...everything looks like it should be done in flash. That's assuming you hit yourself in the head with the hammer first. Ah.... Macromedia. The company that made "skip intro" such a familiar phrase. I come not to curse it, but to praise it.
Flash is great for cartoons. It's great for little games and gimmicks on your site. That's it. End of story.
If I want cross platform development, I'll use something I can commit to: Java, C if it's applicable, C# if it turns out that I have to.
If Macromedia wants to compete with Java, great. Another VM/language combo with multimedia capability is welcome. That doesn't mean I'm going to use it instead of HTML--just like I wouldn't try to use Java in place of HTML.
I realize that as a corporation, they have a duty to shareholders to try and expand into as many markets as possible. Why, if it were possible to crack nuts with Flash they would be remiss in their duty to shareholders if they didn't tout that.
That doesn't mean I have to buy it. Web developers that do are just asking to have their site ignored. If a page takes more than a few seconds to load, and there is an alternative (and there usually is) I hit "back".
I dare ya to walk into the next room and ask that attractive young AA if her computer has a Trojan.
In the common vernacular, "virus" has become the superclass for all these subclasses that you describe. Maybe/. should nitpick and choose the appropriate subclass, but I take no offense if they don't. However, these people that were correcting/. and saying it was a worm apparently deserve to be corrected by you.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's on my computer, and I don't want it there, it's a "virus". Now, if I were at a technical conference discussing these things then I'd take pains to be accurate.
Many people say that American beer is watery. This is mainly because of a misperception of what 'watery' is.
Also, the idea of endowing inamimate objects such as software with rights is ridiculous. What next? Rocks? Trees? People for the Ethical Treatement of Dustballs?
Not only is the GPL not free, but because it contaminates every derivative work, it is a perpetual license that causes its restrictions to extend indefinitely.
How is public domain communistic? Does this mean that my math teacher was a communist because she taught me 2+2 and didn't claim any rights to my future use of this knowledge?
When works return to the public domain, they can be recycled and used under any license. When work enters the GPL, it may never return.
We are witnessing the 1st stage of a classical Liberal elitist plot, similar to the introduction of abortion. When the GPL shuts other software out of the market, we will see a general slowdown of progress in the software market. This will be followed by cries for more government funding of GPL'd software, the passage of laws making it illegal to write proprietary software, and repression every bit as extreme as RMS's "right to read fiction". Think "KNOCK KNOCK. We're here to liberate your source for the glorious people's revolution!" and people furtively agreeing to non-disclosure in back rooms when their business needs to get something done but can't wait for the Ministry of Software to do it.
This scenario, as far fetched as it seems, will play out. It may take 50 more years but it will happen.
I expect every true lover of freedom to rise up and violate the GPL when the time is right.
Why, oh why, would anybody want to use a debit card? If you've got a credit card and even a thimble full of discipline, you get a free loan to the end of the month. For small cash purchases you can carry currency that you know is always going to "work". I never saw a $20 bill fail because of a technical malfunction.
With a debit card, you have to deposit money in a non interest-bearing account.
The only reason I can think of why you would want to do this is because you are paranoid about getting robbed of your cash. That's letting the criminals win as far as I'm concerned.
In either case, there is a 'monopoly' in GCC only because nobody cares to change that
Have you asked anybody how they feel about gcc, or did you just pull that out of thin air? I have seen people complain about gcc on more than one occasion, for its poor optimization and poor maintainability.
If they did, the GPL would allow them to do so almost immediately. With enough backing -- social or corporate -- the actual monopoly would not exist for long.
The very nature of GPL'd software is that there is a weak incentive for people to do that. The "enough backing" isn't going to materialize. The monopoly *is* actual and it *has* existed for long.
Microsoft's monopoly isn't even similar.
Oh but they are very similar. MS bundles things into the operating system and forces OEMs to include Windows. You have to buy Windows whether you like it or not. IBM and other companies take money from customers and use part of it to support GPL'd software. Many of their customers probably don't like the GPL, but companies don't have checkboxes for "please don't use proceeds from my purchase to promote the Free Software movement". The Free Software movement uses a more complicated maze than MS, but it's the same rat and the same cheese.
Numbers 1,3, and 4 don't address the FSF's monopoly since the FSF still holds the copyright. Number 2 is illegal under the GPL.
Even RMS admits that he is using a government granted monopoly (copyright) for the purpose of subverting said government grants.
However in doing so he creates what is essentially a monolithic entity which could be called "GPL Incorporated" with all the characteristrics of MSFT. It just uses a different business model. This is not an analogy. It's a fact.
I fear there are too many people like you, and not enough like Washington, Jefferson, Adams...
So, you dump all the CD-ROMs in the harbor. Then what? I ask only one thing: That the Revolution be delayed until men and women with as much character and vision as our founding fathers emerge to oversee it.
I dare say that if such men and women exist in this country today, there may be no need for revolution at all.
In your voice, and in many others, I hear the sound of those who know how to destroy. Where are those who know how to create? For now, most of them are either indifferent or on the side of the IP corporations of which you speak. Why? Because their good exceeds their evil. Only when their evil exceeds their good will revolution be justified. If you act in haste, you'll just end up like the Weathermen.
However, I don't think a revolution is likely anyway. Americans have a low tolerance for BS when it really matters. Look at what happened with Vietnam. Now there was something that mattered, and people did something about it. It took time, but protest and the opinion of the people eventually worked.
Right now, Joe Sixpack is on MS's side. When Joe Sixpack starts hurting, when his sons start dying, when he gets evicted or forclosed, when *everybody* knows somebody who had the FBI pay a visit... That's when they'll start marching, and if history is really our guide there will be a small number of deaths back home and some neighborhoods will burn, but the country will *not* have a revolution anything like 1776.
The very *problem* with monopolies is that they interefere with markets, and stop us from receiving the benefits of the market.
You're right. So, what should we do about gcc? I mean, this thing pretty much has a lock on the free compiler market for *NIX systems doesn't it? Certainly its market share is greater than MSFT's share of PC desktops. It's owned by a non-profit. Is there any precedent for breaking up a non-profit monopoly? I defy anyone who will try to tell me that a non-profit monopoly is harmless.
I think this came up before. Back then, I proposed re-licensing the gcc code under several different licenses, including proprietary ones. I think for that to work, we'd also have to break up the FSF into several different orgs.
How about an ammendment requiring congress to submit all bills to SCOTUS for a non-binding judicial review? The "non-binding" would mean that the law could still be declared unconstitutional at some later date. The purpose of the review would simply be to spot obvious issues. Making it non-binding would allow the court to just skim it for keywords and stuff. They could have clerks or other lower officials hired by SCOTUS do this job. Any bill failing review would be illegal to pass.
If congresspeople or the president knowingly pass unconstitutional legislation, I believe they should be impeached. That's right, yours truly, registered Republican, would support impeaching GWB if he signs Campaign Finance Reform. So would a lot of others. I hope he realizes that. The hard part would be proving that they know it's unconstitutional. That's why a judicial review would be needed.
Then again, IANAL or Constitution expert. There could be unforseen consequences of having the SCOTUS involved in legislation that hasn't passed yet. In particular, the court would become more politicized, as if it isn't already. Even as we speak, congress is busy slandering and hog-tying Bush's nominees for this very reason.
As for the USA being #1, let me offer several observations.
1. Many of the USA incidents were artists feeling "oppressed" because the owner of a private space refused to show their work. What would it say about censorship in the USA if owners of private spaces were compelled to show works they did not like? Isn't my blank wall or un-defiled Madonna also freedom of expression? Now, if the gallery is public it's a different story, but it's still not censorship. After all, you take a government hand-out, you play by the governments rules. True censorhip is when the government refuses to allow you to publish that which you are capable of publishing yourself, or takes your money to support views opposite yours. So, why isn't the public school system listed as a form of censorship? I takes money from Christians, and refuses to allow the preaching of Christianity in the school. Anybody who opposes censorhip must support vouchers for this very reason.
2. Reports for countries that are genuinly oppressive cite fewer incidents because the censorship is against broad classes of speech. For example "no religion". This type of censorship is far more damaging than the single localized incidents cited in the USA. If you took all the USA reports on libraries and simply wrote a brief "Libraries are often pressured by community groups over sexual material" the result would be "people who really want it use their own Internet connection". There would be a lot fewer incidents in the USA category.
3. Reports from other countries are harder to obtain. Duh! They're censored. This also proves the point
4. People in other countries won't even try some of the things that people do in the USA. The flag thing is a great example. The penalty for desecrating the flag in some of these other countries is probably death. No wonder nobody has tried such "art" over there.
Distilling things down to the number of reports and saying the USA has the most is unscientific to say the least.
I'm not sure how we as Americans can even sleep at night when we have someone with the sophistication of a 4th grader running our country (Duuuhhh-bya [yahoo.com]).
The link is to a picture of GWB stumbling. Mr. Krout, you are one impressive man! I have never had the good fortune to correspond with someone who has not stumbled, tripped, or fallen since the 4th grade. Either that, or you are just another hypocritical Bush-basher. Please don't tell me that. We all need heroes, and from this point on you are my hero: THE MAN WHO NEVER STUMBLES. Have you talked with any of the major comics publishers yet?
I can just think of all kinds of great adventures: EK dukes it out with bad guys on the high steel, EK walks into the breakers to rescue a child who went too far, EK gets pulled over with 1.8 BAC and gets off scott free on the dexterity test, EK speaks to all the Chinese who are lucky enough to understand English and who happened to tune in at the right time so they could explain to the others that "some stuff is missing". I'm sure you can think of many more stories for the...
AMAZING ADVENTURES OF ERIC KROUT The man who never stumbles
...I haven't worn a jacket for several years now. Of course, I live in Northern VA, near Washington DC which doesn't really qualify as the frigid north. This winter has been rather warm, but I didn't wear a jacket last year when we had a good solid month of cold in December (ice on the canal was thick enough to skate). How do I do it?
Well, first of all, I find that I just don't spend that much time walking from the car to the inside. If you get that cold walking outside for a few minutes, you are a wimp. There is simply no other way to put it.
Well you say, what about when you are doing non-wimpy things like hiking along the banks of the semi-frozen Potomac?
In situations like that, I layer. Sometimes as much as 5 or 6 layers. More often than not, I end up pealing them off as the physical activity causes body temp to increase. In an extreme situation (e.g., hiking up the Blue Ridge) body temperature increases to the point where I have gone shirtless in 20 degree weather just for the thrill of it. You have to be doing heavy aerobic climbing for that to be comfortable though. No, I'm not overweight either. It is essential to pack several T-shirts and change the innermost layer if you are going to rest during such an outing. Otherwise the moisture can really get to you.
My only special equipment for dealing with the cold is a warm cotton hat to cover my ears, and gloves. That takes care of most of the body heat loss.
I can see how something like that jacket would be useful in Minessota, especially if you did a lot of driving and were concerned about getting stranded in the middle of a blizzard.
For me though, I've found that most special Winter clothing is something I can do without. More Winters like this one, and I may not even have to endure much discomfort to save a few bucks.
Let's compare an hour listening to the radio to see what's new and then spending $20-$30 on CDs to the alternative:
Going out to see 10 different artists, spending 3 hours on Friday for 10 weekends, spending money for the cover, transportation, drinks, food, and the opportunity cost of the time you spend. Then after all that, you realize that all except 2 or 3 of the artists were not to your liking.
Even if you didn't go to shows and relied on free MP3s traded through the 'net you'd still have to do a lot more filtering.
Here is a shocking reality that many Slashdot folks just can't seem to get through their heads: The industry exists as it does because it provides the best solution for most people. That doesn't mean it provides the best solution for your tight little demographic, but that's to be expected--few systems ever manage to achieve that.
If you think you can provide a better alternative, you are free to do so. If a better idea exists, it will spring from the freedom of people to persue such ideas. If you don't believe me, remember what a shocker MTV was to radio, what a shocker Punk was to Disco. And guess what, the "Disco Mafia" was powerless to stop punk, just like there is nothing (except common sense) to stop you from voting Libertarian. So don't feed me that crap about the music industry being controlled by the Mafia. The Mafia couldn't do much about the Columbian drug cartels, and they won't be able to do much if a truly better business model comes along.
I was going to mention this but you beat me to it. Google for "passenger pigeon". They once blackened the skies in the US. I've heard that they became extinct for this very reason.
Or, to put it more succinctly, you believe in "constructive engagement". I don't have too many problems with the US handling things that way. However, it would be nice if we were more consistent about it. I'm referring to Cuba. Why can't we do constructive engagement there?
As for Chinese doing things gradually, I think you are painting a rosy picture. China will have violence if they are not careful. The other day I was reading an article about them suppressing attempts by workers to organize a union in a formerly state owned plant. I turned to my father and said "You know, if the Chinese aren't careful, they're going to have a Communist revolution on their hands."
Good grief you're right. I guess then we'll just have to use smaller bombs, and haul the rubble to large barges that will dump it into the Marianas trench. This should provide plenty of work for Indians and Chinese if there is an economic slowdown.
p.s., In case some of you out there on/. don't realize it, I'm joking!!! I would hate to see the Himalayas, or any mountain chain dismantled. Mountain-top mining in nearby West Virginia is bad enough. Let's not do that anyplace else.
If global warming ever does get to be a real problem, I think we could probably erect giant translucent screens in space. Frankly, I don't think it will ever come to that.
...did their model account for the reduced angular moment when ice caps in Greenland and Antartica melt off and slide into the ocean? Some of that ice is 2 miles thick, so it should make a difference. If this really becomes a problem, we can vaporize the Himalayas with hydrogen bombs. Problem solved.
21% is very few compared to the 69% figure the other poster cited. In 1972, 38% voted for McGovern! There is always going to be a core of disatisfaction, and that 21% probably represents that core. But I have to confess, I haven't convincingly proved my thesis: That the increasing disatisfaction with US health care in the 1990's is due to the Clinton's use of the bully pulpit and additional media attention.
In order to prove that, I need two things: 1. A normalized measure of satisfaction from 1980 to the present. In other words, the same poll questions, and unbiased questions from an unbiased source (tough to find). The phrasing of poll questions is a black art too. You can manipulate surveys quite handily based on the way you ask the questions. 2. An unbiased measure of success on the part of our health care industry, and a measure of it from 1980 to the present. What represents success? Mortality broken down by age group perhaps? But then you can be sick for a long time without dying, so that's not so great either. Life expectancy may not be good either--how is it computed? They can't actually predict when you are going to die.
Another interesting survey might be TV-watchers vs. non TV-watchers. I wager the TV watchers have much more negative opinions about health care, even if you adjust for factors such as IQ and age.
It's a non-trivial exercise I don't have time to perform before this Slashdot article becomes irrelevant, but it would be an interesting study and if I can find the time for it I'll post it on TrulyFree.Net somewhere.
Your other links died in my browser, so I'll address the first one, which is weak on 2 points: 1. It's from an advocacy group. 2. It's a 1997 survey, well into the era of media hype surrounding health issues, which was the subject of my post. What fundamental changes have taken place in our heath care system since this poll (see below) was taken? Was the health care system in 1978 more or less socialized?
Dang it./. won't let me post the raw data because it thinks it's lame. Go to http://www.irss.unc.edu/cgi-bin/POLL/search.all.cg i?w1=Harris%20study%20no.%20S2754 and download the study. Keyword for heath care and you will find a 1978 study that asked:
How do you think health care in the U.S.A. compares with
health care in other major industrial countries like England, Germany,
Sweden, or France? Do you think it is better, worse, or about the same?
Responses:
Better in the U.S.A./Worse in the U.S.A./About the same/Not
sure
44.40% Better in the U S A
21.00% Worse in the U S A
18.40% About the same
16.20% Not sure
It's no problem at all if a thin layer of paint burns away to reveal the reflective surface only when necessary.
This is all deja vu from the SDI discussion we had on/. a while back. There are effective defenses against this stuff, they just haven't been developed yet because the offense is still a baby.
Slashdot Mirror
...everything looks like it should be done in flash. That's assuming you hit yourself in the head with the hammer first. Ah.... Macromedia. The company that made "skip intro" such a familiar phrase. I come not to curse it, but to praise it.
Flash is great for cartoons. It's great for little games and gimmicks on your site. That's it. End of story.
If I want cross platform development, I'll use something I can commit to: Java, C if it's applicable, C# if it turns out that I have to.
If Macromedia wants to compete with Java, great. Another VM/language combo with multimedia capability is welcome. That doesn't mean I'm going to use it instead of HTML--just like I wouldn't try to use Java in place of HTML.
I realize that as a corporation, they have a duty to shareholders to try and expand into as many markets as possible. Why, if it were possible to crack nuts with Flash they would be remiss in their duty to shareholders if they didn't tout that.
That doesn't mean I have to buy it. Web developers that do are just asking to have their site ignored. If a page takes more than a few seconds to load, and there is an alternative (and there usually is) I hit "back".
I dare ya to walk into the next room and ask that attractive young AA if her computer has a Trojan.
In the common vernacular, "virus" has become the superclass for all these subclasses that you describe. Maybe /. should nitpick and choose the appropriate subclass, but I take no offense if they don't. However, these people that were correcting /. and saying it was a worm apparently deserve to be corrected by you.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's on my computer, and I don't want it there, it's a "virus". Now, if I were at a technical conference discussing these things then I'd take pains to be accurate.
View a few IRC logs etc. to get a feel for how "Dick" seems to view newbies and/or non-paying customers
Now there's a business model I hadn't considered: Give the product away for free, charge people to be nice to them.
And God killed it.
Many people say that American beer is watery. This is mainly because of a misperception of what 'watery' is.
Also, the idea of endowing inamimate objects such as software with rights is ridiculous. What next? Rocks? Trees? People for the Ethical Treatement of Dustballs?
Not only is the GPL not free, but because it contaminates every derivative work, it is a perpetual license that causes its restrictions to extend indefinitely.
How is public domain communistic? Does this mean that my math teacher was a communist because she taught me 2+2 and didn't claim any rights to my future use of this knowledge?
When works return to the public domain, they can be recycled and used under any license. When work enters the GPL, it may never return.
We are witnessing the 1st stage of a classical Liberal elitist plot, similar to the introduction of abortion. When the GPL shuts other software out of the market, we will see a general slowdown of progress in the software market. This will be followed by cries for more government funding of GPL'd software, the passage of laws making it illegal to write proprietary software, and repression every bit as extreme as RMS's "right to read fiction". Think "KNOCK KNOCK. We're here to liberate your source for the glorious people's revolution!" and people furtively agreeing to non-disclosure in back rooms when their business needs to get something done but can't wait for the Ministry of Software to do it.
This scenario, as far fetched as it seems, will play out. It may take 50 more years but it will happen.
I expect every true lover of freedom to rise up and violate the GPL when the time is right.
Why, oh why, would anybody want to use a debit card? If you've got a credit card and even a thimble full of discipline, you get a free loan to the end of the month. For small cash purchases you can carry currency that you know is always going to "work". I never saw a $20 bill fail because of a technical malfunction.
With a debit card, you have to deposit money in a non interest-bearing account.
The only reason I can think of why you would want to do this is because you are paranoid about getting robbed of your cash. That's letting the criminals win as far as I'm concerned.
In either case, there is a 'monopoly' in GCC only because nobody cares to change that
Have you asked anybody how they feel about gcc, or did you just pull that out of thin air? I have seen people complain about gcc on more than one occasion, for its poor optimization and poor maintainability.
If they did, the GPL would allow them to do so almost immediately. With enough backing -- social or corporate -- the actual monopoly would not exist for long.
The very nature of GPL'd software is that there is a weak incentive for people to do that. The "enough backing" isn't going to materialize. The monopoly *is* actual and it *has* existed for long.
Microsoft's monopoly isn't even similar.
Oh but they are very similar. MS bundles things into the operating system and forces OEMs to include Windows. You have to buy Windows whether you like it or not. IBM and other companies take money from customers and use part of it to support GPL'd software. Many of their customers probably don't like the GPL, but companies don't have checkboxes for "please don't use proceeds from my purchase to promote the Free Software movement". The Free Software movement uses a more complicated maze than MS, but it's the same rat and the same cheese.
Numbers 1,3, and 4 don't address the FSF's monopoly since the FSF still holds the copyright. Number 2 is illegal under the GPL.
Even RMS admits that he is using a government granted monopoly (copyright) for the purpose of subverting said government grants.
However in doing so he creates what is essentially a monolithic entity which could be called "GPL Incorporated" with all the characteristrics of MSFT. It just uses a different business model. This is not an analogy. It's a fact.
I fear there are too many people like you, and not enough like Washington, Jefferson, Adams...
So, you dump all the CD-ROMs in the harbor. Then what? I ask only one thing: That the Revolution be delayed until men and women with as much character and vision as our founding fathers emerge to oversee it.
I dare say that if such men and women exist in this country today, there may be no need for revolution at all.
In your voice, and in many others, I hear the sound of those who know how to destroy. Where are those who know how to create? For now, most of them are either indifferent or on the side of the IP corporations of which you speak. Why? Because their good exceeds their evil. Only when their evil exceeds their good will revolution be justified. If you act in haste, you'll just end up like the Weathermen.
However, I don't think a revolution is likely anyway. Americans have a low tolerance for BS when it really matters. Look at what happened with Vietnam. Now there was something that mattered, and people did something about it. It took time, but protest and the opinion of the people eventually worked.
Right now, Joe Sixpack is on MS's side. When Joe Sixpack starts hurting, when his sons start dying, when he gets evicted or forclosed, when *everybody* knows somebody who had the FBI pay a visit... That's when they'll start marching, and if history is really our guide there will be a small number of deaths back home and some neighborhoods will burn, but the country will *not* have a revolution anything like 1776.
The very *problem* with monopolies is that they interefere with markets, and stop us from receiving the benefits of the market.
You're right. So, what should we do about gcc? I mean, this thing pretty much has a lock on the free compiler market for *NIX systems doesn't it? Certainly its market share is greater than MSFT's share of PC desktops. It's owned by a non-profit. Is there any precedent for breaking up a non-profit monopoly? I defy anyone who will try to tell me that a non-profit monopoly is harmless.
I think this came up before. Back then, I proposed re-licensing the gcc code under several different licenses, including proprietary ones. I think for that to work, we'd also have to break up the FSF into several different orgs.
I bet this was true for Jennifer Lopez.
How about an ammendment requiring congress to submit all bills to SCOTUS for a non-binding judicial review? The "non-binding" would mean that the law could still be declared unconstitutional at some later date. The purpose of the review would simply be to spot obvious issues. Making it non-binding would allow the court to just skim it for keywords and stuff. They could have clerks or other lower officials hired by SCOTUS do this job. Any bill failing review would be illegal to pass.
If congresspeople or the president knowingly pass unconstitutional legislation, I believe they should be impeached. That's right, yours truly, registered Republican, would support impeaching GWB if he signs Campaign Finance Reform. So would a lot of others. I hope he realizes that. The hard part would be proving that they know it's unconstitutional. That's why a judicial review would be needed.
Then again, IANAL or Constitution expert. There could be unforseen consequences of having the SCOTUS involved in legislation that hasn't passed yet. In particular, the court would become more politicized, as if it isn't already. Even as we speak, congress is busy slandering and hog-tying Bush's nominees for this very reason.
...try: http://www.thefileroom.org/FileRoom/documents/Cate goryHomePage.html
It will save you some mindless clicking.
As for the USA being #1, let me offer several observations.
1. Many of the USA incidents were artists feeling "oppressed" because the owner of a private space refused to show their work. What would it say about censorship in the USA if owners of private spaces were compelled to show works they did not like? Isn't my blank wall or un-defiled Madonna also freedom of expression? Now, if the gallery is public it's a different story, but it's still not censorship. After all, you take a government hand-out, you play by the governments rules. True censorhip is when the government refuses to allow you to publish that which you are capable of publishing yourself, or takes your money to support views opposite yours. So, why isn't the public school system listed as a form of censorship? I takes money from Christians, and refuses to allow the preaching of Christianity in the school. Anybody who opposes censorhip must support vouchers for this very reason.
2. Reports for countries that are genuinly oppressive cite fewer incidents because the censorship is against broad classes of speech. For example "no religion". This type of censorship is far more damaging than the single localized incidents cited in the USA. If you took all the USA reports on libraries and simply wrote a brief "Libraries are often pressured by community groups over sexual material" the result would be "people who really want it use their own Internet connection". There would be a lot fewer incidents in the USA category.
3. Reports from other countries are harder to obtain. Duh! They're censored. This also proves the point
4. People in other countries won't even try some of the things that people do in the USA. The flag thing is a great example. The penalty for desecrating the flag in some of these other countries is probably death. No wonder nobody has tried such "art" over there.
Distilling things down to the number of reports and saying the USA has the most is unscientific to say the least.
I'm not sure how we as Americans can even sleep at night when we have someone with the sophistication of a 4th grader running our country (Duuuhhh-bya [yahoo.com]).
The link is to a picture of GWB stumbling. Mr. Krout, you are one impressive man! I have never had the good fortune to correspond with someone who has not stumbled, tripped, or fallen since the 4th grade. Either that, or you are just another hypocritical Bush-basher. Please don't tell me that. We all need heroes, and from this point on you are my hero: THE MAN WHO NEVER STUMBLES. Have you talked with any of the major comics publishers yet?
I can just think of all kinds of great adventures: EK dukes it out with bad guys on the high steel, EK walks into the breakers to rescue a child who went too far, EK gets pulled over with 1.8 BAC and gets off scott free on the dexterity test, EK speaks to all the Chinese who are lucky enough to understand English and who happened to tune in at the right time so they could explain to the others that "some stuff is missing". I'm sure you can think of many more stories for the...
AMAZING ADVENTURES OF ERIC KROUT
The man who never stumbles
Let me guess. The chip's name is Marvin.
...I haven't worn a jacket for several years now. Of course, I live in Northern VA, near Washington DC which doesn't really qualify as the frigid north. This winter has been rather warm, but I didn't wear a jacket last year when we had a good solid month of cold in December (ice on the canal was thick enough to skate). How do I do it?
Well, first of all, I find that I just don't spend that much time walking from the car to the inside. If you get that cold walking outside for a few minutes, you are a wimp. There is simply no other way to put it.
Well you say, what about when you are doing non-wimpy things like hiking along the banks of the semi-frozen Potomac?
In situations like that, I layer. Sometimes as much as 5 or 6 layers. More often than not, I end up pealing them off as the physical activity causes body temp to increase. In an extreme situation (e.g., hiking up the Blue Ridge) body temperature increases to the point where I have gone shirtless in 20 degree weather just for the thrill of it. You have to be doing heavy aerobic climbing for that to be comfortable though. No, I'm not overweight either. It is essential to pack several T-shirts and change the innermost layer if you are going to rest during such an outing. Otherwise the moisture can really get to you.
My only special equipment for dealing with the cold is a warm cotton hat to cover my ears, and gloves. That takes care of most of the body heat loss.
I can see how something like that jacket would be useful in Minessota, especially if you did a lot of driving and were concerned about getting stranded in the middle of a blizzard.
For me though, I've found that most special Winter clothing is something I can do without. More Winters like this one, and I may not even have to endure much discomfort to save a few bucks.
Let's compare an hour listening to the radio to see what's new and then spending $20-$30 on CDs to the alternative:
Going out to see 10 different artists, spending 3 hours on Friday for 10 weekends, spending money for the cover, transportation, drinks, food, and the opportunity cost of the time you spend. Then after all that, you realize that all except 2 or 3 of the artists were not to your liking.
Even if you didn't go to shows and relied on free MP3s traded through the 'net you'd still have to do a lot more filtering.
Here is a shocking reality that many Slashdot folks just can't seem to get through their heads: The industry exists as it does because it provides the best solution for most people. That doesn't mean it provides the best solution for your tight little demographic, but that's to be expected--few systems ever manage to achieve that.
If you think you can provide a better alternative, you are free to do so. If a better idea exists, it will spring from the freedom of people to persue such ideas. If you don't believe me, remember what a shocker MTV was to radio, what a shocker Punk was to Disco. And guess what, the "Disco Mafia" was powerless to stop punk, just like there is nothing (except common sense) to stop you from voting Libertarian. So don't feed me that crap about the music industry being controlled by the Mafia. The Mafia couldn't do much about the Columbian drug cartels, and they won't be able to do much if a truly better business model comes along.
So kwitcherbitchin and roll up your sleaves.
I was going to mention this but you beat me to it. Google for "passenger pigeon". They once blackened the skies in the US. I've heard that they became extinct for this very reason.
Or, to put it more succinctly, you believe in "constructive engagement". I don't have too many problems with the US handling things that way. However, it would be nice if we were more consistent about it. I'm referring to Cuba. Why can't we do constructive engagement there?
As for Chinese doing things gradually, I think you are painting a rosy picture. China will have violence if they are not careful. The other day I was reading an article about them suppressing attempts by workers to organize a union in a formerly state owned plant. I turned to my father and said "You know, if the Chinese aren't careful, they're going to have a Communist revolution on their hands."
...when they come out with another study that says heavy sleepers live longer? You know it will happen. It always does.
Good grief you're right. I guess then we'll just have to use smaller bombs, and haul the rubble to large barges that will dump it into the Marianas trench. This should provide plenty of work for Indians and Chinese if there is an economic slowdown.
p.s., In case some of you out there on /. don't realize it, I'm joking!!! I would hate to see the Himalayas, or any mountain chain dismantled. Mountain-top mining in nearby West Virginia is bad enough. Let's not do that anyplace else.
If global warming ever does get to be a real problem, I think we could probably erect giant translucent screens in space. Frankly, I don't think it will ever come to that.
...did their model account for the reduced angular moment when ice caps in Greenland and Antartica melt off and slide into the ocean? Some of that ice is 2 miles thick, so it should make a difference. If this really becomes a problem, we can vaporize the Himalayas with hydrogen bombs. Problem solved.
According to their Web site, they're nonpartisan
According to Ken Lay, Enron was doing just fine.
Does not your own evidence refute your point?
21% is very few compared to the 69% figure the other poster cited. In 1972, 38% voted for McGovern! There is always going to be a core of disatisfaction, and that 21% probably represents that core. But I have to confess, I haven't convincingly proved my thesis: That the increasing disatisfaction with US health care in the 1990's is due to the Clinton's use of the bully pulpit and additional media attention.
In order to prove that, I need two things: 1. A normalized measure of satisfaction from 1980 to the present. In other words, the same poll questions, and unbiased questions from an unbiased source (tough to find). The phrasing of poll questions is a black art too. You can manipulate surveys quite handily based on the way you ask the questions. 2. An unbiased measure of success on the part of our health care industry, and a measure of it from 1980 to the present. What represents success? Mortality broken down by age group perhaps? But then you can be sick for a long time without dying, so that's not so great either. Life expectancy may not be good either--how is it computed? They can't actually predict when you are going to die.
Another interesting survey might be TV-watchers vs. non TV-watchers. I wager the TV watchers have much more negative opinions about health care, even if you adjust for factors such as IQ and age.
It's a non-trivial exercise I don't have time to perform before this Slashdot article becomes irrelevant, but it would be an interesting study and if I can find the time for it I'll post it on TrulyFree.Net somewhere.
Your other links died in my browser, so I'll address the first one, which is weak on 2 points: 1. It's from an advocacy group. 2. It's a 1997 survey, well into the era of media hype surrounding health issues, which was the subject of my post. What fundamental changes have taken place in our heath care system since this poll (see below) was taken? Was the health care system in 1978 more or less socialized?
Dang it. /. won't let me post the raw data because it thinks it's lame. Go to http://www.irss.unc.edu/cgi-bin/POLL/search.all.cg i?w1=Harris%20study%20no.%20S2754 and download the study. Keyword for heath care and you will find a 1978 study that asked:
How do you think health care in the U.S.A. compares with health care in other major industrial countries like England, Germany, Sweden, or France? Do you think it is better, worse, or about the same? Responses: Better in the U.S.A./Worse in the U.S.A./About the same/Not sure
44.40% Better in the U S A
21.00% Worse in the U S A
18.40% About the same
16.20% Not sure
It's no problem at all if a thin layer of paint burns away to reveal the reflective surface only when necessary.
This is all deja vu from the SDI discussion we had on /. a while back. There are effective defenses against this stuff, they just haven't been developed yet because the offense is still a baby.