When truth is on the line, one should never back down or run from a confrontation. There is a world of difference between doing the same "thing" over and over and standing up for what is right.
There comes a point when through an honest adherence to reality things finally change. If you give up mid-way, you'll never get anywhere.
You spend several paragraphs explaining how you think the pharma funding network works and then single out stem cell research as something that should be handled differently. If you want to tackle the issue of government funding of what ultimatly becomes private proffit then talk about that. Otherwise, I don't see why the government should spend billions on _less _ promising research than stem cells.
He is not comparing it to the Nazis and the Holocaust. He is comparing it to Poland. 1939 to be exact. What happens next remains to be seen and is largely dependent on the action the rest the world takes _right now_.
There are people who still defend the the invasion of Iraq from the position that Iraq was involved in the attacks on NY and DC, had WMD's and was an immiediat threat to world peace. So it is very importaint to disband those false lines of reasoning, force people to re-examine their ability to think criticaly and basically expose the lies so that people can not use them as a basis for decision making at some point in the future.
Simply saying that world sprang out of the eather yesterday and we can only focus on today is not helpful. We need to examine and come to terms with the decisions that led us to where we are. As there is a vocal group of liers in the USA who insist on fabricating the past, we must keep the debate alive until the record contains only the facts.
Also keep in mind that even the country that is the worlds "Beacon of Democracy and Freedom", black people were only made full members less then 50 years ago. Women a little later.
This is about the hard cold math of economics. Econ. theory states that if a product is overpriced, then theft will ensue. Theivery of music, in this case, seems less of an indication that people are "bad" or don't "get it" but more of an indication that the gigs up for the real theives and crooks at the *AA. Don't get sucked into their simplistic and incorrect assesment of the socio-economic landscape. They have been screwing us for decades and now the've been caught with their pants down.
is to become a.NET developer and live happily ever after, of course. Except... not. The reason for all the languages and syntax is that the web grew up out of humanities desire to communicate. There is no one company that delivered the Internet as we know it. If you look at the history of any of the languages you mention you will find your answer as to why things are as they are. JavaScript came from Netscape and was originaly called LiveWire. It was a radicaly new web language that would give developers the tools to add client side processing to websites. Problem was that very few web developers at the time were actually programmers. They were most likely either DIY hobbiests or corporate lackies who sleezed their way into an easy paycheck by becoming the "web guy". So it rotted in the background until, hey, AJAX everybody!
HTML came out of SGML and the academic community. It was designed to deliver, get this, text _and_ images in the same document on the Internet! So cool! People were supposed to write their web pages in a text editor and then PUT their documents on the webserver. But PUT was not secure or powerful enough so enter webdav.
CSS is great! I have no complaints about the CSS/HTML dicotamy. And things will only get better with time. The problem with CSS is Internet Explorer. But I'm not going to beat that horse.
The web came so fast, and so many people were thinking about it that it produced an explosion of technologies, each trying to deliver something new. Now days we are sorting it all out, keeping whats good and letting the bad fade.
It's only been 15 years of the web. Can you imagine the world without it? I'd say things are pretty good.
They existed before anti-trust legislation, in the era of the robber barrons et als. If your looking for a text book pure example, maybe not but it was as close to free market as we are ever likely to get, if things ever get that bad again.
I provide less tech support to her with Linux then I did with Windows. In fact I have not provided tech support to her in about 4 years. She is still using the same Gentoo install from way back.
There are many smaller networks and a few large networks. They all look like one network because Windows is so prevalent globally which creates the illusion of a larger network than really exists. Linux has been adopted like gang busters within certain networks. These networks are eating away at the edges of the larger networks causing them to fragment.
Education and Government are two such networks that are starting to break away, or at least diversify. Either way it will reduce the effect for other sectors.
"for Linux to a serious desktop option, your mom needs to be able to use it, write a word doc and e-mail her friends. That is not the case with Linux."
Me moms been using Linux since 1998. And I mean using it, not dicking around with like you. First SuSE, now Gentoo soon to be Ubuntu. She clicks the icon in her taskbar to dialup her ISP. She prefers it to Windows because:
1. It's stable 2. It's easy to use 3. It has all the applications she wants (e-mail, word processor, web browser) 4. Multiple desktops 5. It looks better than Windows
There are no free markets anymore. There were free markets 100-200 years ago and the failed. They failed because the basic assumptions of the free market capitalists were wrong or at least could not exist in the real world. Although a few people became very very wealthy so I guess the free market worked for them.
Market transparency is a good one because it relates directly to the ability of a consumer to educate themselves about product offerings and make a choice. Consumer choice is one of the fundamental concepts of free market econ. Mess with choice and the whole thing unravles.
The problem is that Free Market ecnomies don't work in favor of the consumer, citizen or society, as history has shown. Try reading some modern economics, like from the last fifty years or so (and libertarian blog rantings don't count).
Your reasoning is a virus of bad logic that needs to be erradicated from Internet forums.
The argument that Macs are more secure because they are less of a target does not imply that they will be less secure when they/are more/ of a target. The only thing that we know is that Windows is insecure. Many people make the mistake of assuming that when Macs become more popular they will be just as insecure as Windows has been _proven_ to be. The only proof we have is that Macs, however popular, are more secure than Windows.
Windows has been proven to be trivially exploited for a decade now. There is a massive army of infected Windows zombies that pile onto any fresh system that connects to the Internet. This is a problem that Microsoft created by being jackasses about security back in the 90's. Apple has reinvented itself with an OS based on proven security models. Every OS has problems but all OS's are not equal.
It may turn out that Apple has an even/less/ secure OS than MS. But I would'nt bet on it as it is counter to all the evidence we actually do have.
The argument that Macs are more secure because they are less of a target does not imply that they will be less secure when they/are more/ of a target. The only thing that we know is that Windows is insecure. Many people make the mistake of assuming that when Macs become more popular they will be just as insecure as Windows has been _proven_ to be. The only proof we have is that Macs, however popular, are more secure than Windows.
What Windows does not have going for it is that the company that build it never took security seriously when it really mattered. This was back in the 90's when the fundamental security models and user mindset was being established. Microsoft shot themselves in the head back then and has never recovered.
Silly comment. Do you have any idea what there server setup is? Didn't think so. Laszlo is the development platform, not the load balancing or caching layer. Thats where you can piss and moan about Slashdottings.
Now does every site need to worry about the drooling Slashdot hords when 99.999 percent of all their other traffic is handled perfectly by their existing setup? Nope.
"I think it is time for a very serious debate over what is acceptable to give up in the name of security"
With all the effort it would take to get Americans to hold and respect a serious debate your energies would be better spent solving the problem. There is no way for serious debate at the highest levels of government. The people in power have no incentive as they only stand to loose. In their brains it's loosers who want to hold debates. And who wants to be seen on stage with loosers.
No, what is needed is _action_. Go down to town hall with a crowed and scream at your senators. Thats what gets them motivated. And remember not to use big words, we want to be effective.
Right, and so you did not work there. And that restricted your freedom how? What if the company said that we don't have a union but everyone is required to strangle a kitten on Thursdays for the company picknick. You might choose to not work there too.
Not every job is for every one.
This from someone who said:
"The job I work is not mine... it is my employer's and they are free to can me at any time for any reason... just as I am able to leave at any time and for any reason."
Your would be coworkers are free to unionise. You are free to join, or not. You should recognise your own logic.
I have worked in tech. for over 15 years and it is filled with lazy, ignorant, prima donnas that entrench themselves in cozy little positions and act like the company would come unglued if they ever left. I've seen these people quit over silly management disputes and the company moves on without a hitch. I doubt highly that unions could make things any worse.
In fact it could potentialy make things better by working out a compensation package that is based on... _actual merrit_. Then your precious salary would be safe because clearly you will be in the top percental of valuable contributors and so take home most of the bacon.
Unions can actually work out solutions to problems so as to benefit a company and the people in it. It's about having the leverage to negotiate.
Yours and others line of opposition sounds firghteningly ignorant.
The tech world seems to be littered with shallow ignoramuses. I would like to know where they are all getting their knee jerk group think ideas. It's eary.
People are allowed to form corporations in order to enrich themselves, give themselves multi-million dollar raises, expense accounts, etc. But to the "worker", your on your own buddy! Don't even think of organizing you f'in communist. The corporations will litteraly beat you down. It's pathetic.
Thats true isolation. It has nothing to do with freedom. Your free to work for whoever you want and they are free to fire you. You are also free to join a union, or not. Unless it is restricted by corporate charter or by law, which is true restriction.
Nothing about unions restricts your freedom. Unions are simply a social structure designed to organize people for a purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
If only there was a clue grape, I'de feed you one.
When truth is on the line, one should never back down or run from a confrontation. There is a world of difference between doing the same "thing" over and over and standing up for what is right.
There comes a point when through an honest adherence to reality things finally change. If you give up mid-way, you'll never get anywhere.
Kind Regards
You spend several paragraphs explaining how you think the pharma funding network works and then single out stem cell research as something that should be handled differently. If you want to tackle the issue of government funding of what ultimatly becomes private proffit then talk about that. Otherwise, I don't see why the government should spend billions on _less
_ promising research than stem cells.
Kind Regards
He is not comparing it to the Nazis and the Holocaust. He is comparing it to Poland. 1939 to be exact. What happens next remains to be seen and is largely dependent on the action the rest the world takes _right now_.
Kind Regards
There are people who still defend the the invasion of Iraq from the position that Iraq was involved in the attacks on NY and DC, had WMD's and was an immiediat threat to world peace. So it is very importaint to disband those false lines of reasoning, force people to re-examine their ability to think criticaly and basically expose the lies so that people can not use them as a basis for decision making at some point in the future.
Simply saying that world sprang out of the eather yesterday and we can only focus on today is not helpful. We need to examine and come to terms with the decisions that led us to where we are. As there is a vocal group of liers in the USA who insist on fabricating the past, we must keep the debate alive until the record contains only the facts.
Kind Regards
Also keep in mind that even the country that is the worlds "Beacon of Democracy and Freedom", black people were only made full members less then 50 years ago. Women a little later.
The hypocracy... oh the hypocracy.
Kind Regards
This is about the hard cold math of economics. Econ. theory states that if a product is overpriced, then theft will ensue. Theivery of music, in this case, seems less of an indication that people are "bad" or don't "get it" but more of an indication that the gigs up for the real theives and crooks at the *AA. Don't get sucked into their simplistic and incorrect assesment of the socio-economic landscape. They have been screwing us for decades and now the've been caught with their pants down.
I hope they get reemed.
Kind Regards
Although the hecklers are getting tired.
Kind Regards
is to become a .NET developer and live happily ever after, of course. Except... not. The reason for all the languages and syntax is that the web grew up out of humanities desire to communicate. There is no one company that delivered the Internet as we know it. If you look at the history of any of the languages you mention you will find your answer as to why things are as they are. JavaScript came from Netscape and was originaly called LiveWire. It was a radicaly new web language that would give developers the tools to add client side processing to websites. Problem was that very few web developers at the time were actually programmers. They were most likely either DIY hobbiests or corporate lackies who sleezed their way into an easy paycheck by becoming the "web guy". So it rotted in the background until, hey, AJAX everybody!
HTML came out of SGML and the academic community. It was designed to deliver, get this, text _and_ images in the same document on the Internet! So cool! People were supposed to write their web pages in a text editor and then PUT their documents on the webserver. But PUT was not secure or powerful enough so enter webdav.
CSS is great! I have no complaints about the CSS/HTML dicotamy. And things will only get better with time. The problem with CSS is Internet Explorer. But I'm not going to beat that horse.
The web came so fast, and so many people were thinking about it that it produced an explosion of technologies, each trying to deliver something new. Now days we are sorting it all out, keeping whats good and letting the bad fade.
It's only been 15 years of the web. Can you imagine the world without it? I'd say things are pretty good.
Kind Regards
... idiot :)
Kind Regards
(seriously, he was saying when multiple people contradict a single person the _odds_ are not in the single persons favor. Queue Han Solo...)
They existed before anti-trust legislation, in the era of the robber barrons et als. If your looking for a text book pure example, maybe not but it was as close to free market as we are ever likely to get, if things ever get that bad again.
I provide less tech support to her with Linux then I did with Windows. In fact I have not provided tech support to her in about 4 years. She is still using the same Gentoo install from way back.
There are many smaller networks and a few large networks. They all look like one network because Windows is so prevalent globally which creates the illusion of a larger network than really exists. Linux has been adopted like gang busters within certain networks. These networks are eating away at the edges of the larger networks causing them to fragment.
Education and Government are two such networks that are starting to break away, or at least diversify. Either way it will reduce the effect for other sectors.
Kind Regards
"for Linux to a serious desktop option, your mom needs to be able to use it, write a word doc and e-mail her friends. That is not the case with Linux."
Me moms been using Linux since 1998. And I mean using it, not dicking around with like you. First SuSE, now Gentoo soon to be Ubuntu. She clicks the icon in her taskbar to dialup her ISP. She prefers it to Windows because:
1. It's stable
2. It's easy to use
3. It has all the applications she wants (e-mail, word processor, web browser)
4. Multiple desktops
5. It looks better than Windows
So maybe your talking about your mom?
Kind Regards
There are no free markets anymore. There were free markets 100-200 years ago and the failed. They failed because the basic assumptions of the free market capitalists were wrong or at least could not exist in the real world. Although a few people became very very wealthy so I guess the free market worked for them.
Market transparency is a good one because it relates directly to the ability of a consumer to educate themselves about product offerings and make a choice. Consumer choice is one of the fundamental concepts of free market econ. Mess with choice and the whole thing unravles.
Kind Regards
The problem is that Free Market ecnomies don't work in favor of the consumer, citizen or society, as history has shown. Try reading some modern economics, like from the last fifty years or so (and libertarian blog rantings don't count).
Thats the only way to be sure :)
Kind Regards
Your reasoning is a virus of bad logic that needs to be erradicated from Internet forums.
/are more/ of a target. The only thing that we know is that Windows is insecure. Many people make the mistake of assuming that when Macs become more popular they will be just as insecure as Windows has been _proven_ to be. The only proof we have is that Macs, however popular, are more secure than Windows.
/less/ secure OS than MS. But I would'nt bet on it as it is counter to all the evidence we actually do have.
The argument that Macs are more secure because they are less of a target does not imply that they will be less secure when they
Windows has been proven to be trivially exploited for a decade now. There is a massive army of infected Windows zombies that pile onto any fresh system that connects to the Internet. This is a problem that Microsoft created by being jackasses about security back in the 90's. Apple has reinvented itself with an OS based on proven security models. Every OS has problems but all OS's are not equal.
It may turn out that Apple has an even
Kind Regards
Certainly starts with the OS.
/are more/ of a target. The only thing that we know is that Windows is insecure. Many people make the mistake of assuming that when Macs become more popular they will be just as insecure as Windows has been _proven_ to be. The only proof we have is that Macs, however popular, are more secure than Windows.
The argument that Macs are more secure because they are less of a target does not imply that they will be less secure when they
What Windows does not have going for it is that the company that build it never took security seriously when it really mattered. This was back in the 90's when the fundamental security models and user mindset was being established. Microsoft shot themselves in the head back then and has never recovered.
Kind Regards
Silly comment. Do you have any idea what there server setup is? Didn't think so. Laszlo is the development platform, not the load balancing or caching layer. Thats where you can piss and moan about Slashdottings.
Now does every site need to worry about the drooling Slashdot hords when 99.999 percent of all their other traffic is handled perfectly by their existing setup? Nope.
Kind Regards
"I think it is time for a very serious debate over what is acceptable to give up in the name of security"
With all the effort it would take to get Americans to hold and respect a serious debate your energies would be better spent solving the problem. There is no way for serious debate at the highest levels of government. The people in power have no incentive as they only stand to loose. In their brains it's loosers who want to hold debates. And who wants to be seen on stage with loosers.
No, what is needed is _action_. Go down to town hall with a crowed and scream at your senators. Thats what gets them motivated. And remember not to use big words, we want to be effective.
Kind Regards
Right, and so you did not work there. And that restricted your freedom how? What if the company said that we don't have a union but everyone is required to strangle a kitten on Thursdays for the company picknick. You might choose to not work there too.
Not every job is for every one.
This from someone who said:
"The job I work is not mine... it is my employer's and they are free to can me at any time for any reason... just as I am able to leave at any time and for any reason."
Your would be coworkers are free to unionise. You are free to join, or not. You should recognise your own logic.
Kind Regards
I have worked in tech. for over 15 years and it is filled with lazy, ignorant, prima donnas that entrench themselves in cozy little positions and act like the company would come unglued if they ever left. I've seen these people quit over silly management disputes and the company moves on without a hitch. I doubt highly that unions could make things any worse.
In fact it could potentialy make things better by working out a compensation package that is based on... _actual merrit_. Then your precious salary would be safe because clearly you will be in the top percental of valuable contributors and so take home most of the bacon.
Unions can actually work out solutions to problems so as to benefit a company and the people in it. It's about having the leverage to negotiate.
Yours and others line of opposition sounds firghteningly ignorant.
Kind Regards
The tech world seems to be littered with shallow ignoramuses. I would like to know where they are all getting their knee jerk group think ideas. It's eary.
People are allowed to form corporations in order to enrich themselves, give themselves multi-million dollar raises, expense accounts, etc. But to the "worker", your on your own buddy! Don't even think of organizing you f'in communist. The corporations will litteraly beat you down. It's pathetic.
Kind Regards
"Now that... is true freedom!"
Thats true isolation. It has nothing to do with freedom. Your free to work for whoever you want and they are free to fire you. You are also free to join a union, or not. Unless it is restricted by corporate charter or by law, which is true restriction.
Nothing about unions restricts your freedom. Unions are simply a social structure designed to organize people for a purpose.
Kind Regards