Re:It's true. The french name is really irritating
on
EiffelStudio Goes Open
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, you opened this can of worms; so I'll close it. And by the way, I do not "hate America". On the contrary, I very much like and admire America, and almost all Americans. Which is why it depresses me so much when they write things like your last article.
"I hate everything french for all the basic reasons most people hate the french which are all more or less deeply rooted in their insurmountable arrogance".
Yeah, right. Those arrogant French, thinking they are God's chosen people! Don't they know that *Americans* are God's chosen people?
And they're a real bunch of chicken-livered, gutless surrender monkeys, too - right from Charles Martel who defeated the Arabs at the battle of Tours in 732 (preventing Europe from becoming a Muslim continent), to the heroes of the Resistance who fought on against one of the most viciously efficient repressions the world has ever known. By way of Joan of Arc, Napoleon and his soldiers who conquered Europe in about ten years (on foot), the Foreign Legion and many, many others. Not to mention Lafayette -
"In 1777, Lafayette purchased a ship, and with a crew of adventurers set sail for America to fight in the revolution against the British. Lafayette joined the ranks as a major general and was assigned to the staff of George Washington. He served with distinction, leading American forces to several victories. On a return visit to France in 1779 Lafayette persuaded the French government to send aid to the Americans. After the British surrender at Yorktown, Lafayette returned home to Paris. He had become a hero to the new nation. At home he cooperated closely with Ambassadors Benjamin Franklin, and then Thomas Jefferson in behalf of American interests". http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95sep/lafayette.h tml
As for the "surrender" part, in September 1939 Britain and France declared war on Germany because it had invaded Poland. The USA did nothing. In 1940 Germany invaded France, launching one of the most inspired, unexpected, and vigorous surprise attacks in history. This defeated the large British and French armies, and compelled France to surrender. The USA still did nothing. At that time the US army (and other armed forces) were pathetic remnants. It took a full two years to get them up to a level at which the administration dared to enter the war. Had the USA been where France was in 1940 - right next to Germany, with a long land border - the Wehrmacht would have walked in, pulverised the US armed forces, and taken over the country with contemptuous ease. (Ask any competent American officer if you doubt this). With the Atlantic Ocean in the way, nearly two and a half extra years to get ready, about three times the population of either France or Germany, and far greater natural and industrial resources than both put together, the USA finally entered the war - but only when it was forced to because Hitler declared war on it.
As for "rescuing" France, don't be ridiculous. The USA was at war with Germany; to win, it had to invade Germany; and the only reasonable path lay through France. Taking credit for having liberated Europe, when the only reason the USA was even in the war was because the dictatorships attacked it, is the sheerest hypocrisy.
At least the French had the guts to take on Nazi Germany. The USA, which didn't dare take on Hitler, was happy to attack Saddam Hussein - a third-rate copy of Stalin, with a large army of disaffected, poorly-trained troops equipped with obsolete Soviet weapons. About as brave as a farmer going out with a combine harvester to cut a field of wheat.
"Just look at the sales department.... they look like fricking clones because they think they have to.... now look at the most sucessful sales people, they are different, get in trouble with the boss regularly but will not be fired because they out sell the other sales people 3 to 1."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: read that terrific book, "The Psychology of Military Incompetence" by Norman Dixon. It's not just about the military, but the pattern sounds familiar. In peacetime, armies are run by officers who think parades, uniforms, and saluting are what matters. Come wartime (a real war, I mean) it takes about six months for them to start being replaced by officers who can fight and win - many of whom dress in ways that would make the stuffed shirts faint. (Or wear pearl-handled six-shooters, or whatever).
Those who can, do. Those who can't try to look like they can.
Agreed. Building new aircraft carriers - especially big ones like these - more than 60 years after the end of WW2 demonstrates a profound lack of imagination. In fact, it is a perfect illustration of the dictum that nations always prepare for the last war.
In WW2, carriers were very important, as witness the fact that there were only a handful in 1939 but hundreds in 1945. Aside from the US Navy with its 100-plus carriers, even Britain's Royal Navy had over 70 carriers at the end of the war. (Admittedly, most of them were small escort carriers, but still - the Royal Navy doesn't have 70 warships in all nowadays).
The only reason the US Navy maintains its big carriers, and countries like France and Britain are planning new ones, is that there has been no serious naval warfare since 1945. Carriers are big, fat targets which positively invite attack by tactical nuclear weapons - whether delivered by torpedo, cruise missile or even ballistic missile. It's not necessary to get a direct hit - anything within a mile or so should do the trick. Anyone who has seen "Top Gun" even once must realize that, without the director on their side, Maverick and his friends should have failed to defend their carrier. The odds were all on the side of the attackers - who could, for instance, have split up and come in individually. How do three or four defending aircraft intercept six or more attackers, all widely separated? The real truth is uttered by CAG when he says "this whole thing will be over [in a few minutes]".
In this day and age, big carriers are reminiscent of the "mighty Hood" in the interwar years 1919 - 1939. Universally admired as the epitome of British naval power, Hood toured the world on goodwill visits, stopping off at many foreign ports where visitors marvelled at her huge guns, glistening brasswork and holystoned white decks. When she was put to the test at the battle of the Denmark Strait, however, Hood was sunk within minutes. Ironically, she may have been sunk not by Bismarck (a real battleship), but by a shell from the cruiser Prinz Eugen - precisely the class of ship that battlecruisers like Hood were originally intended to hunt down and destroy.
Armed forces always tend to forget their proper role in peacetime. Instead of genuine capability, they begin concentrating more and more on the show of force. This tendency is well described in Norman Dixon's superb book "On the psychology of military incompetence". Then, when a real war starts, it takes a while for the "parade ground" generals to be dismissed (or killed), and replaced by real warriors coming up from the ranks. Similarly, the floating gin palaces that look so impressive in peacetime are quickly sunk, to be replaced by ships that can survive and fight effectively.
"Now, Israel, on the other hand, has a history of spying on the US, including having their spies caught on US soil".
Hahahahahahahaha. Being as how the USA has the biggest, bestest and most advanced of everything, of course every country that can afford a few dollars for an intelligence budget is going to spy on it. They have spied, they are spying, they will spy. If the USA refuses to have trade relationships with nations that might spy on it, then it is not going to have many trade relationships.
As for Israeli spies getting caught, that is surprising. Usually the Israelis are smarter than that. Besides, it is basic tradecraft never to do any actual spying yourself - always hire locals to do the dirty work.
Lastly, do you think the USA itself ever spies on other countries? Including that those are, ostensibly, its allies at the moment? Or is that somehow "different"?
At the risk of diving down a rathole, I agree. Moreover, I think the whole "left-right" political spectrum has outlived its usefulness. First introduced (from memory) in the French Assembly just before the Revolution, its original meaning was that those on the right side supported the status quo (i.e. monarchists) while those on the left wanted change of various kinds.
Nowadays it is difficult to say what "conservatism" looks like - assuming they want to conserve something, is that the 18th century status quo? The 19th century? Pre-WW2? Or 1960s? So conservatives tend to define themselves as libertarians, supporting individual freedom and small government. Meanwhile they cast socialists (the left) as wanting ever bigger and more intrusive governments. But in practice, all administrations preside over steadily expanding governments. (See "Yes Minister", passim. And in the UK, at any rate, it seems the electorate is strongly prejudiced against conservatism; people seem to assume that life will get steadily better, so rejecting "progress" seems foolish to them.
There is a PC tendency to identify "left, good; right, bad". Yesterday, on the BBC Radio 4 program "Any Questions?", Lord Tebbitt got a mixed response by asserting that Hitler was on the left, not the right. (Because his party was the "National *Socialist*" party, his philosophy was totalitarian, and he was strongly opposed to individual liberty). You certainly could not say that Hitler and the Nazis were in favour of conserving the status quo - whether as of 1933, or as of 1914. Perhaps 9 AD/CE?
I think it's better to use a multidimensional grid, assessing people's views on several scales such as economic liberalism, political liberalism, religion, etc. But that doesn't suit the politicans' need for making everything as simple as possible - and then much simpler.
Actually, it seems to me, it's the commercial vendor that buys up an OSS distributor that is at risk. It pays a great deal of money for what? Essentially goodwill, an installed base, and the developers.
What if the developers take some of the money, then leave and carry on working on the project independently? Or set up another distributor? This applies in spades to the owners of the distributor, who can screw millions out of the commercial company, then leave and start over.
As Abraham Lincoln said about General George McClellan, "Sending that man reinforcements is like shoveling flies across a room". Trying to buy up open source could be a similar exercise in futility.
It's tempting to say that - of course 9/11 and other events smoothed the way - but it's not terrorists who want to take away Americans' liberties. It's other Americans. The terrorist scare just gives them a huge gaping window of opportunity, just as the Communist scare set Joe McCarthy up in business.
re: "...that corny old poem about first they came for the Jews, then the homosexuals and I never spoke up".
Is this what you meant? Please note the first three lines (usually omitted in the USA), and that there is no mention of homosexuals. Political correctness is one thing; rewriting history and literature is another.
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist. Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat. Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter. Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude. Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte. - Martin Niemöller, Der Weg ins Freie, (F.M. Hellbach, Stuttgart, 1946)
When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist. When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat. When they arrested the trade unionists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist. When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew. When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest. - translated by Bob Berkovitz (rbbrook@worldnet.att.net).
Yes indeed, Oracle has prudently given itself some control over MySQL's operations. And why did it get that opportunity? Money. You have to admit that events like this highlight the strengths of Richard Stallman's policy. In his world of free software, there is no money for operators like Oracle to get hold of. They can't exert leverage because there are no levers.
On the other hand, the more commercial OSS distributors get - the more money they have at stake - the more vulnerable they become to everyday financial manipulation. If you make yourself a Monopoly token, don't be surprised when someone picks you up and starts moving you around.
'For centuries, the "tone" of written l[e]tters, has been fairly easy to ascertain. My guess is that because letters took some time to arrive, because instant communication wasn't possible, that writers took great pains to make their intent absolutely clear'.
I quite agree. Furthermore:
1. Only a small minority had the time, education or money to send letters. These people tended to be "well-bred", which meant they were instinctively courteous. Even when they deliberately set out to be rude, they usually expressed themselves in polite language.
2. Most educated people agreed with Voltaire's aphorism (even if he himself never really uttered it) that "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". In other words they believed in civilised debate, not scatological shouting matches.
3. Letters were usually written either to friends or to business partners. In either case, it was important to remain on good terms, and generally to make a good impression.
On the Internet, these conditions no longer predominate. Many contributors are apparently poorly educated (at least to judge from their spelling, grammar, logic, etc.); they usually do not know most of the people they are arguing with; they don't care what kind of impression they make, but prefer to "win the argument"; and many of them do not admit that people who disaagree with them have a right to be heard.
Reminds me of the classic story of the highly-paid, well qualified engineer who was sitting at his desk with his feet up and his eyes closed one day, thinking through the design approach needed for a complex new chip. (This was a long time ago, when human beings had some direct influence in these matters).
Along comes the Big Boss and tells him to "get on with your work and stop sleeping on the job". So the engineer tells him, "I am working hard doing the work you hired me for, which most people can't even begin to do. I'm doing one of the most difficult kinds of work: creative thinking".
Following Verizon's lead, I confidently expect to see electricity suppliers charging hundreds of times more for power that is used by life-critical or business-critical machinery such as intensive care equipment and corporate servers.
By the same token, electricity that is wasted - for instance by powering lights when no one is present - should be provided free of charge. As should broadband connections while they are idle, which may well be more than 95 percent of the time. Hey, this may not work out so badly after all!
Seriously, Verizon's proposal flouts basic economics and amounts to commercial blackmail. If it refuses to supply bandwidth at the going price, someone else should be ready to step up and do so. If there is not enough competition for this to happen, it is up to government to open up the market so there is competition.
Classically, you cannot optimize two parameters simultaneously. Thus, if reliability and robustness are the most important things, coding in C++ must logically be less important. Even so, of course, there might be no practical alternative. But I don't believe that is so. A lot of the trouble we have with modern software is that the people who produced it did not assign a high enough priority to reliability or security.
I realise this probably isn't a practical suggestion, but it is at least an existence proof. In the VMS Common Language Environment you can mix languages more or less ad lib. Thus, you could call C++ libraries from a simpler and safer language such as Pascal, Ada, or even Java. (Yes, I know Ada is big and complex, but there is no law that says you have to use all of it. Besides, reliable/secure subsets have been defined for mission-critical or safety-critical applications).
Can't you do similar mixed-language programming in.NET? The libraries you refer to are presumably fairly robust, so if you write your own code in a safer language you should be OK. Clearly, other parameters such as performance and cost may be affected, but as already stated, you ca't optimize everything.
This is the most sophisticated parasitic routine I have ever heard of, AFAICR. But I was reminded of David Attenborough's BBC TV series "Life in the Undergrowth", which I recently watched - it's available on DVD in the UK, and according to Amazon will be released in the USA at the beginning of May. That contains a few similar examples, including a small wasp whose grub parasitizes living spiders - the biter bit. Strongly recommended, like everything by "Whispering Dave".
Until he explained it, I did not know that wasps were among the oldest of insects, and that both ants and bees were descended from primitive wasps. That set me thinking about cockroaches, which also go back to the dawn of land life. I wondered whether they were, unlike most other bugs, immune to attack by wasps. I guess this article answers that question pretty decisively.
Ever wonder how you would cope with wasps the size of a human being? I know it should be physically impossible, but it's too good a scary idea to give up. "The Furies", by Keith Roberts, is a very good SF novel on that theme, which - unlike many such books - hasn't dated since the 1960s. To quote a review on amazon.co.uk, the Furies are "wasps with a 2 meter wingspan and mandibles like bolt-cutters". And, of course, they hunt in packs...
"People are different and life isn't fair; get over it already, or sue someone".
I was never under it, and I don't sue people - I'm not American. I was just pointing out that there is quite a lot that scientists don't fully understand about obesity and weight loss, and it is a problem that causes a huge amount of unhappiness.
Better still, at every step of the cycle, one or more hot shot managers get kudos and possibly promotion in recognition of their fantastic new bright idea. Even when the bright idea consists of exactly reversing the last bright idea but two or three, which gave the current CIO a big boost on the way to his walnut-panelled office.
I think of it as attention-deficit management, but as the PHBs like to say, "You can't drive by looking in the rear-view mirror". (I.e. "Ignore all my past blunders - but believe all the colourful promises I'm making right now!"
"Perhaps everyone sees the FBI as the US Government's stormtroopers..."
No, that would be the US Marines.
Re:Conservation of energy revoked?
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"What they will conveniently forget is convervation of energy: The only way someone can gain weight is by eating too much... End of discussion".
Unless you are an expert on human metabolism, you cannot possibly make such an assertion. And if you were, you wouldn't.
What you overlook is that human beings are animals, and hence complex biochemical factories, not simple heat engines. If you know how much petrol a car engine of a given capacity burns in a given time, you know how much energy it produces, right? (Even this is only broadly true). But animals are very inefficient converters of energy. I forget how much of the energy we use gets "wasted" as heat, but it's a large fraction. (Just as well, or we'd die of hypothermia). Other energy goes into running various chemical reactions, not all of which are necessarily indispensable or even useful.
As soon as you think about if for a few seconds, it's clear that the body has a lot of discretion in just how it uses the 200 calories you get from, say, eating a bun. These viruses could jam the "make fat" control hard over against the end stop.
Maybe you think it is fine for one person to eat 2900 calories a day, do little exercise, and stay thin; while another person eats 2000 calories, walks six miles and gains weight. But how is the second person going to control their weight in the long run? The only practical way we have of controlling calorie intake is our appetite. Have you ever tried measuring your exact calorie intake while eating a normal diet? It's far from easy. Moreover, how are people to know how much they should be eating, if it's 2000 for one person and 3000 for someone else of similar size, shape, and exercise habits? We can't all become dietary scientists, walking about with computers and clipboards, weighing every bite of food we eat.
Surely all files are automatically copyright, unless the copyright owner has explicitly declared them to be in the public domain?
And what constitutes making files "available for distribution"? Does an open share qualify, if the computer is not on a network? How about a home network with two computers, but no Internet connection? And so on...
Actually, Orwell *was* an optimist. He thought that people would resist having slavery imposed on them, but might nevertheless be crushed by overwhelming power.
What is happening in our world is even worse: it turns out that most people don't mind losing their privacy, being watched wherever they go, and having every detail of their life observed and recorded, if as a result they can live in comfort and avoid having to think or make an effort. The Roman who made that remark about the people being satisfied with "bread and circuses" was so right - only nowadays it has become "millions of varieties of food and drink, and thousands of TV channels".
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you opened this can of worms; so I'll close it. And by the way, I do not "hate America". On the contrary, I very much like and admire America, and almost all Americans. Which is why it depresses me so much when they write things like your last article.
h tml
"I hate everything french for all the basic reasons most people hate the french which are all more or less deeply rooted in their insurmountable arrogance".
Yeah, right. Those arrogant French, thinking they are God's chosen people! Don't they know that *Americans* are God's chosen people?
And they're a real bunch of chicken-livered, gutless surrender monkeys, too - right from Charles Martel who defeated the Arabs at the battle of Tours in 732 (preventing Europe from becoming a Muslim continent), to the heroes of the Resistance who fought on against one of the most viciously efficient repressions the world has ever known. By way of Joan of Arc, Napoleon and his soldiers who conquered Europe in about ten years (on foot), the Foreign Legion and many, many others. Not to mention Lafayette -
"In 1777, Lafayette purchased a ship, and with a crew of adventurers set sail for America to fight in the revolution against the British. Lafayette joined the ranks as a major general and was assigned to the staff of George Washington. He served with distinction, leading American forces to several victories. On a return visit to France in 1779 Lafayette persuaded the French government to send aid to the Americans. After the British surrender at Yorktown, Lafayette returned home to Paris. He had become a hero to the new nation. At home he cooperated closely with Ambassadors Benjamin Franklin, and then Thomas Jefferson in behalf of American interests". http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95sep/lafayette.
As for the "surrender" part, in September 1939 Britain and France declared war on Germany because it had invaded Poland. The USA did nothing. In 1940 Germany invaded France, launching one of the most inspired, unexpected, and vigorous surprise attacks in history. This defeated the large British and French armies, and compelled France to surrender. The USA still did nothing. At that time the US army (and other armed forces) were pathetic remnants. It took a full two years to get them up to a level at which the administration dared to enter the war. Had the USA been where France was in 1940 - right next to Germany, with a long land border - the Wehrmacht would have walked in, pulverised the US armed forces, and taken over the country with contemptuous ease. (Ask any competent American officer if you doubt this). With the Atlantic Ocean in the way, nearly two and a half extra years to get ready, about three times the population of either France or Germany, and far greater natural and industrial resources than both put together, the USA finally entered the war - but only when it was forced to because Hitler declared war on it.
As for "rescuing" France, don't be ridiculous. The USA was at war with Germany; to win, it had to invade Germany; and the only reasonable path lay through France. Taking credit for having liberated Europe, when the only reason the USA was even in the war was because the dictatorships attacked it, is the sheerest hypocrisy.
At least the French had the guts to take on Nazi Germany. The USA, which didn't dare take on Hitler, was happy to attack Saddam Hussein - a third-rate copy of Stalin, with a large army of disaffected, poorly-trained troops equipped with obsolete Soviet weapons. About as brave as a farmer going out with a combine harvester to cut a field of wheat.
"Just look at the sales department.... they look like fricking clones because they think they have to.... now look at the most sucessful sales people, they are different, get in trouble with the boss regularly but will not be fired because they out sell the other sales people 3 to 1."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: read that terrific book, "The Psychology of Military Incompetence" by Norman Dixon. It's not just about the military, but the pattern sounds familiar. In peacetime, armies are run by officers who think parades, uniforms, and saluting are what matters. Come wartime (a real war, I mean) it takes about six months for them to start being replaced by officers who can fight and win - many of whom dress in ways that would make the stuffed shirts faint. (Or wear pearl-handled six-shooters, or whatever).
Those who can, do. Those who can't try to look like they can.
Scott should sue this guy for competing with his PHB... and holding his own.
Agreed. Building new aircraft carriers - especially big ones like these - more than 60 years after the end of WW2 demonstrates a profound lack of imagination. In fact, it is a perfect illustration of the dictum that nations always prepare for the last war.
In WW2, carriers were very important, as witness the fact that there were only a handful in 1939 but hundreds in 1945. Aside from the US Navy with its 100-plus carriers, even Britain's Royal Navy had over 70 carriers at the end of the war. (Admittedly, most of them were small escort carriers, but still - the Royal Navy doesn't have 70 warships in all nowadays).
The only reason the US Navy maintains its big carriers, and countries like France and Britain are planning new ones, is that there has been no serious naval warfare since 1945. Carriers are big, fat targets which positively invite attack by tactical nuclear weapons - whether delivered by torpedo, cruise missile or even ballistic missile. It's not necessary to get a direct hit - anything within a mile or so should do the trick. Anyone who has seen "Top Gun" even once must realize that, without the director on their side, Maverick and his friends should have failed to defend their carrier. The odds were all on the side of the attackers - who could, for instance, have split up and come in individually. How do three or four defending aircraft intercept six or more attackers, all widely separated? The real truth is uttered by CAG when he says "this whole thing will be over [in a few minutes]".
In this day and age, big carriers are reminiscent of the "mighty Hood" in the interwar years 1919 - 1939. Universally admired as the epitome of British naval power, Hood toured the world on goodwill visits, stopping off at many foreign ports where visitors marvelled at her huge guns, glistening brasswork and holystoned white decks. When she was put to the test at the battle of the Denmark Strait, however, Hood was sunk within minutes. Ironically, she may have been sunk not by Bismarck (a real battleship), but by a shell from the cruiser Prinz Eugen - precisely the class of ship that battlecruisers like Hood were originally intended to hunt down and destroy.
Armed forces always tend to forget their proper role in peacetime. Instead of genuine capability, they begin concentrating more and more on the show of force. This tendency is well described in Norman Dixon's superb book "On the psychology of military incompetence". Then, when a real war starts, it takes a while for the "parade ground" generals to be dismissed (or killed), and replaced by real warriors coming up from the ranks. Similarly, the floating gin palaces that look so impressive in peacetime are quickly sunk, to be replaced by ships that can survive and fight effectively.
"Now, Israel, on the other hand, has a history of spying on the US, including having their spies caught on US soil".
Hahahahahahahaha. Being as how the USA has the biggest, bestest and most advanced of everything, of course every country that can afford a few dollars for an intelligence budget is going to spy on it. They have spied, they are spying, they will spy. If the USA refuses to have trade relationships with nations that might spy on it, then it is not going to have many trade relationships.
As for Israeli spies getting caught, that is surprising. Usually the Israelis are smarter than that. Besides, it is basic tradecraft never to do any actual spying yourself - always hire locals to do the dirty work.
Lastly, do you think the USA itself ever spies on other countries? Including that those are, ostensibly, its allies at the moment? Or is that somehow "different"?
At the risk of diving down a rathole, I agree. Moreover, I think the whole "left-right" political spectrum has outlived its usefulness. First introduced (from memory) in the French Assembly just before the Revolution, its original meaning was that those on the right side supported the status quo (i.e. monarchists) while those on the left wanted change of various kinds.
Nowadays it is difficult to say what "conservatism" looks like - assuming they want to conserve something, is that the 18th century status quo? The 19th century? Pre-WW2? Or 1960s? So conservatives tend to define themselves as libertarians, supporting individual freedom and small government. Meanwhile they cast socialists (the left) as wanting ever bigger and more intrusive governments. But in practice, all administrations preside over steadily expanding governments. (See "Yes Minister", passim. And in the UK, at any rate, it seems the electorate is strongly prejudiced against conservatism; people seem to assume that life will get steadily better, so rejecting "progress" seems foolish to them.
There is a PC tendency to identify "left, good; right, bad". Yesterday, on the BBC Radio 4 program "Any Questions?", Lord Tebbitt got a mixed response by asserting that Hitler was on the left, not the right. (Because his party was the "National *Socialist*" party, his philosophy was totalitarian, and he was strongly opposed to individual liberty). You certainly could not say that Hitler and the Nazis were in favour of conserving the status quo - whether as of 1933, or as of 1914. Perhaps 9 AD/CE?
I think it's better to use a multidimensional grid, assessing people's views on several scales such as economic liberalism, political liberalism, religion, etc. But that doesn't suit the politicans' need for making everything as simple as possible - and then much simpler.
"...the finite capacity of our brains is now being pulled in ever more directions... Too much fuzz".
Very true. And it's not a new problem, either:
"Our life is frittered away by detail. Simplify, simplify."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Actually, it seems to me, it's the commercial vendor that buys up an OSS distributor that is at risk. It pays a great deal of money for what? Essentially goodwill, an installed base, and the developers.
What if the developers take some of the money, then leave and carry on working on the project independently? Or set up another distributor? This applies in spades to the owners of the distributor, who can screw millions out of the commercial company, then leave and start over.
As Abraham Lincoln said about General George McClellan, "Sending that man reinforcements is like shoveling flies across a room". Trying to buy up open source could be a similar exercise in futility.
It's tempting to say that - of course 9/11 and other events smoothed the way - but it's not terrorists who want to take away Americans' liberties. It's other Americans. The terrorist scare just gives them a huge gaping window of opportunity, just as the Communist scare set Joe McCarthy up in business.
re: "...that corny old poem about first they came for the Jews, then the homosexuals and I never spoke up".
Is this what you meant? Please note the first three lines (usually omitted in the USA), and that there is no mention of homosexuals. Political correctness is one thing; rewriting history and literature is another.
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
- Martin Niemöller, Der Weg ins Freie, (F.M. Hellbach, Stuttgart, 1946)
When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.
- translated by Bob Berkovitz (rbbrook@worldnet.att.net).
Yes indeed, Oracle has prudently given itself some control over MySQL's operations. And why did it get that opportunity? Money. You have to admit that events like this highlight the strengths of Richard Stallman's policy. In his world of free software, there is no money for operators like Oracle to get hold of. They can't exert leverage because there are no levers.
On the other hand, the more commercial OSS distributors get - the more money they have at stake - the more vulnerable they become to everyday financial manipulation. If you make yourself a Monopoly token, don't be surprised when someone picks you up and starts moving you around.
"Why must we have a retrospective on computer history every 3 days?"
Why must you read them? 8-)
'For centuries, the "tone" of written l[e]tters, has been fairly easy to ascertain. My guess is that because letters took some time to arrive, because instant communication wasn't possible, that writers took great pains to make their intent absolutely clear'.
I quite agree. Furthermore:
1. Only a small minority had the time, education or money to send letters. These people tended to be "well-bred", which meant they were instinctively courteous. Even when they deliberately set out to be rude, they usually expressed themselves in polite language.
2. Most educated people agreed with Voltaire's aphorism (even if he himself never really uttered it) that "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". In other words they believed in civilised debate, not scatological shouting matches.
3. Letters were usually written either to friends or to business partners. In either case, it was important to remain on good terms, and generally to make a good impression.
On the Internet, these conditions no longer predominate. Many contributors are apparently poorly educated (at least to judge from their spelling, grammar, logic, etc.); they usually do not know most of the people they are arguing with; they don't care what kind of impression they make, but prefer to "win the argument"; and many of them do not admit that people who disaagree with them have a right to be heard.
Reminds me of the classic story of the highly-paid, well qualified engineer who was sitting at his desk with his feet up and his eyes closed one day, thinking through the design approach needed for a complex new chip. (This was a long time ago, when human beings had some direct influence in these matters).
Along comes the Big Boss and tells him to "get on with your work and stop sleeping on the job". So the engineer tells him, "I am working hard doing the work you hired me for, which most people can't even begin to do. I'm doing one of the most difficult kinds of work: creative thinking".
The Boss' reply? "Can't you do that at home?"
Following Verizon's lead, I confidently expect to see electricity suppliers charging hundreds of times more for power that is used by life-critical or business-critical machinery such as intensive care equipment and corporate servers.
By the same token, electricity that is wasted - for instance by powering lights when no one is present - should be provided free of charge. As should broadband connections while they are idle, which may well be more than 95 percent of the time. Hey, this may not work out so badly after all!
Seriously, Verizon's proposal flouts basic economics and amounts to commercial blackmail. If it refuses to supply bandwidth at the going price, someone else should be ready to step up and do so. If there is not enough competition for this to happen, it is up to government to open up the market so there is competition.
Classically, you cannot optimize two parameters simultaneously. Thus, if reliability and robustness are the most important things, coding in C++ must logically be less important. Even so, of course, there might be no practical alternative. But I don't believe that is so. A lot of the trouble we have with modern software is that the people who produced it did not assign a high enough priority to reliability or security.
.NET? The libraries you refer to are presumably fairly robust, so if you write your own code in a safer language you should be OK. Clearly, other parameters such as performance and cost may be affected, but as already stated, you ca't optimize everything.
I realise this probably isn't a practical suggestion, but it is at least an existence proof. In the VMS Common Language Environment you can mix languages more or less ad lib. Thus, you could call C++ libraries from a simpler and safer language such as Pascal, Ada, or even Java. (Yes, I know Ada is big and complex, but there is no law that says you have to use all of it. Besides, reliable/secure subsets have been defined for mission-critical or safety-critical applications).
Can't you do similar mixed-language programming in
This is the most sophisticated parasitic routine I have ever heard of, AFAICR. But I was reminded of David Attenborough's BBC TV series "Life in the Undergrowth", which I recently watched - it's available on DVD in the UK, and according to Amazon will be released in the USA at the beginning of May. That contains a few similar examples, including a small wasp whose grub parasitizes living spiders - the biter bit. Strongly recommended, like everything by "Whispering Dave".
Until he explained it, I did not know that wasps were among the oldest of insects, and that both ants and bees were descended from primitive wasps. That set me thinking about cockroaches, which also go back to the dawn of land life. I wondered whether they were, unlike most other bugs, immune to attack by wasps. I guess this article answers that question pretty decisively.
Ever wonder how you would cope with wasps the size of a human being? I know it should be physically impossible, but it's too good a scary idea to give up. "The Furies", by Keith Roberts, is a very good SF novel on that theme, which - unlike many such books - hasn't dated since the 1960s. To quote a review on amazon.co.uk, the Furies are "wasps with a 2 meter wingspan and mandibles like bolt-cutters". And, of course, they hunt in packs...
"People are different and life isn't fair; get over it already, or sue someone".
I was never under it, and I don't sue people - I'm not American. I was just pointing out that there is quite a lot that scientists don't fully understand about obesity and weight loss, and it is a problem that causes a huge amount of unhappiness.
Btw, are you a New Yorker by any chance?
"I've found there is a cycle... Goto step 1..."
Better still, at every step of the cycle, one or more hot shot managers get kudos and possibly promotion in recognition of their fantastic new bright idea. Even when the bright idea consists of exactly reversing the last bright idea but two or three, which gave the current CIO a big boost on the way to his walnut-panelled office.
I think of it as attention-deficit management, but as the PHBs like to say, "You can't drive by looking in the rear-view mirror". (I.e. "Ignore all my past blunders - but believe all the colourful promises I'm making right now!"
"Perhaps everyone sees the FBI as the US Government's stormtroopers..."
No, that would be the US Marines.
"What they will conveniently forget is convervation of energy: The only way someone can gain weight is by eating too much... End of discussion".
Unless you are an expert on human metabolism, you cannot possibly make such an assertion. And if you were, you wouldn't.
What you overlook is that human beings are animals, and hence complex biochemical factories, not simple heat engines. If you know how much petrol a car engine of a given capacity burns in a given time, you know how much energy it produces, right? (Even this is only broadly true). But animals are very inefficient converters of energy. I forget how much of the energy we use gets "wasted" as heat, but it's a large fraction. (Just as well, or we'd die of hypothermia). Other energy goes into running various chemical reactions, not all of which are necessarily indispensable or even useful.
As soon as you think about if for a few seconds, it's clear that the body has a lot of discretion in just how it uses the 200 calories you get from, say, eating a bun. These viruses could jam the "make fat" control hard over against the end stop.
Maybe you think it is fine for one person to eat 2900 calories a day, do little exercise, and stay thin; while another person eats 2000 calories, walks six miles and gains weight. But how is the second person going to control their weight in the long run? The only practical way we have of controlling calorie intake is our appetite. Have you ever tried measuring your exact calorie intake while eating a normal diet? It's far from easy. Moreover, how are people to know how much they should be eating, if it's 2000 for one person and 3000 for someone else of similar size, shape, and exercise habits? We can't all become dietary scientists, walking about with computers and clipboards, weighing every bite of food we eat.
This cartoon illustrates what I was trying to say perfectly:
6 0116.jpg
http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200601/df200
"So, what's the exit strategy for Iraq?"
Hey, what's the *entry* strategy for Iraq?
Surely all files are automatically copyright, unless the copyright owner has explicitly declared them to be in the public domain?
And what constitutes making files "available for distribution"? Does an open share qualify, if the computer is not on a network? How about a home network with two computers, but no Internet connection? And so on...
Actually, Orwell *was* an optimist. He thought that people would resist having slavery imposed on them, but might nevertheless be crushed by overwhelming power.
What is happening in our world is even worse: it turns out that most people don't mind losing their privacy, being watched wherever they go, and having every detail of their life observed and recorded, if as a result they can live in comfort and avoid having to think or make an effort. The Roman who made that remark about the people being satisfied with "bread and circuses" was so right - only nowadays it has become "millions of varieties of food and drink, and thousands of TV channels".