I get pretty much everything what I need from a handful of web sites. I still go to Border's for things - as good content costs money and so authors will still prefer to write instead of web publish.
I am brushing up on calc based physics, and so have been re-reading the text book and then will sweep it again and do the problems, and there, a web site would be easier to use. But for some things you just have read material, then apply.
What's up with that! Software is the highest form of art. It has everything every other medium has plus, it is interactive. If that's not creative, then what is?
taking out the security guard on the right. walking forward a few hundred paces to the elevators. blasting the guy in the elevator. turning to the side and throwing a grenade in the meeting room. heading up to the 3rd floor. shooting the glass door and walking through it. past the first few row of cubicles as those people were in accounting and were ok hanging a left. blast off, sound off, cubicle one, two, three.
Country was a lot better off when Clinton / Gingrich had to duke it out. Back then the big argument was prayer in school. Now, it's the FBI everywhere.
I used to work for a law firm that specialized in environmental tort. Believe me when I say that the Dept. of Energy and its subcontractors dumped so much radioactive crap into the United States as to make concerns about a domestic meltdown academic.
There's Hanford doing intentional discharges. There's the fires and missing 50kg of plutonium at Rocky Flats. The list is endless, really.
I'm not an open source zealot and in the last election I supported Bush. This election I'm supporting Dean because Republicans can't balance the budget and the USA PATRIOT act is B.S.
That's the problem. All of your energy saving techniques make life more miserable. Computers -should- always be on. Flourescent lights are miserable and cause headaches and probably some form of cancer. Flat panels are ok but I think the resolution and color treatment of a CRT is still better. Efficient appliances clean less, keep food less fresh, and cook worse. It takes energy to boil water, takes energy to have decent light, takes energy to do anything.
The real answer is to build nuclear power plants. You can argue windmills and solar all you want, but there is not enough surface area to have environmentally correct energy, and, it probably takes more nasty chemicals to make solar panels and windmills anyway.
Nuclear power plants are safe. Even if you factor in one Chernobyl meltdown per year, you will wind up with far less environmental impact than you would by burning coal. So called clean natural gas is in fact running out because there are too many gas turbines for the national production. Have a look at Henry Hub (the benchmark natural gas contract), and see where it's headed. Coal will never be clean. Fusion is, yet again, 20 years away. That leaves nuclear.
We should be building nuclear plants like crazy, and then use them to power fuel cell based cars. Then, we would not need any imported fuel at all, greenhouse gasses would be stopped in their tracks, and America would be a net exporter of energy.
Your argument assumes that what is legal is what is morally right. The PATRIOT act is a huge mistake and we need to repeal it, but the people that have that act as an option need to make the moral choice to not do it.
If somebody made it legal to steal, then, the person that stole would still be a thief. That everyone seems to think this Congressionally concocted tyranny lets the FBI off the moral hook says miles about how low this country has become.
I used to love ModPerl back when I wrote for Unix systems. I thought it was, unlike ASP, simple and elegant. But now it seems like Php is more "in vogue". Is modPerl still actively used as the preferred way to get scalable web server performance?
There's no moral difference between a vendor requiring a customer to produce source code, versus, a vendor requiring a customer to pay money instead. Both require a commitment from a potential user of a product. Just because Linux gives you source for free in exchange for you giving your source for free does not make it morally better than Windows, getting a binary in exchange for money. It is that the terms of the exchange are different between the two.
If anything, the specific act of requiring the vendor to turn over source code for their applications may be an ultimately higher price to the end users in terms of lines of code delivered and organizational impact. The GPL is essentially a barter system. Money replaced barter some hundreds of years ago, because money was more efficient. Yet, GPL says that money is less efficient? That just flies in the face of economic theory and it is possible that the GPL, widely adopted, will introduce distortions in the economy because the real cost of software will be shifted elsewhere.
Thus, any sane line of reasoning based upon the value of the products exchanged between contract parties must show that the GPL is reactionary nonsense. The GPL is a barter system whose guiding philosophy is a reaction against charging for software, and barter is less efficient than money. It argues against money, as if incorrect, but, it still hangs on to property rights. A more reasonable exchange market mechanism for open source would allow the sale of software, but, would recognize the buy back value of the source being contributed.
If the Open Source movement were really about free software, they would forgo the exchange and use the real intellectually free license : "public domain."
If you make things people want to buy, then, you get money. If they want to buy it badly enough, or, you have lots of people buying it, you get lots of money.
It's interesting to see that a ruling corporate class that claims to value ethics and honesty so easily excludes honesty. Without honesty, all other values are useless.
A company requires you to speak in a certain way is a company that requires some people lie. By lie I mean any misrepresentation of their own perception of the truth - that includes but is not limited to "spinning, coloring", or such selective use of words. If it is not the whole story then it is not the truth.
One cannot trust any commercial speech because it is presumed tainted by threat of job. Therefor, any study, any science, any finding of supposed fact, that can have its money traced from corporate coffers, is probably a lie.
Before you dismiss me as a flaming liberal, I should point out that the lying in governmnet is far far worse. Government is worse! There, a lie means people get killed. Saying, look "I think Flame Broiled is much better than fried" to keep your job is somehow less than "I think the Iraqi people will accept us with flowers and prizes".
In my mind, the solution is not try and limit lying, because, as one CEO poster said, when you get to the top, you are accountable. We need to create and maintain a culture that says honesty is important. We need to celebrate those people that go out on a limb for what they think is the truth, from those crazy artists to renegade engineers, so that, when our kids have to decide to tell the truth or not, hopefully, they'll know that it's ok to say flame broiled is better than fried, but, that it's not ok to send their friends into a stupid and pointless war.
I'm looking for ways to get hits on my site, and, that $50 for 300,000 targetted opt-in emails is looking better all the time.
All this legislation does is make it more expensive for spammers, not less likely. Right now, because email is so cheap, eventually spammers will succumb under their own weight because they can't make a profit in an industry where price competition exists.
But now, with opt in mailing lists, you've created a thing of value for spammers to own, and to sell or rent.
Way to go spam legisltatures. You've just turned a nuisance into the next mega industry!
American lawmakers are bought and so if not correct it is at least an understandable decision. European lawmakers on the other hand, are not bought. Why did they do it? Or, does the trail of Greenbacks cross overseas?
1) First off, I don't what makes you think that because the law says driving is a priviledge, that it should be a priviledge. It's always the "right" that argues circularly that a) they hate the government, but b) selectively we should agree with their values because some parts of government says so [ we should agree with it because its the -law- ].
If we want to make driving a right, we can.
2) "You're right to privacy serves no purpose but to hide..."
I'll take that logic and use that for all information, public and private.
2.a) You're anti-gun registration, tada, is just proof that you are hiding guns to commit a crime.
2.b) You're pro-corporate privacy because you don't want the deception, environmental abuse, and shareholder fraud to be made public. Why shouldn't every citizen be allowed to publish any information they find about an employer, regardless of any agreement they may have with that employer?
Really, the whole point of the right to privacy is that privacy implies a sort of power in an information economy. It says that knowledge about one's person is the property of the person, not someone else.
Of course, conservatives make the argument that individuals have no right to privacy, but they do have the right to their possessions. This only proves how stupid conservatives are. After all, if you don't have privacy in an information economy, you don't have any personal currency, and therefor, you've devalued yourself immediately. So, what's the point of private property when you can't have any sense of self? The bottom line is that either conservatives are really stupid, or they are dangerous and clever liars. Since they have the money, we should assume the latter and exterminate them all.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is essentially powerless. Any stock governance will be pointless until shareholders of companies have real rights.
Companies are not necessarily designed to be responsive to their shareholders, and, they are not designed to be competitive, and, they do not have to be honest.
Let's see, and, companies are going to make it easy for everyone to compare their prices without adequately describing the subtleties of their value proposition.
It's not even utopion, it's stupid. The relentless march to standardization for the sake of standardization is the Unix crowd's lemming version of everyone just buying Microsoft. You aren't changing the way of thinking, you just want people to think the same way about your open source stuff rather than Bill Gate's closed source stuff. There's no difference between Torvalds and Gates, except one begs for money and the other earns it.
I would be perfectly willing to eliminate all private investment from government if you are willing to make enforcement of contract terms something not enforceable by any law. After all, why should government interfere with the business of contracts?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm almost shocked! What else could there be?
Oh books..
I get pretty much everything what I need from a handful of web sites. I still go to Border's for things - as good content costs money and so authors will still prefer to write instead of web publish.
I am brushing up on calc based physics, and so have been re-reading the text book and then will sweep it again and do the problems, and there, a web site would be easier to use. But for some things you just have read material, then apply.
I'll take Pocket PC Checkers against Jackson Pollack any day. Or, how about artist that stacks rocks in a circle? What's up with that?
What's up with that! Software is the highest form of art. It has everything every other medium has plus, it is interactive. If that's not creative, then what is?
Are the drinks free on a hijacked jet?
I dunno..
taking out the security guard on the right.
walking forward a few hundred paces to the elevators.
blasting the guy in the elevator.
turning to the side and throwing a grenade in the meeting room.
heading up to the 3rd floor.
shooting the glass door and walking through it.
past the first few row of cubicles as those people were in accounting and were ok
hanging a left. blast off, sound off, cubicle one, two, three.
well... that's kinda creepy actually.
Country was a lot better off when Clinton / Gingrich had to duke it out. Back then the big argument was prayer in school. Now, it's the FBI everywhere.
I used to work for a law firm that specialized in environmental tort. Believe me when I say that the Dept. of Energy and its subcontractors dumped so much radioactive crap into the United States as to make concerns about a domestic meltdown academic.
There's Hanford doing intentional discharges. There's the fires and missing 50kg of plutonium at Rocky Flats. The list is endless, really.
I'm not an open source zealot and in the last election I supported Bush. This election I'm supporting Dean because Republicans can't balance the budget and the USA PATRIOT act is B.S.
That's the problem. All of your energy saving techniques make life more miserable. Computers -should- always be on. Flourescent lights are miserable and cause headaches and probably some form of cancer. Flat panels are ok but I think the resolution and color treatment of a CRT is still better. Efficient appliances clean less, keep food less fresh, and cook worse. It takes energy to boil water, takes energy to have decent light, takes energy to do anything.
The real answer is to build nuclear power plants. You can argue windmills and solar all you want, but there is not enough surface area to have environmentally correct energy, and, it probably takes more nasty chemicals to make solar panels and windmills anyway.
Nuclear power plants are safe. Even if you factor in one Chernobyl meltdown per year, you will wind up with far less environmental impact than you would by burning coal. So called clean natural gas is in fact running out because there are too many gas turbines for the national production. Have a look at Henry Hub (the benchmark natural gas contract), and see where it's headed. Coal will never be clean. Fusion is, yet again, 20 years away. That leaves nuclear.
We should be building nuclear plants like crazy, and then use them to power fuel cell based cars. Then, we would not need any imported fuel at all, greenhouse gasses would be stopped in their tracks, and America would be a net exporter of energy.
Build nukes and breath free.
ps. if we had all nukes, we would not be in Iraq.
Your argument assumes that what is legal is what is morally right. The PATRIOT act is a huge mistake and we need to repeal it, but the people that have that act as an option need to make the moral choice to not do it.
If somebody made it legal to steal, then, the person that stole would still be a thief. That everyone seems to think this Congressionally concocted tyranny lets the FBI off the moral hook says miles about how low this country has become.
I used to love ModPerl back when I wrote for Unix systems. I thought it was, unlike ASP, simple and elegant. But now it seems like Php is more "in vogue". Is modPerl still actively used as the preferred way to get scalable web server performance?
There's no moral difference between a vendor requiring a customer to produce source code, versus, a vendor requiring a customer to pay money instead. Both require a commitment from a potential user of a product. Just because Linux gives you source for free in exchange for you giving your source for free does not make it morally better than Windows, getting a binary in exchange for money. It is that the terms of the exchange are different between the two.
If anything, the specific act of requiring the vendor to turn over source code for their applications may be an ultimately higher price to the end users in terms of lines of code delivered and organizational impact. The GPL is essentially a barter system. Money replaced barter some hundreds of years ago, because money was more efficient. Yet, GPL says that money is less efficient? That just flies in the face of economic theory and it is possible that the GPL, widely adopted, will introduce distortions in the economy because the real cost of software will be shifted elsewhere.
Thus, any sane line of reasoning based upon the value of the products exchanged between contract parties must show that the GPL is reactionary nonsense. The GPL is a barter system whose guiding philosophy is a reaction against charging for software, and barter is less efficient than money. It argues against money, as if incorrect, but, it still hangs on to property rights. A more reasonable exchange market mechanism for open source would allow the sale of software, but, would recognize the buy back value of the source being contributed.
If the Open Source movement were really about free software, they would forgo the exchange and use the real intellectually free license : "public domain."
If you make things people want to buy, then, you get money. If they want to buy it badly enough, or, you have lots of people buying it, you get lots of money.
That's usually how it goes.
Maybe people are sick of buying computer stuff?
Time to start looking at space.
Isn't it enough of a victory for the profession that they have used an academically based operating system rather than a commercial one?
They could conceivably switch to Windows.
It's interesting to see that a ruling corporate class that claims to value ethics and honesty so easily excludes honesty. Without honesty, all other values are useless.
A company requires you to speak in a certain way is a company that requires some people lie. By lie I mean any misrepresentation of their own perception of the truth - that includes but is not limited to "spinning, coloring", or such selective use of words. If it is not the whole story then it is not the truth.
One cannot trust any commercial speech because it is presumed tainted by threat of job. Therefor, any study, any science, any finding of supposed fact, that can have its money traced from corporate coffers, is probably a lie.
Before you dismiss me as a flaming liberal, I should point out that the lying in governmnet is far far worse. Government is worse! There, a lie means people get killed. Saying, look "I think Flame Broiled is much better than fried" to keep your job is somehow less than "I think the Iraqi people will accept us with flowers and prizes".
In my mind, the solution is not try and limit lying, because, as one CEO poster said, when you get to the top, you are accountable. We need to create and maintain a culture that says honesty is important. We need to celebrate those people that go out on a limb for what they think is the truth, from those crazy artists to renegade engineers, so that, when our kids have to decide to tell the truth or not, hopefully, they'll know that it's ok to say flame broiled is better than fried, but, that it's not ok to send their friends into a stupid and pointless war.
I got enough "dumb" dust to last so long I don't know when I'll need "smart" dust!
I want my flying cars and my person spaceship.
I'm looking for ways to get hits on my site, and, that $50 for 300,000 targetted opt-in emails is looking better all the time.
All this legislation does is make it more expensive for spammers, not less likely. Right now, because email is so cheap, eventually spammers will succumb under their own weight because they can't make a profit in an industry where price competition exists.
But now, with opt in mailing lists, you've created a thing of value for spammers to own, and to sell or rent.
Way to go spam legisltatures. You've just turned a nuisance into the next mega industry!
American lawmakers are bought and so if not correct it is at least an understandable decision. European lawmakers on the other hand, are not bought. Why did they do it? Or, does the trail of Greenbacks cross overseas?
1) First off, I don't what makes you think that because the law says driving is a priviledge, that it should be a priviledge. It's always the "right" that argues circularly that a) they hate the government, but b) selectively we should agree with their values because some parts of government says so [ we should agree with it because its the -law- ].
If we want to make driving a right, we can.
2) "You're right to privacy serves no purpose but to hide..."
I'll take that logic and use that for all information, public and private.
2.a) You're anti-gun registration, tada, is just proof that you are hiding guns to commit a crime.
2.b) You're pro-corporate privacy because you don't want the deception, environmental abuse, and shareholder fraud to be made public. Why shouldn't every citizen be allowed to publish any information they find about an employer, regardless of any agreement they may have with that employer?
Really, the whole point of the right to privacy is that privacy implies a sort of power in an information economy. It says that knowledge about one's person is the property of the person, not someone else.
Of course, conservatives make the argument that individuals have no right to privacy, but they do have the right to their possessions. This only proves how stupid conservatives are. After all, if you don't have privacy in an information economy, you don't have any personal currency, and therefor, you've devalued yourself immediately. So, what's the point of private property when you can't have any sense of self? The bottom line is that either conservatives are really stupid, or they are dangerous and clever liars. Since they have the money, we should assume the latter and exterminate them all.
1. USA
2. China
3. Japan
4. Germany
5. England
6. France
7. Russia (quietly moving back up list)
??
The Securities and Exchange Commission is essentially powerless. Any stock governance will be pointless until shareholders of companies have real rights.
Companies are not necessarily designed to be responsive to their shareholders, and, they are not designed to be competitive, and, they do not have to be honest.
Let's see, and, companies are going to make it easy for everyone to compare their prices without adequately describing the subtleties of their value proposition.
It's not even utopion, it's stupid. The relentless march to standardization for the sake of standardization is the Unix crowd's lemming version of everyone just buying Microsoft. You aren't changing the way of thinking, you just want people to think the same way about your open source stuff rather than Bill Gate's closed source stuff. There's no difference between Torvalds and Gates, except one begs for money and the other earns it.
It's an overrated system with way too many features and having it be scriptable should be held up as proof of that.
A chained set of contracts will result in the same sort of unfree society as a government bureacracy.
I would be perfectly willing to eliminate all private investment from government if you are willing to make enforcement of contract terms something not enforceable by any law. After all, why should government interfere with the business of contracts?