Why is stock informaation always presented in fraction form? I mean, 1/16th, that's like 6.25 cents or somthing. Why dosn't the stock market just use decimal numbers like everyone else?
Well, I wasn't able to read the actual reviews, due to slashdoting. But I did read the article.
It was interesting, sort of. But There were some weird parts. for instance the author brought up the CDA, witch was overturned by the Supreme Court (actually, in defense of the site.)
There was also this passage "Ryan built the wall," Burk told London. "Other people came along and sprayed their messages on [it] and now professor Curzon-Brown is trying to hold Ryan responsible for that. He certainly did build the wall and invited people to come, but that's exactly what Congress wanted people to do. Congress wanted walls built all over the Net, all over the nation."
While congress did want walls built, I don't think they meant it in that way. Strange article.
Its to bad the site is slashdoted, I'd really like to find out what all the fuss is about.
The artical said that they had been using SCO UnixWare, NT was never mentioned. There primary reason for switching was that Linux was "good enough" and really cheap.
I've personaly seen cashregisters running java. There's more to the world then NT/Linux
, but I don't understand your objection to someone using Linux in this application.
I have no objection to them using it, In fact I said in my inital post that It was great for them. But it really isn't that the fact that they were wasn't really that interesting.
But how is having Linux running on thousands, or even millions of cash registers going to gain market share? Do you think the $5/hr restaurant Jockeys are going to care what OS is running on their cash registers? This is custom hardware running, almost certainly, custom software. The word "Linux" isn't going to be anywhere on the things. In fact, if you read the article, you'll see that Linux in this market competes most directly with SCO UNIX. It doesn?t seem like there "mind share" has really been helping them much.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that 'world domination' for Linux, since it?s a free OS, Is depended only on market share. Using Linux on these machines doesn?t really gain very much Mind share for the community. Aside from press about it, there is hardly any gain. Compare this with something like the quake3 release for Linux, this pushed Linux into the limelight in the eyes of gamers. While the number of people who switched over to Linux because of Quake is going to be far less then the number of Cash registers running Linux, the Quake port gave Linux a lot more mind share.
At this point, what we really need to know is what is the goal of the Linux community I mean, is it to get more apps ported, and running, on Linux? Is it to crush Microsoft? Well, this does neither. No one is going to port their app to Linux just because a bunch of cash registers run it. And, this doesn?t hurt Microsoft in the least. Just SCO. So, what, exactly does Linux stand to gain because of this?
Ok, so a bunch of Cash registers are running Linux now. Great. Does that help the 'cause' in any way? I mean, its not like RedHat or VA or anyone else is going to be getting money for these things like we would if it was a closed source thing. While I'm sure its great for the company producing these things. It really shouldn't matter to us. At most, we might get a few kernel patches or something out of the programmers there.
If Microsoft or sun got this deal, it would be great for them, it would mean tons of money in licenses. But for us, its nothing.
I think threes a bit more to world domination then simply the raw number of CPUs running Linux. Is having it run on millions of Cash registers going to help get software ported?
Btw the authors of the current slashdot authors: timothy emmett timothy emmett timothy emmett Cliff timothy Hemos timothy Hemos timothy
CmndrTaco Said that they would have editorial independance for the duration of there stay. But it apears that they are not the ones posting storys at the monment. I'd guess that VA/Andover could get these guys to do whatever they want, I mean how hard would it be to fire them?
Well, maybe I'm just being paranoid (probably) but it is interesting.
"At war with China? Is not Taiwan part of China? The last part of China to resist the PRC?
I was speaking to a predominantly american audiance, By China, I ment the PRC. The PRC is threatening war, and I'm not sure that it would be happening if not for the democratic elections. That was my point, that democracy may not always be the best thing for every one. I'm not sure about your use of the word 'democrat' in your post. And, I havn't been here all my life. I grew up in the United States.
bogus history isn't one of them. It doesn't make you look good.
Just because you would prefer to believe something else, doesn't make the history bogus. I've noticed that there are consistently two versions of this story: The one put forth by Apple zealots, and The one put forth by everyone else.
It's a lot like the way christens fundamentalists view creationism, and just as intellectually honest.
That's an interesting point. I'm not sure the companies really want to be able to lock people up that don't work as hard as they should, they just want to lock people up who threaten their control. Jon Johnson would be a pretty example.
That said, I don't think that the people running these corporations really even knows the irrevocable harm there causing, no one considered evil ever really was. Hitler and Stalin thought they were doing the right thing, both morally and ethically. Hitler thought that he was saving the human genetic pool, and Stalin; well I think Stalin was just crazy. (And forgive me for invoking Godwin's law, in no way do I think what these corps are doing, now, is anywhere near what those two had done)
But in a way, the people in these organizations are even worse, unlike Hitler and Stalin, who had a clear view of what they were doing, the corporate insiders do not. Despite what they might think, they are just cogs in a machine -- a stealthy ethereal artificial intelligence. Wintermute incarnate (though, not so obvious). The corporation is its own device, seeking its own ends. An organism with mind power of thousands of humans, but with a thought structure completely outside our understanding. Evolving, into something. And I wonder, if with computer interconnectedness becoming the norm if these organisms are becoming faster of mind (Using technology bill gates himself calls the "Digital Nervous System")
Well, I've got a lot more ideas on that (most of them are being formed right now), but I don't want to get all Jon Katz, so I'll try to get to the point. That these organism, these corporations are subverting the democratic ideal. Perhaps it was a system that might have worked for an industrial (and book educated, as opposed to an agrarian society) society, but we do not live in that society. We live in a media society. A world where our ideas, or at least the ideas of the majority, are controlled by the media conglomerates. And those media conglomerates can say whatever they want. We need a new system of government that preserves individual rights in this new pervasive-information society. Will it be some kind of democracy? Probably, maybe not. Note that the pervasive-information society is not the internet-global knowledge-utopia that many slashdot readers believe may exist, but the Media controlled Cyber worlds Envisioned by Gibson (and, in a way, Orwell). The one that IS happening. And by happening, I don't mean that 'will happen'.
Trademarks and Copyrights are completely different things (also, you can copy a book digitally quite easily). A trademark is basically like a 'name' or whatever. Literally, a mark that you associate with your trade. If you trademark the word "wnissen" used it to indicate computer services, it would suck for you if someone else called there company that. Additionally, if they provided crapy service, it would tarnish your name.
Copyrights, on the other hand are different. A copyright is a protected piece of information, say like this post. I probably couldn't trademark this entire post, but I could copyright it. If you said these words yourself, it wouldn't tarnish my reputation (in fact it would lend me creditability as a commentator if people quoted me). On the other hand, if I tried to sell this document, I would loose money if you started reprinting it for free. The original idea behind copyrights (although, an idea perverted by corporate interests) is that I might not even bother to write something if I couldn't make any money off of it. It was a simple system to keep people creating, and making sure they got paid for it. Of course, nowadays, copyright extends 90 years after your death. I'm not sure I get the point of that (Other then to make publishers/media conglomerates more money). I don't really care how much money I make after I die.
Out of all of the branches of the US government, the only one that really doesn?t seem to suck is the Supreme Court. And, I think the reason is obvious. It's not a democratic system. The justices are appointed, for life. Sure, politicians appoint them, but there is a key difference. They can do what they think is right, not what they think will get them the most votes.
Sure, democratic governments may have been an ideal that the founding fathers believed in, but that doesn?t really mean it?s a good thing. Just look at Taiwan, 4 years of democracy, and were practically at war with fucking china. Way to go guys! That said, I don't want Taiwan to be sucked into Communist china, but I don't want to be at war with them ether.
Perhaps its time to rethink the system, I don't know what to replace it with, but a review may be in order. (Perhaps electing government people for a long term, with no chance of reelection, with a special recall vote if necessary)
Look at all the stuff that's happening in the US, and the rest of the world, moving it to an Orwillian nightmare; it isn't being stopped, because most people just don't care.
Not that I have a solution or anything, but that doesn?t mean I can't complain.
So do crime, warfare, starvation, and economic exploitation. But where's my money for pointing that out?
I'm a little confused by what you mean. Aren't crime and Economic exploitation specifically done to get money? And hey, brutally crushing your enemies in battle can be it's own reward.
Um, checks already need to be cashed in order for you to get a CD, but its done elsewhere in the distribution chain. If you pay someone with a check, somewhere it needs to be cashed. Even if it took 75%, they would still make more per album then the 10-50 cents they make now.
$10/hour, five seconds to stamp a check = 12 checks/minute = 720 checks an hour. if each check was $10, that would be $7,200 processed an hour per employee. $10 is exactly 0.13%. That is, much less then 75. Your brain dead estimation, in my mind disqualifies anything else you might have said. If you want people to take anything you say seriously, you should try to think about it before you do.
I think you think to highly of your country. It was just a few months ago that the US department of Justice proposed eliminating Anonymity on the Internet. Now, I'm not sure exactly what this entailed (since there isn't really any true anonymity on the net other then IP spoofing). Mostly likely email, but it could probably be read to include websites as well. It?s a widely known fact that just about anyone 'inside the beltway' doesn?t know jack about the 'information cyber web'
To be honest, it doesn?t really seem like America is that far from the nightmares of Orwell and Gibson. And a lot of western/European countries are following their lead.
Its sad the way some people want to stop the flow of information. Its very sad that they were able to buy laws that would allow them to continue. By controlling media for the absurdly long time that is done now (originally, copyrights only lasted 14 years) Big media gets to control not only our there media, but our culture in general. Walt Disney has been dead for decades, and yet his copyrights live on.
Its disgusting not only that this is allowed to happen, but that those that are at its forefront don't even stop to consider the deleterious effects of there actions.
If you want a "logical" argument for religion, though, we live in a finite Universe. Therefore, there is a finite number of concious beings within that Universe. Thus, on any given scale you care to use, there -is-, indeed, a being that you could call supreme, at least within that respect.
I don't see how that makes god exist. The 'supreme' being there could simply be the oldest living human, or the most intelligent or whatever. You could also say, using that argument that in any finite set, there is a 'supreme' being. So, on earth, In this country, On slashdot, etc. If everyone had an IQ from between 138-140, the people who's IQ was
Given that, and given that there is no evidence to contradict the hypothesis that we live in a foamy multiverse
There is no evidence to suggest that there is no Santa clause ether. So what?
given that the energy required to trigger the Inflation effect (which would create an entirely new Universe) requires energies we can acieve today (although not the energy density), it is ENTIRLEY within the realms of physical science to talk about someone creating a Universe. As such, it is patently stupid for any scientist to reject the possibility that this did, indeed, happen in the case of THIS Universe.
In fact we know (or at least believe we know) that this is not the case. Quantum Mechanics doesn't state that the universe isn't causal, only that we can't see what's happening.
Ayn Rand's idiotic 'objectivist morality' is nothing more then a bunch of easy to think about BS for the intellectually immature who can't deal the real world.
Don't read Atlas Shrugged. The only thing wrong with Rand's logic is that her axioms are not axiomatic. (In other words, her assumptions are just that, assumptions)
Slashdot Mirror
but it would have been less funny.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Why is stock informaation always presented in fraction form? I mean, 1/16th, that's like 6.25 cents or somthing. Why dosn't the stock market just use decimal numbers like everyone else?
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Well, I wasn't able to read the actual reviews, due to slashdoting. But I did read the article.
It was interesting, sort of. But There were some weird parts. for instance the author brought up the CDA, witch was overturned by the Supreme Court (actually, in defense of the site.)
There was also this passage
"Ryan built the wall," Burk told London. "Other people came along and sprayed their messages on [it] and now professor Curzon-Brown is trying to hold Ryan responsible for that. He certainly did build the wall and invited people to come, but that's exactly what Congress wanted people to do. Congress wanted walls built all over the Net, all over the nation."
While congress did want walls built, I don't think they meant it in that way. Strange article.
Its to bad the site is slashdoted, I'd really like to find out what all the fuss is about.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
The artical said that they had been using SCO UnixWare, NT was never mentioned. There primary reason for switching was that Linux was "good enough" and really cheap.
I've personaly seen cashregisters running java. There's more to the world then NT/Linux
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
But it really isn't that the fact that they were wasn't really that interesting.
Should say: "the fact that they are using isn't really that interesting". I should really lay off the crackpipe....
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
, but I don't understand your objection to someone using Linux in this application.
I have no objection to them using it, In fact I said in my inital post that It was great for them. But it really isn't that the fact that they were wasn't really that interesting.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
But how is having Linux running on thousands, or even millions of cash registers going to gain market share? Do you think the $5/hr restaurant Jockeys are going to care what OS is running on their cash registers? This is custom hardware running, almost certainly, custom software. The word "Linux" isn't going to be anywhere on the things. In fact, if you read the article, you'll see that Linux in this market competes most directly with SCO UNIX. It doesn?t seem like there "mind share" has really been helping them much.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that 'world domination' for Linux, since it?s a free OS, Is depended only on market share. Using Linux on these machines doesn?t really gain very much Mind share for the community. Aside from press about it, there is hardly any gain. Compare this with something like the quake3 release for Linux, this pushed Linux into the limelight in the eyes of gamers. While the number of people who switched over to Linux because of Quake is going to be far less then the number of Cash registers running Linux, the Quake port gave Linux a lot more mind share.
At this point, what we really need to know is what is the goal of the Linux community I mean, is it to get more apps ported, and running, on Linux? Is it to crush Microsoft? Well, this does neither. No one is going to port their app to Linux just because a bunch of cash registers run it. And, this doesn?t hurt Microsoft in the least. Just SCO. So, what, exactly does Linux stand to gain because of this?
Some mindshare is valuable, some is simply not.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Ok, so a bunch of Cash registers are running Linux now. Great. Does that help the 'cause' in any way? I mean, its not like RedHat or VA or anyone else is going to be getting money for these things like we would if it was a closed source thing. While I'm sure its great for the company producing these things. It really shouldn't matter to us. At most, we might get a few kernel patches or something out of the programmers there.
If Microsoft or sun got this deal, it would be great for them, it would mean tons of money in licenses. But for us, its nothing.
I think threes a bit more to world domination then simply the raw number of CPUs running Linux. Is having it run on millions of Cash registers going to help get software ported?
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
And what's with the 'funny' post anyway?
Btw the authors of the current slashdot authors: timothy
emmett
timothy
emmett
timothy
emmett
Cliff
timothy
Hemos
timothy
Hemos
timothy
CmndrTaco Said that they would have editorial independance for the duration of there stay. But it apears that they are not the ones posting storys at the monment. I'd guess that VA/Andover could get these guys to do whatever they want, I mean how hard would it be to fire them?
Well, maybe I'm just being paranoid (probably) but it is interesting.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
"At war with China? Is not Taiwan part of China? The last part of China to resist the PRC?
I was speaking to a predominantly american audiance, By China, I ment the PRC. The PRC is threatening war, and I'm not sure that it would be happening if not for the democratic elections. That was my point, that democracy may not always be the best thing for every one. I'm not sure about your use of the word 'democrat' in your post. And, I havn't been here all my life. I grew up in the United States.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
bogus history isn't one of them. It doesn't make you look good.
Just because you would prefer to believe something else, doesn't make the history bogus. I've noticed that there are consistently two versions of this story:
The one put forth by Apple zealots, and
The one put forth by everyone else.
It's a lot like the way christens fundamentalists view creationism, and just as intellectually honest.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
That's an interesting point. I'm not sure the companies really want to be able to lock people up that don't work as hard as they should, they just want to lock people up who threaten their control. Jon Johnson would be a pretty example.
That said, I don't think that the people running these corporations really even knows the irrevocable harm there causing, no one considered evil ever really was. Hitler and Stalin thought they were doing the right thing, both morally and ethically. Hitler thought that he was saving the human genetic pool, and Stalin; well I think Stalin was just crazy. (And forgive me for invoking Godwin's law, in no way do I think what these corps are doing, now, is anywhere near what those two had done)
But in a way, the people in these organizations are even worse, unlike Hitler and Stalin, who had a clear view of what they were doing, the corporate insiders do not. Despite what they might think, they are just cogs in a machine -- a stealthy ethereal artificial intelligence. Wintermute incarnate (though, not so obvious). The corporation is its own device, seeking its own ends. An organism with mind power of thousands of humans, but with a thought structure completely outside our understanding. Evolving, into something. And I wonder, if with computer interconnectedness becoming the norm if these organisms are becoming faster of mind (Using technology bill gates himself calls the "Digital Nervous System")
Well, I've got a lot more ideas on that (most of them are being formed right now), but I don't want to get all Jon Katz, so I'll try to get to the point. That these organism, these corporations are subverting the democratic ideal. Perhaps it was a system that might have worked for an industrial (and book educated, as opposed to an agrarian society) society, but we do not live in that society. We live in a media society. A world where our ideas, or at least the ideas of the majority, are controlled by the media conglomerates. And those media conglomerates can say whatever they want. We need a new system of government that preserves individual rights in this new pervasive-information society. Will it be some kind of democracy? Probably, maybe not. Note that the pervasive-information society is not the internet-global knowledge-utopia that many slashdot readers believe may exist, but the Media controlled Cyber worlds Envisioned by Gibson (and, in a way, Orwell). The one that IS happening. And by happening, I don't mean that 'will happen'.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
no
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Trademarks and Copyrights are completely different things (also, you can copy a book digitally quite easily). A trademark is basically like a 'name' or whatever. Literally, a mark that you associate with your trade. If you trademark the word "wnissen" used it to indicate computer services, it would suck for you if someone else called there company that. Additionally, if they provided crapy service, it would tarnish your name.
Copyrights, on the other hand are different. A copyright is a protected piece of information, say like this post. I probably couldn't trademark this entire post, but I could copyright it. If you said these words yourself, it wouldn't tarnish my reputation (in fact it would lend me creditability as a commentator if people quoted me). On the other hand, if I tried to sell this document, I would loose money if you started reprinting it for free. The original idea behind copyrights (although, an idea perverted by corporate interests) is that I might not even bother to write something if I couldn't make any money off of it. It was a simple system to keep people creating, and making sure they got paid for it. Of course, nowadays, copyright extends 90 years after your death. I'm not sure I get the point of that (Other then to make publishers/media conglomerates more money). I don't really care how much money I make after I die.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Apple started the user interface which Gates copied.
no.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Out of all of the branches of the US government, the only one that really doesn?t seem to suck is the Supreme Court. And, I think the reason is obvious. It's not a democratic system. The justices are appointed, for life. Sure, politicians appoint them, but there is a key difference. They can do what they think is right, not what they think will get them the most votes.
Sure, democratic governments may have been an ideal that the founding fathers believed in, but that doesn?t really mean it?s a good thing. Just look at Taiwan, 4 years of democracy, and were practically at war with fucking china. Way to go guys! That said, I don't want Taiwan to be sucked into Communist china, but I don't want to be at war with them ether.
Perhaps its time to rethink the system, I don't know what to replace it with, but a review may be in order. (Perhaps electing government people for a long term, with no chance of reelection, with a special recall vote if necessary)
Look at all the stuff that's happening in the US, and the rest of the world, moving it to an Orwillian nightmare; it isn't being stopped, because most people just don't care.
Not that I have a solution or anything, but that doesn?t mean I can't complain.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
So do crime, warfare, starvation, and economic exploitation. But where's my money for pointing that out?
:P
I'm a little confused by what you mean. Aren't crime and Economic exploitation specifically done to get money? And hey, brutally crushing your enemies in battle can be it's own reward.
That said, I do see your point
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Um, checks already need to be cashed in order for you to get a CD, but its done elsewhere in the distribution chain. If you pay someone with a check, somewhere it needs to be cashed. Even if it took 75%, they would still make more per album then the 10-50 cents they make now.
$10/hour, five seconds to stamp a check = 12 checks/minute = 720 checks an hour. if each check was $10, that would be $7,200 processed an hour per employee. $10 is exactly 0.13%. That is, much less then 75. Your brain dead estimation, in my mind disqualifies anything else you might have said. If you want people to take anything you say seriously, you should try to think about it before you do.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
I think you think to highly of your country. It was just a few months ago that the US department of Justice proposed eliminating Anonymity on the Internet. Now, I'm not sure exactly what this entailed (since there isn't really any true anonymity on the net other then IP spoofing). Mostly likely email, but it could probably be read to include websites as well. It?s a widely known fact that just about anyone 'inside the beltway' doesn?t know jack about the 'information cyber web'
Yes, the US does have a constitution that protects the rights of its citizens (god, I almost said users). But from where I'm standing, it looks like there being eaten away to serve corporate, and law enforcement desires. This is the same Nation that passed laws saying that copyrights should be extended 90 years after the author's death (and you can bet they'll be extended again by the time Mickey mouse's © is up). This is a nation who's FBI who wants wiretapping technology built into routers, and the ability to wiretap international satellite phone.
To be honest, it doesn?t really seem like America is that far from the nightmares of Orwell and Gibson. And a lot of western/European countries are following their lead.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Its sad the way some people want to stop the flow of information. Its very sad that they were able to buy laws that would allow them to continue. By controlling media for the absurdly long time that is done now (originally, copyrights only lasted 14 years) Big media gets to control not only our there media, but our culture in general. Walt Disney has been dead for decades, and yet his copyrights live on.
Its disgusting not only that this is allowed to happen, but that those that are at its forefront don't even stop to consider the deleterious effects of there actions.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Rand's primary axiom: Existence exists.
Hrm... I'm not much of logitition, but I would think that having only one axiom (especialy one so meaningless) Won't get you very far.
Explain how, from that single Axiom, Alturism Is bad and Greed and Selfishness are good. Without brining in any new 'Axiom'
Amber Yuan (--ell7)
If you want a "logical" argument for religion, though, we live in a finite Universe. Therefore, there is a finite number of concious beings within that Universe. Thus, on any given scale you care to use, there -is-, indeed, a being that you could call supreme, at least within that respect.
I don't see how that makes god exist. The 'supreme' being there could simply be the oldest living human, or the most intelligent or whatever. You could also say, using that argument that in any finite set, there is a 'supreme' being. So, on earth, In this country, On slashdot, etc. If everyone had an IQ from between 138-140, the people who's IQ was
Given that, and given that there is no evidence to contradict the hypothesis that we live in a foamy multiverse
There is no evidence to suggest that there is no Santa clause ether. So what?
given that the energy required to trigger the Inflation effect (which would create an entirely new Universe) requires energies we can acieve today (although not the energy density), it is ENTIRLEY within the realms of physical science to talk about someone creating a Universe. As such, it is patently stupid for any scientist to reject the possibility that this did, indeed, happen in the case of THIS Universe.
I don't buy that.
Amber Yuan (--ell7)
In fact we know (or at least believe we know) that this is not the case. Quantum Mechanics doesn't state that the universe isn't causal, only that we can't see what's happening.
Amber Yuan (--ell7)
You are wrong to assume that everything can be traced back (or predicted to the future) as far as one wants.
Well, technically, that's right, we can't trace it back. That doesn't mean that it was non deterministic, only that we can't determine it.
Amber Yuan (--ell7)
Ayn Rand's idiotic 'objectivist morality' is nothing more then a bunch of easy to think about BS for the intellectually immature who can't deal the real world.
Don't read Atlas Shrugged. The only thing wrong with Rand's logic is that her axioms are not axiomatic. (In other words, her assumptions are just that, assumptions)
Amber Yuan (--ell7)