You are correct, but with engineers it's even more futile to try to use these numbers; engineers are (at least in theory) able to create products that distort the market. For example, engineers created the calculator, and look at what that did to the market for slide rules. THe IBM PC was also created by engineers - look at what that did to every single marketplace!
More engineers might just create more need for engineers.
If you think about it, the rich are exposed to less evolutionary pressure than the poor. The "de-evolution" that the right wing worries about so much is far more likely to happen among the children of privilege than among the poor population, who are still subject to many types of sexual selection (poor people are uglier than those with expensive dental care) and predation (murder rates are higher in poor population) that have been completely prevented among the rich.
Still, the rich will always appear to be smart, due to remedial surgeries and education (braces and prep school anyone?) while the majority of the poor will appear to be less genetically fit (due to poor nutrition, less access to expensive medical care, greater exposure to pollution, in-utero drug exposure, etc., etc., etc.).
I thoroughly read your code before I wrote my own stuff, which is unfortunately so specific to my employers' requirements as to make it useless for anyone else. Your perl was extremely useful to me in the perl-LDAP learning process (I didn't actually cut 'n' paste any of it into my own, but it definitely flavored the way I was looking at our problems).
I was never able to find a PADL-distributed perl chage, though - although I downloaded all their tarballs a year or two ago looking for it - so you might want to change http://www.cloudmaster.com/cloudmaster/projects/fo m-files/cache/72.html to include a link if PADL's still got it online.
Thanks again!
Re:Nearly perpetual motion is a commonplace, Doc.
on
Artificial Tornadoes
·
· Score: 1
People seem to want to describe anything involving vortices in the most hyperbolic terms possible (and this isn't a new phenomena, look at any web page mentioning Viktor Schauberger).
Nearly perpetual motion is a commonplace, Doc.
on
Artificial Tornadoes
·
· Score: 1
The movements of air around the planet, and the rising of air due to insolation, are "nearly" perpetual motion for our petty human purposes. You are usually not such a defender of conventional viewpoints! Motion that is perpetual over the remainder of the solar system's useable lifespan is perfectly in accord with basic physics.
One interesting concept engendered by an "artifical tornado" is the idea of a solar tower (such as was successfully built in Spain and are currently being built in Australia) with no physical tower structure that can fall down and crush expensive facilities and people. Instead, you just find an area that's nearly hot enough to generate a tornado already and truck in der wunderbox - voila! solar tower without the time and expense of building a giant chimney in a baking wasteland. Startup energy supplied over the same cables used to carry the power out afterwards, just unroll 'em off the back of the truck.
Get enough of these fsckers going and then you'll see some climate modification, ya betcha. Might even be controllable and useful for that purpose (though I imagine politics would prevent).
People are begging Red Hat to integrate Thorsten's code into RH Enterprise Linux here. Join the throng and maybe Red Hat will get the thumb out.
You could also consider cpu which includes usermod/useradd functionality.
A lot of sites just use cgi-perl and Graham Barr's perl-LDAP to create a custom web app for this sort of thing. Once you've got an LDAP backend that seamlessly manages password transparency between apache, Active Directory, *nix, and Novell it becomes incredibly easy to set up secure web apps and push low-level system management functions down to people without advanced computer knowledge (like the HR department for example).
How do you know these things? Have you ever lived in a black (or white trash) community? If so, why do you think it was representative of other such communities? If not, who is telling you what is going on there?
Question: Were the "underlying assumptions" and basic methodology (which you very responsibly and sensibly do report in your study) dictated to you by Microsoft or some other external entity, or did you yourself come up with the test scenario?
I ask because the consensus around here seems to be that the conditions and methodology were cherry-picked to favor systems with single-vendor provenance and ease of initial installation, and do not include any real measures of operational stability or reliability.
MD4 collisions can be found in a few seconds (but nobody uses that any more)
I thought MD4-encrypted passwords were still flying around most of the world's MS-windows networks. I coulda sworn I had to explicitly turn them off on all my nets...
but the discussion is archived. You need a new sig.
Incidentally, I was taking the train eight months ago to Boston, and a neatly-dressed, non-uniformed man walked into the station with a huge chrome revolver strapped to his belt. Nobody panicked, the lady at the counter gave him a ticket and he got on my train. Nobody asked him for police ID or gun registration papers and nobody seemed to mind at all.
I felt safer than I've ever felt on a plane, especially now that they confiscate most of my weapons on boarding.
Oddly enough, given all your diversions, I am still tracking the issue.
You recommended that everyone pirate music.
I say that is an amoral position, that puts you at the same level as any other exploiter of musicians.
You want to redefine the meanings of profit, happiness, consumer activism, and anything else that comes to mind in order to defend your lack of moral fibre, and I'm laughing at you.
If you refuse to buy the stuff that offends you, you are taking a moral stand.
If you seize it openly without paying and go to jail, you might still be making a moral stand.
But if you secretly take it, you're just a petty criminal.
My mistake, you were not advocating anything. My apologies! But what you were describing was a plutocracy, where the good of society is subservient to those who control accumulated capital. Mussolini's facism (which he said should be more properly called "corporatism") is similar; so is Ayn Rand's ant-hill.
The first poster said "company exist to serve the consumer" and you said "companies exist to generate profit for the owners" but neither of these is correct, they are just opposite misconceptions.
Societies don't have to allow companies to exist. A government can insist that all industries be single-owner single-worker cottage industries and enforce those restrictions with bloodshed. This has happened repeatedly in human history - in Cambodia for example. An anarchistic culture could also (theoretically) impose the same limitations, though it's harder to imagine without a central government. Eliminating companies, however, greatly limits the population that a society can encompass - which would make such a society ripe for military takeover by a more co-operative society, which is kind of what happened to Pol Pot.
Don't confuse the incentive (profit) that is provided by society to the holders of capital (business owners) with the reasons a society allows a company to exist. Those reasons (speaking from the viewpoint of an observer and not the owner) are the *purpose* of the company.
So, the reason for the owner to buy or found the company is the expectation of profit. But what allows the company to exist at all is that the society that surrounds the company gains value from the continuing employment of workers. Depending on the company's activities, the value delivered to the society could include all kinds of other things (like land reclamation or consumer goods) but the one thing that *all* companies deliver to the society is gainful employment for citizens. It is their function, the reason they are allowed to exist.
If a business owner trangresses the cultural values of a society in search of profit, a healthy society will crush that business. Unless we're talking about a plutocracy or an Ayn Rand wonderland, where the business owner only has to generate wealth for himself and owes nothing to society.
Now I don't even get to use the word "happy" in a traditional context? Do you plan to redefine the entire English language? Or are you just asserting that you are the arbiter of what happiness is?
I haven't bought anything from Exxon since the Valdez incident. Curiously enough, despite your claims to the contrary, they are still highly profitable.
When you pirate music you join ranks with the RIAA and the other amoral bastards who are exploiting the talents of musicians. You are morally equivalent to them; you don't want to give value (money) to the person (musician) who has provided value (the music) to you. You require regulation, just like they do. I favor the idea of granting hunting licenses to musicians, myself; I like the idea of Roger McGuinn gunning down record company executives and self-indulgent teenagers. Hell, I'd buy him some ammunition.
Companies exist to provide work for the citizenry and an effective distribution of resources in accordance with a society's values.
Notice I didn't say "a fair distribution of resources". That's not the point at all, unless you happen to live in a communist society. Effective yes, fair would be chrome.
What you are advocating is plutocracy, which is not really a representative form of government.
Companies do not "exist to serve the consumer". Companies exist to provide work and income to the worker. That's why society permits them to exist! The consumer is at best a benign parasite, like the e. coli in your gut - necessary to the company's survival, yes, but certainly not exercising direct control over the company.
I don't have to pirate anything. If I don't like your terms of sale, I can make my own music.
Though you haven't supplied any details, I suspect you're focusing too tightly - it's more than just a lack of a binary interface driver that has put you in such a frustrating situation.
The problem is that people often take that attitude and then wander around blindly, amazed that it isn't "the year of Linux on the desktop" yet.
Yeah, that amazes me too. I think it's related to the mindset that says "I have to destroy my competition" instead of "I have to get enough market share to pay for whatever I'm going to do next". They seem to think that for one thing to succeed, all alternatives must be eliminated, and some of them are so fanatical they can't even acknowledge the existence of an obvious bug in whatever fetish they are championing.
Those people need to get over themselves, and understand that there will never be a single tool appropriate for all levels of skill unless we dumb everyone down to the level of the most mentally handicapped individual (and if we do that, the tool will be a rubber nipple, or possibly a spork, not an OS).
I think it's just fine that people like Miguel de Icaza are building a user-friendly interface to linux. But it's not really important to me like Ted T'so's work on capabilities is.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct, but with engineers it's even more futile to try to use these numbers; engineers are (at least in theory) able to create products that distort the market. For example, engineers created the calculator, and look at what that did to the market for slide rules. THe IBM PC was also created by engineers - look at what that did to every single marketplace!
More engineers might just create more need for engineers.
Well, the idea of witholding information "for people's own good" alarms the hell out of me.
Poverty does far more harm to children than lack of societally-approved DNA.
If you think about it, the rich are exposed to less evolutionary pressure than the poor. The "de-evolution" that the right wing worries about so much is far more likely to happen among the children of privilege than among the poor population, who are still subject to many types of sexual selection (poor people are uglier than those with expensive dental care) and predation (murder rates are higher in poor population) that have been completely prevented among the rich.
Still, the rich will always appear to be smart, due to remedial surgeries and education (braces and prep school anyone?) while the majority of the poor will appear to be less genetically fit (due to poor nutrition, less access to expensive medical care, greater exposure to pollution, in-utero drug exposure, etc., etc., etc.).
I thoroughly read your code before I wrote my own stuff, which is unfortunately so specific to my employers' requirements as to make it useless for anyone else. Your perl was extremely useful to me in the perl-LDAP learning process (I didn't actually cut 'n' paste any of it into my own, but it definitely flavored the way I was looking at our problems).
o m-files/cache/72.html
I was never able to find a PADL-distributed perl chage, though - although I downloaded all their tarballs a year or two ago looking for it - so you might want to change http://www.cloudmaster.com/cloudmaster/projects/f
to include a link if PADL's still got it online.
Thanks again!
People seem to want to describe anything involving vortices in the most hyperbolic terms possible (and this isn't a new phenomena, look at any web page mentioning Viktor Schauberger).
The movements of air around the planet, and the rising of air due to insolation, are "nearly" perpetual motion for our petty human purposes. You are usually not such a defender of conventional viewpoints! Motion that is perpetual over the remainder of the solar system's useable lifespan is perfectly in accord with basic physics.
One interesting concept engendered by an "artifical tornado" is the idea of a solar tower (such as was successfully built in Spain and are currently being built in Australia) with no physical tower structure that can fall down and crush expensive facilities and people. Instead, you just find an area that's nearly hot enough to generate a tornado already and truck in der wunderbox - voila! solar tower without the time and expense of building a giant chimney in a baking wasteland. Startup energy supplied over the same cables used to carry the power out afterwards, just unroll 'em off the back of the truck.
Get enough of these fsckers going and then you'll see some climate modification, ya betcha. Might even be controllable and useful for that purpose (though I imagine politics would prevent).
Thorsten Kukuk maintains a pwdutils package that includes LDAP-capable useradd, usermod, chage, etc. for SUSE.
People are begging Red Hat to integrate Thorsten's code into RH Enterprise Linux here. Join the throng and maybe Red Hat will get the thumb out.
You could also consider cpu which includes usermod/useradd functionality.
A lot of sites just use cgi-perl and Graham Barr's perl-LDAP to create a custom web app for this sort of thing. Once you've got an LDAP backend that seamlessly manages password transparency between apache, Active Directory, *nix, and Novell it becomes incredibly easy to set up secure web apps and push low-level system management functions down to people without advanced computer knowledge (like the HR department for example).
How do you know these things? Have you ever lived in a black (or white trash) community? If so, why do you think it was representative of other such communities? If not, who is telling you what is going on there?
You might want to avoid the buzzphrases and sentence structures commonly used by racists, then.
Thanks for the clarification!
Question: Were the "underlying assumptions" and basic methodology (which you very responsibly and sensibly do report in your study) dictated to you by Microsoft or some other external entity, or did you yourself come up with the test scenario?
I ask because the consensus around here seems to be that the conditions and methodology were cherry-picked to favor systems with single-vendor provenance and ease of initial installation, and do not include any real measures of operational stability or reliability.
I guess they would lose all fear of sunburn... the great of scourge of Viking warriors.
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'*
All actions have a moral dimension. Observation can be passive (arguably) but when you advocate, you act.
*Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6
but the discussion is archived. You need a new sig.
Incidentally, I was taking the train eight months ago to Boston, and a neatly-dressed, non-uniformed man walked into the station with a huge chrome revolver strapped to his belt. Nobody panicked, the lady at the counter gave him a ticket and he got on my train. Nobody asked him for police ID or gun registration papers and nobody seemed to mind at all.
I felt safer than I've ever felt on a plane, especially now that they confiscate most of my weapons on boarding.
Oddly enough, given all your diversions, I am still tracking the issue.
You recommended that everyone pirate music.
I say that is an amoral position, that puts you at the same level as any other exploiter of musicians.
You want to redefine the meanings of profit, happiness, consumer activism, and anything else that comes to mind in order to defend your lack of moral fibre, and I'm laughing at you.
If you refuse to buy the stuff that offends you, you are taking a moral stand.
If you seize it openly without paying and go to jail, you might still be making a moral stand.
But if you secretly take it, you're just a petty criminal.
My mistake, you were not advocating anything. My apologies! But what you were describing was a plutocracy, where the good of society is subservient to those who control accumulated capital. Mussolini's facism (which he said should be more properly called "corporatism") is similar; so is Ayn Rand's ant-hill.
The first poster said "company exist to serve the consumer" and you said "companies exist to generate profit for the owners" but neither of these is correct, they are just opposite misconceptions.
Societies don't have to allow companies to exist. A government can insist that all industries be single-owner single-worker cottage industries and enforce those restrictions with bloodshed. This has happened repeatedly in human history - in Cambodia for example. An anarchistic culture could also (theoretically) impose the same limitations, though it's harder to imagine without a central government. Eliminating companies, however, greatly limits the population that a society can encompass - which would make such a society ripe for military takeover by a more co-operative society, which is kind of what happened to Pol Pot.
Don't confuse the incentive (profit) that is provided by society to the holders of capital (business owners) with the reasons a society allows a company to exist. Those reasons (speaking from the viewpoint of an observer and not the owner) are the *purpose* of the company.
So, the reason for the owner to buy or found the company is the expectation of profit. But what allows the company to exist at all is that the society that surrounds the company gains value from the continuing employment of workers. Depending on the company's activities, the value delivered to the society could include all kinds of other things (like land reclamation or consumer goods) but the one thing that *all* companies deliver to the society is gainful employment for citizens. It is their function, the reason they are allowed to exist.
If a business owner trangresses the cultural values of a society in search of profit, a healthy society will crush that business. Unless we're talking about a plutocracy or an Ayn Rand wonderland, where the business owner only has to generate wealth for himself and owes nothing to society.
Now I don't even get to use the word "happy" in a traditional context? Do you plan to redefine the entire English language? Or are you just asserting that you are the arbiter of what happiness is?
I haven't bought anything from Exxon since the Valdez incident. Curiously enough, despite your claims to the contrary, they are still highly profitable.
You chose the word "piracy". I would prefer to use the word differently.
for more reasons than you know.
Anyway, Exxon and Pacbell seem pretty profitable to me.
I gotta split, supper's waiting. Ciao!
When you pirate music you join ranks with the RIAA and the other amoral bastards who are exploiting the talents of musicians. You are morally equivalent to them; you don't want to give value (money) to the person (musician) who has provided value (the music) to you. You require regulation, just like they do. I favor the idea of granting hunting licenses to musicians, myself; I like the idea of Roger McGuinn gunning down record company executives and self-indulgent teenagers. Hell, I'd buy him some ammunition.
Companies exist to provide work for the citizenry and an effective distribution of resources in accordance with a society's values.
Notice I didn't say "a fair distribution of resources". That's not the point at all, unless you happen to live in a communist society. Effective yes, fair would be chrome.
What you are advocating is plutocracy, which is not really a representative form of government.
Companies do not "exist to serve the consumer". Companies exist to provide work and income to the worker. That's why society permits them to exist! The consumer is at best a benign parasite, like the e. coli in your gut - necessary to the company's survival, yes, but certainly not exercising direct control over the company.
I don't have to pirate anything. If I don't like your terms of sale, I can make my own music.
Though you haven't supplied any details, I suspect you're focusing too tightly - it's more than just a lack of a binary interface driver that has put you in such a frustrating situation.
Those people need to get over themselves, and understand that there will never be a single tool appropriate for all levels of skill unless we dumb everyone down to the level of the most mentally handicapped individual (and if we do that, the tool will be a rubber nipple, or possibly a spork, not an OS).
I think it's just fine that people like Miguel de Icaza are building a user-friendly interface to linux. But it's not really important to me like Ted T'so's work on capabilities is.