up there.
On the question where they were asked if Bush had known before there were no WMD would he still have gone? Most Bush supporters believed he wouldn't while Most Kerry supporters believed he would have.
Although they are not massive stockpiles of WMD, WMD were found in the form of Sarrin shells. The case could be made that these are old prewar shells, but they still existed and weren't suppose to exist.
Also the recent reports on Iraq indicates they still have thousands of files to review (and translated), in which more details could still exist.
Hind site is twenty twenty..
I think in the end most people believe how they believe and no force in the world can change them.
I believe the issue then was (and to the best of my knowledge still is) that Kerry said leaders were supporting him, but he would never name names of who those leaders are.
In these cases, actual confirmed "support" or "non-support" are actually provided.
Judging by the record personal debt numbers, I'd say it's the credit card companies.
That's true, that could be personal spending is including more credit debt, but you can't say that all of it is. That still doesn't detract from the fact that people are buying things. Which means (hopefully) businesses will start doing what they need to continue to grow including hiring more people.
But, the minimum wage itself isn't the problem. The problem is that the vast majority of the jobs being created are the kind of unskilled jobs that typically pay minimum wage.
No, you can't really directly dictate what kinds of jobs get created, but you can wield significant influence by providing incentives for companies to keep those jobs in this country,
and to hire citizens over H-1Bs (or equivalent).
I think the H-1Bs issue is valid, although the case could be made that many of those that are hired (not all) are more driven to do well. But then that goes to another social issue I think that kids now a days are more interested in pop culture (movies, music, video games) and less interested in pushing innovation. I think that's the major missing thing in our countries educational system.
As far as outsourcing, it's not as significant matters as often made out to be. Plus many of the current "tax break for US-based multinational corporations to locate operations overseas" policies in place were put in place prior to the current administration.
Do you have a business degree? You certainly seem to think like an MBA, and sadly I don't consider that a compliment.
No I don't have a business degree or a MBA...
I am thinking about taking some business classes if I ever decide to start my own business or to improve my chances in the future beyond what my computer degrees can provide currently...
There are other options, like finding ways to make your existing employees happier, which has been proven time and again to make them more productive. Hint: this isn't achieved by treating all your employees like faceless cags in the machine which can simply be hot-swapped at will.
Agreed, but once again, I think that's a corporate matter, not a presidential or legislative matter.
I believe one of the ways business in general can do better is to do items such as that. One of the airliners (heard a story on NPR - think it was Market Place) was finding some cost savings by listening to suggestions made by the workers.
Isn't this a relative thing as far as job production goes?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
By this I mean, if you take job stats from any two points in time, you can easily make a case either way. If you take numbers during the depression as a job related stat and during a large job growth period like during WWII with the public works and war effort jobs being in play, then growth stats can be somewhat misleading a bit.
You can make the case right now that unemployment rates are lower now then during Clintons reelection bid.
Fear in the business world (due to terrorism, oil prices, or avoidance of another dot-com bust) has made many business reluctant to invest like the need to. Overcoming that investment fear is starting to occur which will hopefully drive the economy even more.
Changing the policies midway could add more variables to have to contend with with another few years before new policies can effect the economy. Or the next administration may reap the benefits of it.
(3) globalization
(3) is only partially independent, and probably the area in which the administration has the greatest influence,
Many of the free-trade agreements did start during prior adminstrations so some of that is not solely the current administrations doing, although they are making new free-trade agreements which th
If people are spending on retail items, that must mean someone is making money.
I asked before, but outside of minimum wage increases, how can you set the job wages? I agree that some increase in minimum wage would probably be good, but then you have to realize doing so means an additional cost to a corporation to account for. The only way to account for it is to
(1) increase revenue which can be accounted for by:
(a) make new products (which is also a supply and demand sort of thing as well - have to make something people want)
(b) find additional investment (investors, government contracts, etc)
(2) cut costs which can be accounted for by
(a) make improvements in the production chains
(b) hiring cheaper employees (including outsouring)
(c) firing employees
Isn't this a relative thing as far as job production goes? Since job losses due to
were all independent of the current administration; being able to overcome all these and avoid a depression is an accomplishment in and of itself.
And for that matter, the previous administration had the benefits of the dot-com boom (prior to the bust) where taxes from the boomers added more into the system allow for more government spending with less risk of deficits to be accounted for (if you have more money to spend, you don't have to borrow money).
You do realize this is getting off topic like I asked not to get into right???
A president vetos a bill if he disagrees with parts of the bill. If he has a friendly congress, what are the chances of the congress providing him something he disagrees with? That's why he hasn't veto'd anything.
Without the excessive spending (and deficit) the US (and a good part of the world) would be in a depression following 9/11 and related financial problems (dot-com bust). You have heard the saying, "to make money, you have to spend money."
If we didn't deficit spend, we would have to find some other way to provide the money. That would involve cutting additional spending (which of course then he would get blamed for when someone does get some government provided intitlement) or finding another source of income (additional taxes).
As far as deficits go, Bush is already starting to reduce spending, thanks in part to gains in the system allow additional tax revenue to be gained.
I say again...at the time we went to war...evidence at the time indicated there were WMD (evidence presummed to be accurate at the time - and yes we all know the evidence is wrong). All our allies also agreed with this. Decisions on this were a gamble.
If we had not done so and WMD had been present, can you guarantee that they wouldn't be used against the US or any of its allies?
Indications on recent investigations indicate Saddam was stealing from the UN Oil for Food program for self interest and for eventual weapon programs such as looking into gaining missle technology from N. Korea. Does that sound like someone with no plans for agressive intentions?
Not to mention the 17 UN resolutions against Iraq prior. If no one does anything about it...then he would have just continue to work the system in his favor.
To quote from Spider man or Superman or one of those comics..."With great power, comes great responsibility" The rest of the world has that responsibility too. If no one follows up on it...then why even make the UN resolutions or even have the UN.
EB:I acknowledge that many of those are lower paying jobs, but you can't blame Bush for what types of jobs are created entirely.
PC:I see. You can't blame him for it, but you can attribute it to him? What the hell are you smoking? Make up your mind.
If you were president, how would you make a company hire a specific type of high payed job?
If you were a corporate CEO, how would you make your company cost efficient and solvent?
As much as everyone likes to think Bush has lots of contacts in the corporate world (I agree he probably does have some contact)...what makes you think he can dictate how a company operates? If a company wants to hire low paying employees, how can Bush do anything about that?
He could add additional oversite to the company (which to a degree already exists with the SEC and many other organizations) which then means to meet oversite requirements the company has to spend more money with buracracy ensuring every i is dotted and every t is crosses. Whic means lease money to pay IT folks. That may add some burecratic jobs to the mix, but it adds nothing to the quality or effectiveness of the company or its product.
He can limit job exports, but then the companies in country have to find other ways to improve efficiency and cost to be a health company. Otherwise, you end up with a business plan similar to those of the dot-com bust era. Which ended so well.
EB:I will grant that there was a large loss of jobs early in his presidency which has a tendancy to screw the job numbers a lot, but much of that is due to "the dot com bust" which came out of the Clinton era
PC:Oh please. We all worked in the industry. We all know why the bubble burst. It's because it was a fucking bubble and investors were insane for about 4 years. Clinton had nothing to do with it. We caused it with our own hype and "glory."
I said Clinton era because it started at the end of Clinton's administration. I'm not implying that Clinton was directly responsible for the dot-com bust.
Our countries was at the start of a recession at the end of the Clinton administration.
That's like saying, "hey mr company president, I'm turning over control of the company, oh and by the way, I left you with a budget short fall of 100 million dollars. You get to fix it." To get out of that dept, you have to overcome a lot of problems. From this perspective, I think Bush has done quite well under the circumstances given him.
You probably have some intelligent Republican friends. Why are so many of them still voting for him? I never, ever expected such a bad president to have such strong support for re-election.
It was interesting when Bush mentioned Howard being re-elected in Australia. He failed to mention that he only won because Australia's economy is booming. If its economy hadn't been, he probably would have lost by a large margin for getting involved in the war in Iraq (despite suffering 0 casualties and significantly lower costs than the US).
Just curious...why do you consider him a "bad president"?
Recent retail sales boosted investor confidence in the economy. Is that not "good"?
Over 1.9 million jobs have been created since August 2003 with 13 straight months of job gains. Is that considered "bad"?
I acknowledge that many of those are lower paying jobs, but you can't blame Bush for what types of jobs are created entirely. That is dependent upon the innovation and creative of the companies that are responsible for making the jobs.
There is always the idea of making a company that produces something that everyone will want, you can hire people to produce it, and earn money at the same time. If not looking to start your own business, then you have to depend upon what is there.
I will grant that there was a large loss of jobs early in his presidency which has a tendancy to screw the job numbers a lot, but much of that is due to "the dot com bust" which came out of the Clinton era, and with 9/11 we lost an estimated 1 million jobs as a result of that. So eveyone may say he is doing bad, but if he hadn't done what he did (tax-cuts, deficit spend), we would likely be in a depression similar to that prior to World War II.
Please let's not stray off into an "Iraq War was a mistake argument" (based on intel prior to the war, most believed at the time it was a good decision - hind site is always 20-20).
My wife has a Ph.D. in Computational Linguistics, and has been unemployed for 3 years. The job market has been so bad that she has pretty much given up even looking.
That is one of the problems...the more educated you become, the harder it is to find jobs that will (1) pay you what you are worth or (2) willing to hire you when they can get two lesser individuals for the same amount or (3) hire H-1B employees who are willing to work for less.
I am not hiring anyone, but I'm just curious...are you willing to move to another state or you wanting to stay in the same location? That limitation can often limit your job options as well.
I believe I heard the some government agencies are looking for Computational Linguistics type of development (like hand held translation devices).
I can't believe Bush thinks "get a job" is an economic policy, which is why my wife and I are voting for Kerry this year.
So is Bush suppose to hire every individual that's out of work? Some jobs can come from the government side, but not all. If so, then not only would the government explode, but so would the deficet more than it already is already.
And how will Kerry do any better? By spending to make more jobs expanding the deficet, increase taxes, or take from other programs (health care, social security, environmental, etc)?
Bush pushes to create an environment where job production is available, but none of the corporations are looking to do so as much as they like due to fears in the environment (due to high oil prices, terror fears, etc).
Plus with improvements in efficiency and technologies, the need for as many workers is less as well (darn advancements).
In the end, I think it's up to the corporations to provide jobs. But then that's a no go also since we can't give incentives to corporations since that is seen as catering to the corporate rich folks. I don't see an answer that will make everyone happy.
Don't forget, that although some unethical corporations may try to make more money for themselves (I like to think the SEC can monitor some of this unethical behavior a little better now a days), others do work to create more products and jobs.
Not to mention as a consumer of products, I like a cheaper computer laptop or MP3 player or cell phone which can only occur when the production of such products is low in cost which requires more efficiency, cheaper expences (employees, resources used to produce the product, etc).
I know there is the threat of outsourcing the jobs, but from what you indicated, your wives skills would be valuable in the current "outsourcing" environment (i.e. producing multilingual technologies to work with other countries).
People are also dogging "No Child Left Behind", but the hope of this is to improve the intellict of our youth in hopes that they will provide new innovation and new avenues where we can excel and have (at least for a time) an advantage over other countries for a given innovation, thus allowing us to hire people locally who are aware of these innovations. If the education causes them to work harder, it will hopefully make them smarter and not spend all there time looking to have fun (watch TV, play games, etc) not innovate and make the education worth something.
I think you misspoke regarding slaves representing 3/5th...might find this link interesting. The short of it is, the 3/5th representation was to help the North to avoid the South from having the populous vote due to the larger number of slaves being considered in respect to taxation.
Regarding your second items...If a majority of the distribution of the population occurs in a minority of the region (majority of the population in New York, California, etc), with those regional people having a common believe (whether it be on the environment, on transportation, on welfare, etc), that does nothing for those in the other regions without the same criteria. Educations is probably a good one. If you distribute education money based on population, then all the money would go to the big cities and the small towns and lesser populated states would continue to have a failing education system for lack of funding..
I'm sure this thread is stale and will never get answered but I will comment anyway
Very well said. With regards to this: Kerry voted to go to Iraqi. it can't be said it's alright for Kerry to say he was mislead and not give the president the same creedance.
I and the 9-11 commission would disagree....
Can you be more specific on what specifically would disagree with you and the 9/11 commission?
I do agree that as far as ultimate goals for the Iraq war Bush and Kerry's positions are quite similar with the main impetus from Kerry being "I can do better." Consequently, I would point out the errors in judgement as found by the commission as well as current members of the administration's support of Sadam Hussein in the past (Ah Hem, Rumsfeld, chemical weapons, gassing of the Kurds and Iranian's anyone)
A lot of that is a matter of context...at the time, the Iraqi's and the Iranians were at war at the time. The Iranian's were responsible for the hostage in Beruit at that time. As such the US was more likely to deal with the Iraqi's then the Iranians.
and lack of ability to significantly cripple Osama's network in defense of this assumption.
Depends upon your definition ofcripple the network. They've taken out a large faction..regretfully due to buracracy failing to allow jobs to be created in the region more are replacing those that are taken out.
Than I would point out Bush's failure in domestic areas such as economy,
This is dependent upon your perspective. Bush started his administration in the light of an economic down turn at the tail end of the Clinton administration (including the Dot Com Bubble Bust) and when 9/11 occur, that added an additional 1 million people out of work. Relative to those perspectives, getting unemployment to the level it is is quite impressive.
Globalization is hurting some with outsourcing of jobs, but this is not as grave as many make it out to be. The alternative of course is to only have jobs locally while the rest of the world continues in poverty...which is better.
human rights,
Can you be specific?
If your concerned about the Patriot Act, see currently Supreme Court rulings about this.
Although it does not justify it, during times of war, military people do things which are terrible, but the alternative is to let the enemy do the same or worse things unhindered.. Shall we open our airports and let anyone drive a plane into any building they want? Maybe blow something up?
benefits cuts to soldiers,
I am not in favor of that, but then barring more taxes, how do you raise that and not add even more to the deficit which I'm sure everyone loves to point out.
tax breaks for the rich,
I'm not necessarily in favor of this either. If the rich reinvest that money back into businesses, then it's alright, but barring any additional oversite, it's hard to ensure that happens.
quelching of the very principle of capitalism our country's economy is based on with no bid/uncontested contracts awarded to Haliburton,
The shere size of such a contract can limit the number of business capable of doing such work for the military. In addition to that, you have to take into account the speed at which they need to have things done. The miltary needs to feed the troops immediately. Haliburton has provided these services in the past in such situations. Finding others that can do the same under the requirements is uncertain. Also as has been seen when all the required oversite starts being applied, then you get situations where you have plenty of money but they won't release the money until the take care of all the paperwork and bueracracy.
corporate welfare thinly veiled as an AID's relief package by writing in that no drugs can be generic,
I don't favor the lack of ability to have generics nor ruling out other countries
Okay...so if you were planning on talking about the war in Allawi's country to a foreign audience not in your native tongue what words would you use? If you are trying to present a specific thought or idea and not use similar words for a common idea...how would you do it?
I challenge you to talk about America's current political parties without using terms like Democrate, Republican, Green Party, Liberel, Conservative, etc and see if you can then translate that into another language and see if the message is the same.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically what they are saying, is they are going to have a core-dump like functionality as is found in UNIX, right?
When MS does stuff like take an existing protocol (Kerberos I believe comes to mind) and makes their own version (which granted is easier since it is based on a standard) of it (with the assimilate and enhance philosophy MS loves to promote), you can no longer use the original with the "new and improved"....open source folks normally cry bloody murder.
Now in this context, I give that the Open Source folks are just looking for Open (as in Freedom) version of the tool without any new bells or whistles, but as some people like to consider bugs (or missing features) as a "feature" (or lack there off).
The original tool was offered for free to use, so that solves the open (as in beer) requirements, but not the open (as in freedom) requirement.
I think a more relevant example, is if the open source world created a tool to read MS Word files and did not do so %100 and caused corruption of the word file preventing viewing of it, should MS be help responsible for the 3rd party tool?
My concern is, due to Linus close relation to Larry and Linus familiarity with some of the features (some of which were added with suggestions from Linus), is any tool or scripts Linus works on to follow up a competing tool prevented by the license agreement for bitmover?
Ummm....would spammers getting one of these anonymous addresses also be considered a bad use? Then when someone starts sending me spam and I try getting him to stop, besides spam blockers (that blocks the spam but does not stop it) there is no other way to do so. If the spammer feels they have a right to do so, I think I have a right to know who it is so that I can tell him to stop.
If you are fearful of anyone having your contact information...hire someone else to maintain your web site.
I agree, though, that having this information available can be malicious use, so some checks are needed as well.
Looking at the Linux and GNU section I noticed one of the last paragraphs which reads:
"Addendum: Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was developed at UC Berkeley. It was non-free in the 80s, but became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
"People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped persuade them, but the code had little overlap with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation."
Or maybe from the other GNU/Linux referenced site.
I'm confused on this...isn't the reasons for calling linux GNU/Linux because it makes use of GNU products (like the compiler, libraries, applications - EMACS, etc) as part of the environment or distribution as a whole? By that same logic, I still don't see way GNU/BSD does not fit by RMS's own words. Does BSD have a completely different set of libraries, applications, compilers, etc that aren't GNU based?
I know of the split between ATT based Unix and the Berkley version of UNIX, but still...
Oh well...I guess in the end it's a to-mA-to, verses to-mah-to symantic argument..
Okay...I think in the end...the amiguity could be resolved by changin "free software" to "freedom software" (tm). Then people avoid the whole "free as in beer" confusion. May not be grammatically correct but I think it's still more reasonable...
Would it be fair to say those same individuals could look for areas were there are gaps in technology (did that whole business to business every quite work out yet) and come up with new ideas and innovate to fill those gaps that would trigger more work in country verses outsourcing the existing products (with minor upgrades) on more of the same old thing?
In the end, outsourcing is a way of cutting costs and/or gaining value (either added efficiency or improved quality). To avoid that, it becomes necessary to either be willing to work for less, or to find a way to become a more valuable asset (I hate being referred to as an asset, but there you have it).
I'm suprised no one mentioned that Googlezon.com is already up...
Although not sure about the authenticity of it.
I don't suppose this could be a place for PKI type of trust model could it?
How does this avoid duplicates?
I could see where as with DNS you have POC information for the admin type person for this type of configuration you would need more unique information about the indivudal like birthday (time included if possible), birth location, and maybe even some bioinformatic type of information (finger prints, retna scans, etc).
Maybe they should use RFID tags for this type of things kept with each individual. The RFID tage would go with the individual, and you would need a means of retransmitting the id to a proxy type component to allow for movement and new home locations.
I'm sure this is one of those things that I need to RTFA some more...
What criteria are used to dermine that climate is changing? Isn't it relative? Is it cyclical?
Hmmm...Problem Solving mode kicks in:
* Is the climate changing ?
** If climate is changing, is it man made?
*** Is it caused by automobiles?
*** Is it caused by something else?
** If climate is changing, is it non-man made?
*** Is it caused by volcanos?
*** Is it caused by cosmic rays / space phenomenon?
*** Is it caused by cows farting?
*** Is it caused by something else?
Turning off problem solving mode...we now return to previous chain of though...
--
This story makes me think of some old stories like the one about data stats for temperatures based on ships logs which refers to CLWOC's work. Or about the
Corals Adapting to Global Warming.
Just random observations...
With Time Warner - AOL, I would have figured with a little support, guidances, and push from AOL to push music delivery services to take advantage of WinAmp as the player, this should have been a perfect venture, but I guess as was stated, the independent nature of the WinAmp folks didn't seem to quite feel the same way. And with so many links to M$, this also may have been a factor in AOLs mind.
Okay...I'm not completely up in the inner workings of GRID computing, but is the premise the same as those used in the past for other distributed environments such as DCE (Distributed Computing Environment ) or CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture)?
My experience with DCE at least was that it was a distributed environment that took a lot of coordination between systems, which unfortunately was not done very well in the environment I'm familiar with. As a result of this it did not prove robust enough for the systems it was used for. It had some possibilities, but if not done properly, can be a major confusing thing to deal with.
With CORBA, as I understand it (I've never directly worked with CORBA), it is suppose to represent similar services in a more Object Oriented way and easier to program with. Not an expert, but I believe this is ingrained into Java world along with other RMI type interfaces or peer to peer intefaces (like JXTA).
With these types of services, both DCE and CORBA offer distributed network services such as directory services, distributed file systems, and security services on hetrogenious environements. The interfaces are defined (see IDL) and compiled in to stubs for client/server services to develope and use on any compatible platform.
How is GRID different from these methods?
For a given issue, people tend to be advocates for a specific point of view. This advocacy represents a bias in favor of a specific point of view in favor or against a view. As such that person will tend to avoid looking at things from another side. If someone heavily believes in this, it is more difficult for them to consider another perspective.
If a die hard Conservative Republican expresses a view, they are not as likely to accept views from Liberal Democrates and if anything act defensive against anything someone says. While if that some Republican is talking at an National Rifle Association Anti-Abortion Rally, he would be preaching to the choir as the case may be.
If you go into a conversation realizing these views a head of time, it is possible to realize how to address the conversation.
Okay...I'm curious...for the Slashdot - Politics section, is there any way to have a user preference indicating there political bias?
I am interested in some idea as to how much a persons bias effects there posts. I think peoples beliefs in a specific item can add some karma or weight to a specific article. If they respond one way to a article about a candidate, then they may be saying it just because they are a Democrat or a Republican supporter. If an opposing opinon says something against the opposed, there may be less credibility because they are saying it just because they support the opposition.
Maybe you could have some issue criteria (how do you feel about death penalty, how do you feel about abortion, how do you feel about certain types of drug use, etc) which can help establish your polticial bias settings. I could see this almost like a Ok Cupid or related matching site type of meta data.
Much of this is interesting, but I'm still not convinced..
I believe a majority of the questions were slightly directed questions...like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" types of questions.
Why are so many of the questions "To Be Released"?
Indications are that "people without computers" are provided with one to take the test while people without are allowed to take it with their own computers. This kind of gets me wondering about what types of people (how informed on the issues were they) they asked the survey.
I think in general the questions are also weighted based on known information. For example, questions regarding Iraq having WMD BEFORE the war, suprisingly the Kerry supports all magically believed they didn't have it prior to the war even though Kerry himself before the war believed they did. Something doesn't match up there.
On the question where they were asked if Bush had known before there were no WMD would he still have gone? Most Bush supporters believed he wouldn't while Most Kerry supporters believed he would have.
Although they are not massive stockpiles of WMD, WMD were found in the form of Sarrin shells. The case could be made that these are old prewar shells, but they still existed and weren't suppose to exist.
Also the recent reports on Iraq indicates they still have thousands of files to review (and translated), in which more details could still exist.
Hind site is twenty twenty..
I think in the end most people believe how they believe and no force in the world can change them.
I believe the issue then was (and to the best of my knowledge still is) that Kerry said leaders were supporting him, but he would never name names of who those leaders are.
In these cases, actual confirmed "support" or "non-support" are actually provided.
Judging by the record personal debt numbers, I'd say it's the credit card companies.
That's true, that could be personal spending is including more credit debt, but you can't say that all of it is. That still doesn't detract from the fact that people are buying things. Which means (hopefully) businesses will start doing what they need to continue to grow including hiring more people.
But, the minimum wage itself isn't the problem. The problem is that the vast majority of the jobs being created are the kind of unskilled jobs that typically pay minimum wage.
No, you can't really directly dictate what kinds of jobs get created, but you can wield significant influence by providing incentives for companies to keep those jobs in this country,
and to hire citizens over H-1Bs (or equivalent).
I think the H-1Bs issue is valid, although the case could be made that many of those that are hired (not all) are more driven to do well. But then that goes to another social issue I think that kids now a days are more interested in pop culture (movies, music, video games) and less interested in pushing innovation. I think that's the major missing thing in our countries educational system.
As far as outsourcing, it's not as significant matters as often made out to be. Plus many of the current "tax break for US-based multinational corporations to locate operations overseas" policies in place were put in place prior to the current administration.
Do you have a business degree? You certainly seem to think like an MBA, and sadly I don't consider that a compliment.
No I don't have a business degree or a MBA...
I am thinking about taking some business classes if I ever decide to start my own business or to improve my chances in the future beyond what my computer degrees can provide currently...
There are other options, like finding ways to make your existing employees happier, which has been proven time and again to make them more productive. Hint: this isn't achieved by treating all your employees like faceless cags in the machine which can simply be hot-swapped at will.
Agreed, but once again, I think that's a corporate matter, not a presidential or legislative matter.
I believe one of the ways business in general can do better is to do items such as that. One of the airliners (heard a story on NPR - think it was Market Place) was finding some cost savings by listening to suggestions made by the workers.
Isn't this a relative thing as far as job production goes?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
By this I mean, if you take job stats from any two points in time, you can easily make a case either way. If you take numbers during the depression as a job related stat and during a large job growth period like during WWII with the public works and war effort jobs being in play, then growth stats can be somewhat misleading a bit.
You can make the case right now that unemployment rates are lower now then during Clintons reelection bid.
Fear in the business world (due to terrorism, oil prices, or avoidance of another dot-com bust) has made many business reluctant to invest like the need to. Overcoming that investment fear is starting to occur which will hopefully drive the economy even more.
Changing the policies midway could add more variables to have to contend with with another few years before new policies can effect the economy. Or the next administration may reap the benefits of it.
(3) globalization
(3) is only partially independent, and probably the area in which the administration has the greatest influence,
Many of the free-trade agreements did start during prior adminstrations so some of that is not solely the current administrations doing, although they are making new free-trade agreements which th
If people are spending on retail items, that must mean someone is making money.
.
I asked before, but outside of minimum wage increases, how can you set the job wages? I agree that some increase in minimum wage would probably be good, but then you have to realize doing so means an additional cost to a corporation to account for. The only way to account for it is to
(1) increase revenue which can be accounted for by:
(a) make new products (which is also a supply and demand sort of thing as well - have to make something people want)
(b) find additional investment (investors, government contracts, etc)
(2) cut costs which can be accounted for by
(a) make improvements in the production chains
(b) hiring cheaper employees (including outsouring)
(c) firing employees
Isn't this a relative thing as far as job production goes? Since job losses due to
(1) dot-com bust
(2) 9/11
(3) globalization
(4) corporate corruption
were all independent of the current administration; being able to overcome all these and avoid a depression is an accomplishment in and of itself.
And for that matter, the previous administration had the benefits of the dot-com boom (prior to the bust) where taxes from the boomers added more into the system allow for more government spending with less risk of deficits to be accounted for (if you have more money to spend, you don't have to borrow money)
It's not always as easy as it may seem to be.
You do realize this is getting off topic like I asked not to get into right???
A president vetos a bill if he disagrees with parts of the bill. If he has a friendly congress, what are the chances of the congress providing him something he disagrees with? That's why he hasn't veto'd anything.
Without the excessive spending (and deficit) the US (and a good part of the world) would be in a depression following 9/11 and related financial problems (dot-com bust). You have heard the saying, "to make money, you have to spend money."
If we didn't deficit spend, we would have to find some other way to provide the money. That would involve cutting additional spending (which of course then he would get blamed for when someone does get some government provided intitlement) or finding another source of income (additional taxes).
As far as deficits go, Bush is already starting to reduce spending, thanks in part to gains in the system allow additional tax revenue to be gained.
I say again...at the time we went to war...evidence at the time indicated there were WMD (evidence presummed to be accurate at the time - and yes we all know the evidence is wrong). All our allies also agreed with this. Decisions on this were a gamble.
If we had not done so and WMD had been present, can you guarantee that they wouldn't be used against the US or any of its allies?
Indications on recent investigations indicate Saddam was stealing from the UN Oil for Food program for self interest and for eventual weapon programs such as looking into gaining missle technology from N. Korea. Does that sound like someone with no plans for agressive intentions?
Bush was just continuing actions based on previous administration.
Not to mention the 17 UN resolutions against Iraq prior. If no one does anything about it...then he would have just continue to work the system in his favor.
To quote from Spider man or Superman or one of those comics..."With great power, comes great responsibility" The rest of the world has that responsibility too. If no one follows up on it...then why even make the UN resolutions or even have the UN.
EB:I acknowledge that many of those are lower paying jobs, but you can't blame Bush for what types of jobs are created entirely.
PC:I see. You can't blame him for it, but you can attribute it to him? What the hell are you smoking? Make up your mind.
If you were president, how would you make a company hire a specific type of high payed job?
If you were a corporate CEO, how would you make your company cost efficient and solvent?
As much as everyone likes to think Bush has lots of contacts in the corporate world (I agree he probably does have some contact)...what makes you think he can dictate how a company operates? If a company wants to hire low paying employees, how can Bush do anything about that?
He could add additional oversite to the company (which to a degree already exists with the SEC and many other organizations) which then means to meet oversite requirements the company has to spend more money with buracracy ensuring every i is dotted and every t is crosses. Whic means lease money to pay IT folks. That may add some burecratic jobs to the mix, but it adds nothing to the quality or effectiveness of the company or its product.
He can limit job exports, but then the companies in country have to find other ways to improve efficiency and cost to be a health company. Otherwise, you end up with a business plan similar to those of the dot-com bust era. Which ended so well.
EB:I will grant that there was a large loss of jobs early in his presidency which has a tendancy to screw the job numbers a lot, but much of that is due to "the dot com bust" which came out of the Clinton era
PC:Oh please. We all worked in the industry. We all know why the bubble burst. It's because it was a fucking bubble and investors were insane for about 4 years. Clinton had nothing to do with it. We caused it with our own hype and "glory."
I said Clinton era because it started at the end of Clinton's administration. I'm not implying that Clinton was directly responsible for the dot-com bust.
Our countries was at the start of a recession at the end of the Clinton administration.
That's like saying, "hey mr company president, I'm turning over control of the company, oh and by the way, I left you with a budget short fall of 100 million dollars. You get to fix it." To get out of that dept, you have to overcome a lot of problems. From this perspective, I think Bush has done quite well under the circumstances given him.
Cheers.
Discipline and problem solving are the 2 biggest problems in education today.
Check out the Thinker's Toolkit - 14 Powerful Techniques for Problem Solving by Morgan Jones. He makes the same observation about problem solving skills in schools as well.
You probably have some intelligent Republican friends. Why are so many of them still voting for him? I never, ever expected such a bad president to have such strong support for re-election.
It was interesting when Bush mentioned Howard being re-elected in Australia. He failed to mention that he only won because Australia's economy is booming. If its economy hadn't been, he probably would have lost by a large margin for getting involved in the war in Iraq (despite suffering 0 casualties and significantly lower costs than the US).
Just curious...why do you consider him a "bad president"?
Recent retail sales boosted investor confidence in the economy. Is that not "good"?
Over 1.9 million jobs have been created since August 2003 with 13 straight months of job gains. Is that considered "bad"?
I acknowledge that many of those are lower paying jobs, but you can't blame Bush for what types of jobs are created entirely. That is dependent upon the innovation and creative of the companies that are responsible for making the jobs.
There is always the idea of making a company that produces something that everyone will want, you can hire people to produce it, and earn money at the same time. If not looking to start your own business, then you have to depend upon what is there.
I will grant that there was a large loss of jobs early in his presidency which has a tendancy to screw the job numbers a lot, but much of that is due to "the dot com bust" which came out of the Clinton era, and with 9/11 we lost an estimated 1 million jobs as a result of that. So eveyone may say he is doing bad, but if he hadn't done what he did (tax-cuts, deficit spend), we would likely be in a depression similar to that prior to World War II.
Please let's not stray off into an "Iraq War was a mistake argument" (based on intel prior to the war, most believed at the time it was a good decision - hind site is always 20-20).
My wife has a Ph.D. in Computational Linguistics, and has been unemployed for 3 years. The job market has been so bad that she has pretty much given up even looking.
That is one of the problems...the more educated you become, the harder it is to find jobs that will (1) pay you what you are worth or (2) willing to hire you when they can get two lesser individuals for the same amount or (3) hire H-1B employees who are willing to work for less.
I am not hiring anyone, but I'm just curious...are you willing to move to another state or you wanting to stay in the same location? That limitation can often limit your job options as well.
I believe I heard the some government agencies are looking for Computational Linguistics type of development (like hand held translation devices).
I can't believe Bush thinks "get a job" is an economic policy, which is why my wife and I are voting for Kerry this year.
So is Bush suppose to hire every individual that's out of work? Some jobs can come from the government side, but not all. If so, then not only would the government explode, but so would the deficet more than it already is already.
And how will Kerry do any better? By spending to make more jobs expanding the deficet, increase taxes, or take from other programs (health care, social security, environmental, etc)?
Bush pushes to create an environment where job production is available, but none of the corporations are looking to do so as much as they like due to fears in the environment (due to high oil prices, terror fears, etc).
Plus with improvements in efficiency and technologies, the need for as many workers is less as well (darn advancements).
In the end, I think it's up to the corporations to provide jobs. But then that's a no go also since we can't give incentives to corporations since that is seen as catering to the corporate rich folks. I don't see an answer that will make everyone happy.
Don't forget, that although some unethical corporations may try to make more money for themselves (I like to think the SEC can monitor some of this unethical behavior a little better now a days), others do work to create more products and jobs.
Not to mention as a consumer of products, I like a cheaper computer laptop or MP3 player or cell phone which can only occur when the production of such products is low in cost which requires more efficiency, cheaper expences (employees, resources used to produce the product, etc).
I know there is the threat of outsourcing the jobs, but from what you indicated, your wives skills would be valuable in the current "outsourcing" environment (i.e. producing multilingual technologies to work with other countries).
People are also dogging "No Child Left Behind", but the hope of this is to improve the intellict of our youth in hopes that they will provide new innovation and new avenues where we can excel and have (at least for a time) an advantage over other countries for a given innovation, thus allowing us to hire people locally who are aware of these innovations. If the education causes them to work harder, it will hopefully make them smarter and not spend all there time looking to have fun (watch TV, play games, etc) not innovate and make the education worth something.
Okay..I've rambled long enough...
I think you misspoke regarding slaves representing 3/5th...might find this link interesting. The short of it is, the 3/5th representation was to help the North to avoid the South from having the populous vote due to the larger number of slaves being considered in respect to taxation.
Regarding your second items...If a majority of the distribution of the population occurs in a minority of the region (majority of the population in New York, California, etc), with those regional people having a common believe (whether it be on the environment, on transportation, on welfare, etc), that does nothing for those in the other regions without the same criteria. Educations is probably a good one. If you distribute education money based on population, then all the money would go to the big cities and the small towns and lesser populated states would continue to have a failing education system for lack of funding..
I'm sure this thread is stale and will never get answered but I will comment anyway
Very well said. With regards to this:
Kerry voted to go to Iraqi. it can't be said it's alright for Kerry to say he was mislead and not give the president the same creedance.
I and the 9-11 commission would disagree....
Can you be more specific on what specifically would disagree with you and the 9/11 commission?
I do agree that as far as ultimate goals for the Iraq war Bush and Kerry's positions are quite similar with the main impetus from Kerry being "I can do better." Consequently, I would point out the errors in judgement as found by the commission as well as current members of the administration's support of Sadam Hussein in the past (Ah Hem, Rumsfeld, chemical weapons, gassing of the Kurds and Iranian's anyone)
A lot of that is a matter of context...at the time, the Iraqi's and the Iranians were at war at the time. The Iranian's were responsible for the hostage in Beruit at that time. As such the US was more likely to deal with the Iraqi's then the Iranians.
and lack of ability to significantly cripple Osama's network in defense of this assumption.
Depends upon your definition ofcripple the network. They've taken out a large faction..regretfully due to buracracy failing to allow jobs to be created in the region more are replacing those that are taken out.
Than I would point out Bush's failure in domestic areas such as economy,
This is dependent upon your perspective. Bush started his administration in the light of an economic down turn at the tail end of the Clinton administration (including the Dot Com Bubble Bust) and when 9/11 occur, that added an additional 1 million people out of work. Relative to those perspectives, getting unemployment to the level it is is quite impressive.
Globalization is hurting some with outsourcing of jobs, but this is not as grave as many make it out to be. The alternative of course is to only have jobs locally while the rest of the world continues in poverty...which is better.
human rights,
Can you be specific?
If your concerned about the Patriot Act, see currently Supreme Court rulings about this.
Although it does not justify it, during times of war, military people do things which are terrible, but the alternative is to let the enemy do the same or worse things unhindered.. Shall we open our airports and let anyone drive a plane into any building they want? Maybe blow something up?
benefits cuts to soldiers,
I am not in favor of that, but then barring more taxes, how do you raise that and not add even more to the deficit which I'm sure everyone loves to point out.
tax breaks for the rich,
I'm not necessarily in favor of this either. If the rich reinvest that money back into businesses, then it's alright, but barring any additional oversite, it's hard to ensure that happens.
quelching of the very principle of capitalism our country's economy is based on with no bid/uncontested contracts awarded to Haliburton,
The shere size of such a contract can limit the number of business capable of doing such work for the military. In addition to that, you have to take into account the speed at which they need to have things done. The miltary needs to feed the troops immediately. Haliburton has provided these services in the past in such situations. Finding others that can do the same under the requirements is uncertain. Also as has been seen when all the required oversite starts being applied, then you get situations where you have plenty of money but they won't release the money until the take care of all the paperwork and bueracracy.
corporate welfare thinly veiled as an AID's relief package by writing in that no drugs can be generic,
I don't favor the lack of ability to have generics nor ruling out other countries
Okay...so if you were planning on talking about the war in Allawi's country to a foreign audience not in your native tongue what words would you use? If you are trying to present a specific thought or idea and not use similar words for a common idea...how would you do it?
I challenge you to talk about America's current political parties without using terms like Democrate, Republican, Green Party, Liberel, Conservative, etc and see if you can then translate that into another language and see if the message is the same.