The problem with these numbers is that many browsers are forced to announce themselves at windows, as internet exploder, in order to gain access to some content of interest.
The statistics are *reported* platforms. There is a strong motivation for linux users to lie in their reports.
If you want it, you implement it. The release cycle times for mature, popular open source projects like mysql are typically quite short, so if you do it well the first time, your patch can be integrated into the release in short order.
One way of implementing it is to hire a professional to make it do what you like. In reality, you can get timely fixes for open source software, but you can't get timely fixes for popular closed-source software. This is because your money matters much, much more, in the development of an open source project than it does to a very profitable company which is focussing on other markets at the time. Especially when said company is large and beaurocratic, and implements some horrendously heavy-weight process, like Unified.
Being rich does, however, allow you to be stupid. I can't argue with that.
Does Microsoft have a RIGHT to rape the taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars every year, for which we receive precisely.... nothing that isn't freely available?
I say we dump the corrupt incumbents who are ripping us off and turning us all into slaves.
The theory is that the votes make the choice. If the law is passed, the choice has been made. O'Reilly is not arguing for freedom of choice. He is arguing that one choice is bad, and the alternative is better. He is wrong about that, obviously, as should be no surprise considering that he makes such an silly lapse of reasoning as to confuse making a choice with giving up the freedom to choose. It's difficult to reason correctly if one uses terms in such a bizarre fashion.
Oh, so you mean that *New England* is better, richer, cleaner, and freer. Well, assuming that you're not swarthy, anyway.
You will find the Operation Northwoods documents at the National Security Archive, at George Washington University.
I think you have confused Israel (with which I am in no way affiliated) with the Jews (with whom I am intimately affliated). The Jews are not responsible for the WTC attacks; Israel is, morally at least.
With gcj, you can compile JDBC from java to native code that can be transparently called by C++ -- transparent modulo the run-time setup call in your program's main(), that is.
Works slick. Use the mingw32 target of gcc 3.2 for Win32 platforms.
Ah, at last, an intelligent reply. Pardon me for not making it clear that in no way to I dismiss science as a form of religion. It is the world-view of scientific materialism, which is entirely distinct from scientific method, to which I object. I identify as "science" the practice and result of the application of scientific method, both experimental and observational. To my mind the best proponents of that method were Descartes, Galileo, and Popper, and their work defines the basics of the method; although now a new branch of science, computational science, is producing innovations in method, those innovations are yet immature, and have not had any great expositor.
> it's about the glacial creeping of an intellectual > property mindset that is slowly eroding our > rights.
My rights remain undamaged, because they are absolute, intrinsic, and endowment of my creator. Your rights may be derived from consensus reality or political correctness, or a system of governance, in which case they are prone to profound erosion in the stormy seas of commerce and corruption. Indeed, your right to exist might be terminated quite abruptly by the stroke of a presidential pen, painting you as an "enemy combatant". My ability to enforce my rights does, however, correlate very clearly with the extent of your rights, so perhaps we can make common cause.
> If it's the same price, it seems foolhardy to > purchase the OS-less Dell and forego the free MS > license.
You forget that the license comes with a EULA. It seems foolhardy to buy a computer that Microsoft can hack with impunity in perpetuity for the same price as one which it is illegal for them to damage.
I think you misunderstand. The argument is in favor of BSD-style licensing for the products of publically funded research. This is motivated by the desire to keep their formats secret, so that they can continue to crush all potential competitors.
SciAm used to be a pretty good collection of science reportage and mathematical/mathemagical entertainment for the intelligent layman. I haven't read the rag since it became a political tool, but the vibe of this/. article is consistent with my gestalt of a general problem with SciAm' new editoral policy of propagandizing scientific materialism, and gives me a great pretext to rip on it.
Scientific materialism is an IDEOLOGY. It is not science. It is not even secular. It is just as much of an atheistic religion (and just as counter-factual and deluded) as orthodox Marxism. SciAm is now a vehicle for hoovering the wallets of those pathetic co-religionists who need a crutch to prop-up their rapidly decaying world-view. It still manages to publish some ripping good science articles, but I cancelled my subscription long ago, when it started bleeding Gaia-worship from the editorial aorta all over my nice clean carpet, so I generally don't see those unless I stop by the library.
But then libraries really ought to be obsolete now, eh? So too SciAm, which has outlived its usefulness and credibility by becoming a political organ.
The only geek who ever came up with a viable means of effecting positive change in the current U.S. political system was promptly sent to prison. His name is Jim Bell, and he's a loon, but his Assassination Politics may well save the U.S. from totalitarianism and genocide, and I can hardly wait to see it implemented.
> systems [that] change > entropy [are] intelligent systems?
Only for a very unabitious definition of "intelligent". An internal combustion engine would be one example. An air conditioner or a food processor might be other examples. They also take inputs, you will notice... signals, even.
What you have is a statistical sampling of the judgements of consumers of that key. Really, a chain of trust is a silly idea anyhow, because trust is modal. I may trust you not to cheat me, but that does not mean that I trust everyone you introduce to me not to cheat me. That's how venereal diseases spread.
When we have a global relation store built on hash circles, then you can fetch a record of all the people who will rate a key, what modality they are rating it in, and how they rate it. As a result, you will be able to model their likelihood of default in all well-defined modalities, if the sample is large enough.
I sign the keys of people I know by phone, or interact with entirely online on an ongoing basis. I don't see what distance has to do with it.
It would be particularly difficult, however, for Oswald to have killed Kennedy, since he was standing in the doorway of the repository, sans rifle, when the shooting was going on.
Care to play? Take a look at the Algens photos. Compare the guy in the doorway with the photos of Oswald at the time of his arrest. Draw your own conclusions.
Specious, fallacious, and disingenuous arguments are unwelcome from my point of view, whatever their target, but when the target is Christianity, they always gain a lot of boosters, simply because so many people are suffering from reaction formation contra-Christus, which cripples their reason.
Well, if you look at the Altgens photos, you can see Oswald, in the same shirt he was wearing when he was arrested, observing the assassination as it happens, from the doorway of the repository. Note that there is no rifle in his hand.
To attribute the JFK assassination to Oswald requires a poignant ignorance of the facts.
This is such a peurile, specious argument, that I don't know where to begin.
Firstly, you don't know what the government is successfully keeping secret. You only know what it has failed to keep secret -- such as injecting plutonium into pregnant women, failed assassination attempts on Castro, and infecting black men with syphillis. But you are entirely ignorant of the vast bulk of all covert operations. On the basis of your own ignorance, you infer that they do not exist! To show how utterly fallacious this is, consider all the myriad publically known covert ops, now matters of public record, of which you are ignorant. If you can't even know about those, how could you conceivably expect to know about the ones which have not been made open?
Secondly, the preponderance of covert operations are designed to suffer public exposure, but to limit the damage that any exposure creates. There are a number of tried-and-true methods for such damage control, and you can see them at work almost every time you open the NY Times or the Washington Post. The "giggle factor" is one method, but really the entire laundry list of propaganda techniques developed by Goebbels and Madison Avenue, and raised to new heights of art by Ari Fleischer, are applicable. Covertness is just a tool, not an end in itself. Often a full disclosure will not cause any damange, simply because the government decides who to prosecute. It is remarkably easy to bury capital crimes in the footnotes of history.
Thirdly, this preposterous counter-factual notion that the facts have not been reported gives your argument feet of clay. There is an abundance of reports ont he 'net of aliens on earth, UFOs circling the solar system, etc. In fact, the more specious reports are created, the easier it is for the factual reports to be lost in the fog. To base your argument on the notion that since no such reports exist, when in fact they do, and very obviously, truly paints your views with absurdity.
Yes, I must agree that it's unwise to buy xboxen as a counter-microsoft strategy. But there's nothing wrong with enjoying a little chuckle at the side-effects while you enjoy the benefits of the hardware subsidy. I buy xboxen because I plan to use them in places where I would otherwise be spending significantly more money for the same function, or else because by buying more hardware I can isolate functions, and remove single points of failure. If I can replace a $1000 file server, mail server, web server, router, print server with a $200 print server, a $200 router, a $200 web server, a $200 mail server, and a $200 file server, then I've saved thousands on downtime and maintenance, made my network more robust, and, yes, sucked $500 from usoft to support my habits. It's all good.
Well, if my goal in laying out.2k for each box were to jab usoft, this point might be salient, but it's not. My goal is to get usoft to defray part of my hardware expense.
As the prices keep dropping, the break even rate keeps rising.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with these numbers is that many browsers
are forced to announce themselves at windows, as
internet exploder, in order to gain access to
some content of interest.
The statistics are *reported* platforms. There is
a strong motivation for linux users to lie in
their reports.
If you want it, you implement it. The release cycle
times for mature, popular open source projects like
mysql are typically quite short, so if you do it well
the first time, your patch can be integrated into the
release in short order.
One way of implementing it is to hire a professional
to make it do what you like. In reality, you can
get timely fixes for open source software, but you can't
get timely fixes for popular closed-source software.
This is because your money matters much, much
more, in the development of an open source
project than it does to a very profitable company
which is focussing on other markets at the time.
Especially when said company is large and
beaurocratic, and implements some horrendously
heavy-weight process, like Unified.
Being rich does, however, allow you to be stupid.
I can't argue with that.
Does Microsoft have a RIGHT to rape the taxpayers
for hundreds of millions of dollars every year,
for which we receive precisely.... nothing that
isn't freely available?
I say we dump the corrupt incumbents who are
ripping us off and turning us all into slaves.
I suspect you may be one of them.
The theory is that the votes make the choice.
If the law is passed, the choice has been made.
O'Reilly is not arguing for freedom of choice.
He is arguing that one choice is bad, and the
alternative is better. He is wrong about that,
obviously, as should be no surprise considering
that he makes such an silly lapse of reasoning
as to confuse making a choice with giving up the
freedom to choose. It's difficult to reason
correctly if one uses terms in such a bizarre
fashion.
Oh, so you mean that *New England* is better,
richer, cleaner, and freer. Well, assuming that
you're not swarthy, anyway.
You will find the Operation Northwoods documents
at the National Security Archive, at George
Washington University.
I think you have confused Israel (with which I am
in no way affiliated) with the Jews (with whom I
am intimately affliated). The Jews are not
responsible for the WTC attacks; Israel is,
morally at least.
The purpose of draconian laws is *not* to be
enforced uniformly. Their purpose is to be
applied *selectively*, to crush your enemies.
With gcj, you can compile JDBC from java to
native code that can be transparently called
by C++ -- transparent modulo the run-time setup
call in your program's main(), that is.
Works slick. Use the mingw32 target of gcc 3.2
for Win32 platforms.
Ah, at last, an intelligent reply. Pardon me for
not making it clear that in no way to I dismiss
science as a form of religion. It is the world-view
of scientific materialism, which is entirely
distinct from scientific method, to which I object.
I identify as "science" the practice and result of
the application of scientific method, both
experimental and observational. To my mind the
best proponents of that method were Descartes,
Galileo, and Popper, and their work defines the
basics of the method; although now a new branch
of science, computational science, is producing
innovations in method, those innovations are yet
immature, and have not had any great expositor.
> it's about the glacial creeping of an intellectual
> property mindset that is slowly eroding our
> rights.
My rights remain undamaged, because they are
absolute, intrinsic, and endowment of my creator.
Your rights may be derived from consensus reality
or political correctness, or a system of governance,
in which case they are prone to profound erosion
in the stormy seas of commerce and corruption.
Indeed, your right to exist might be terminated
quite abruptly by the stroke of a presidential
pen, painting you as an "enemy combatant".
My ability to enforce my rights does, however,
correlate very clearly with the extent of your
rights, so perhaps we can make common cause.
> If it's the same price, it seems foolhardy to
> purchase the OS-less Dell and forego the free MS
> license.
You forget that the license comes with a EULA.
It seems foolhardy to buy a computer that Microsoft
can hack with impunity in perpetuity for the same
price as one which it is illegal for them to
damage.
I think you misunderstand. The argument is
in favor of BSD-style licensing for the products
of publically funded research. This is motivated
by the desire to keep their formats secret, so
that they can continue to crush all potential
competitors.
Open source only laws are the embodiment of fiscal
responsibility. You oppose fiscal responsibility,
and favor instead featherbedding and corruption?
> there is proof that ...
4 3/ 002-4391086-0160869
> jesus could not heal the blind/walk on water/ect.
Oh really? And exactly what is that proof?
Would you like a proof that he did?
I doubt it, but in case you would:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/08308177
It's pretty pathetic to call that a Troll.
SciAm used to be a pretty good collection of science /. article is consistent with my gestalt of
reportage and mathematical/mathemagical entertainment
for the intelligent layman. I haven't read the rag
since it became a political tool, but the vibe of
this
a general problem with SciAm' new editoral policy
of propagandizing scientific materialism, and gives
me a great pretext to rip on it.
Scientific materialism is an IDEOLOGY. It is not
science. It is not even secular. It is just as
much of an atheistic religion (and just as
counter-factual and deluded) as orthodox Marxism.
SciAm is now a vehicle for hoovering the wallets
of those pathetic co-religionists who need a
crutch to prop-up their rapidly decaying world-view.
It still manages to publish some ripping good
science articles, but I cancelled my subscription
long ago, when it started bleeding Gaia-worship
from the editorial aorta all over my nice clean
carpet, so I generally don't see those unless I
stop by the library.
But then libraries really ought to be obsolete
now, eh? So too SciAm, which has outlived its
usefulness and credibility by becoming a political
organ.
The only geek who ever came up with a viable means
of effecting positive change in the current U.S.
political system was promptly sent to prison.
His name is Jim Bell, and he's a loon, but his
Assassination Politics may well save the U.S. from
totalitarianism and genocide, and I can hardly wait
to see it implemented.
> systems [that] change
> entropy [are] intelligent systems?
Only for a very unabitious definition of
"intelligent". An internal combustion engine
would be one example. An air conditioner or
a food processor might be other examples.
They also take inputs, you will notice...
signals, even.
What you have is a statistical sampling of the
judgements of consumers of that key. Really,
a chain of trust is a silly idea anyhow, because
trust is modal. I may trust you not to cheat me,
but that does not mean that I trust everyone you
introduce to me not to cheat me. That's how
venereal diseases spread.
When we have a global relation store built on hash
circles, then you can fetch a record of all the
people who will rate a key, what modality they
are rating it in, and how they rate it.
As a result, you will be able to model their
likelihood of default in all well-defined
modalities, if the sample is large enough.
I sign the keys of people I know by phone, or
interact with entirely online on an ongoing basis.
I don't see what distance has to do with it.
It would be particularly difficult, however, for
Oswald to have killed Kennedy, since he was standing
in the doorway of the repository, sans rifle, when
the shooting was going on.
Care to play? Take a look at the
Algens photos. Compare the guy in the doorway with
the photos of Oswald at the time of his arrest.
Draw your own conclusions.
Whereas it is shockingly easy for a supercilious
twit to issue blanket condemnations to all who
oppose his willful ignorance.
Specious, fallacious, and disingenuous arguments are
unwelcome from my point of view, whatever their
target, but when the target is Christianity, they
always gain a lot of boosters, simply because so
many people are suffering from reaction formation
contra-Christus, which cripples their reason.
Well, if you look at the Altgens photos, you can
see Oswald, in the same shirt he was wearing when
he was arrested, observing the assassination as it
happens, from the doorway of the repository. Note
that there is no rifle in his hand.
To attribute the JFK assassination to Oswald
requires a poignant ignorance of the facts.
This is such a peurile, specious argument, that I
don't know where to begin.
Firstly, you don't know what the government is
successfully keeping secret. You only know what
it has failed to keep secret -- such as injecting
plutonium into pregnant women, failed assassination
attempts on Castro, and infecting black men with
syphillis. But you are entirely ignorant of the
vast bulk of all covert operations. On the basis
of your own ignorance, you infer that they do not
exist! To show how utterly fallacious this is,
consider all the myriad publically known covert
ops, now matters of public record, of which you
are ignorant. If you can't even know about those,
how could you conceivably expect to know about the
ones which have not been made open?
Secondly, the preponderance of covert operations
are designed to suffer public exposure, but to
limit the damage that any exposure creates.
There are a number of tried-and-true methods for
such damage control, and you can see them at work
almost every time you open the NY Times or the
Washington Post. The "giggle factor" is one
method, but really the entire laundry list of
propaganda techniques developed by Goebbels and
Madison Avenue, and raised to new heights of art
by Ari Fleischer, are applicable. Covertness
is just a tool, not an end in itself. Often a
full disclosure will not cause any damange, simply
because the government decides who to prosecute.
It is remarkably easy to bury capital crimes in
the footnotes of history.
Thirdly, this preposterous counter-factual notion
that the facts have not been reported gives your
argument feet of clay. There is an abundance of
reports ont he 'net of aliens on earth, UFOs
circling the solar system, etc. In fact, the more
specious reports are created, the easier it is
for the factual reports to be lost in the fog.
To base your argument on the notion that since
no such reports exist, when in fact they do,
and very obviously, truly paints your views with
absurdity.
Yes, I must agree that it's unwise to buy xboxen
as a counter-microsoft strategy. But there's
nothing wrong with enjoying a little chuckle at
the side-effects while you enjoy the benefits of
the hardware subsidy. I buy xboxen because I plan
to use them in places where I would otherwise be
spending significantly more money for the same
function, or else because by buying more hardware
I can isolate functions, and remove single points
of failure. If I can replace a $1000 file server,
mail server, web server, router, print server
with a $200 print server, a $200 router, a $200
web server, a $200 mail server, and a $200 file
server, then I've saved thousands on downtime and
maintenance, made my network more robust, and,
yes, sucked $500 from usoft to support my habits.
It's all good.
Well, if my goal in laying out .2k for each box
were to jab usoft, this point might be salient,
but it's not. My goal is to get usoft to defray
part of my hardware expense.
As the prices keep dropping, the break even rate
keeps rising.