My stepsons go to a really good, progressive private school (with generous tuition assistance), yet there's still an issue with recess time shared with lunch. My eight-year-old stepson eats slowly. We provide him with good, healthy food, which he likes, but he doesn't actually have time to eat it. Naturally, much of the trouble is he'd rather play than eat -- and he should be able to play on recess, of course.
Well now in social situations when somebody asks you how many chicken nuggets you want, or how long you have been with the company, you don't look like a retard when you put your hands up and start counting fingers.
Counting on your fingers is a handy way of expressing, "Hang on a second, I'm figuring it out." I also find it less annoying than someone pronouncing a long, drawn out, "Ummm," before they give an answer.
OpenDNS has been quite negative about DNSSEC, which is understandable, considering that the hijacking they do is exactly what DNSSEC is supposed to inhibit.
With the transition to IPv6, I think DNS is going to become even more important. You can memorize and type IPv4 addresses much more easily than IPv6 addresses.
I just spent three semesters at a community college in San Francisco, studying system administration. High on my list of places I'd like to work is the healthcare industry, given that I want to find work that actually helps people, and that the healthcare industry is one of the places they're taking personal privacy most seriously. Had this program been available at the school where I studied, it would have helped me enormously. I'd gladly spend more time in school if the financing were available.
Marx's "Capital" was not about socialism; it was a detailed analysis of capitalism.
Of course profit gets reinvested. That's what profit is for. The amount of wealth capitalists spend on reproducing themselves is negligible; the amount they spend on luxuries is almost negligible. The rest is waste or profit. Whether a particular capitalist is a gross glutton or heroically frugal is almost completely irrelevant to the overall economic system. And really, they tend towards the latter.
Capitalism was an improvement over prior economic systems because it made use of a rational measurement for economic progress: profit. One problem is that it over-relies on that one measure.
Other problems: the boom/bust cycle (what do you do with profits when there's too much production to make a profit?); and the social problem that a minority is making social decisions that impact the majority.
I haven't been able to track down the source, but I recall reading that in the poorest country in Asia, 50% of the population owned mobile phones. That's consistent with what I cited above.
I literally do not know anyone above the age of ten who does not have at least one mobile phone.
Finally, on the broadcast TV issue: if 15% of the population has access to TV only by broadcast, then that's an argument for extending fiber networks so that everyone has access, not an argument against extending networks.
I hadn't realized that there was any discussion of eliminating broadcast television -- that does seem like a valid concern. However, even if it's a related issue, it appears to be a distinct one. Also, 15% is a much lower rate of usage than I would have guessed.
Handheld wireless devices are very popular *now*. Globally, there were 4.6 billion cell phone contracts as of 2009. Just about all cell phones are capable of Internet access. My point about handheld wireless devices is that they represent a hunger for small, easily portable all-in-one computing devices. With sufficient bandwidth available, we can overcome the limitations in processing power and storage in such devices.
Furthermore, the original point of the article is that there are regions where 100 Mb/s bandwidth is available *now*, and several nations are planning to make it available throughout their territory *soon*. If it's useful, it will be used -- and the US will be technologically backward.
Finally, a major argument for government initiatives to improve bandwidth availability is that bandwidth in the US is overpriced. It's not in the interests of the poor to limit bandwidth and keep it overpriced.
Look at how popular handheld wireless devices have become, despite the lack of the bandwidth to support them properly. There's lots that can be done with more bandwidth widely available -- and if it's already available in many places, they'll already be doing it before it's being done in the US.
Word processors aren't a great example. When I've worked as a word processor, I found that almost all the work could be done, more quickly and conveniently, in a simple text editor. The only things for which a word processor was needed were setting the margins, the line spacing, and the font. The only reason that Microsoft Word would be needed, rather than Wordpad, was so that you could read other Microsoft Word files.
In August 2004, NIST scientists demonstrated a chip-scaled atomic clock.[8] According to the researchers, the clock was believed to be one-hundredth the size of any other. It was also claimed that it requires just 75 mW, making it suitable for battery-driven applications. This device could conceivably become a consumer product.
If atomic clocks become affordable and common, this might be a good idea. Otherwise, you're making up precision out of thin air, and you're probably better off with the ntpd approach wherein you have a hierarchy of timeservers that refer to atomic clocks, with the limited precision that comes with it. It's not like most systems need such precision, anyway. Why rush?
I've usually seen "libertarian socialist" explained as a synonym for "anarchist," though I imagine many anarchists would not accept that expression. Just as an example, Noam Chomsky refers to himself as a libertarian socialist.
As with many other political terms, "libertarian" is a self-description used by lots of groups with dissimilar or even antithetical political beliefs. In general, it's some sort of reference to a desire for liberty, or for liberation from oppression -- what constitutes oppression is actually the point of contention.
At least with Chomsky, he tends to be critical of states in general, but occasionally expresses support for the UN and international law, and for democratic processes, more or less as conventionally understood. On occasion, he points out non-state actors -- non-profits, community groups, workers' co-operatives, and the like -- as especially praiseworthy models of organization.
My impression is that this is a theme among many anarchists, in which they emphasize small, autonomous groups independent of any state.
(Personally, my idea of socialism has always been that any agreement among people upon a plan of action constitutes government, whether that agreement is free or coerced, and that therefore, a distinction between government and economics is a distinction with an imaginary difference. [States are governments with weapons.] The question is how the agreements are made, and I believe that more democratic decisions are better -- consequently, general economic decisions should be made democratically.)
The ethical position is a pragmatic position -- how can we make our software better, if we're not provided with the means to modify it?
True. The catch is, the significance of this isn't immediately obvious to non-programmers. The free software ethic is a form of professional ethics -- it's a commitment by professionals to a general social good, based upon an understanding of the mechanics of their profession. It's still incumbent upon the professionals to explain the rationale of the ethic to everyone.
(It's an ethic that invites extension beyond software, but that's another, more controversial topic.)
Too true. The name GIMP is outright offensive. When I've mentioned it in conversation to non-FLOSS people, I've usually felt a need to apologize for the name. I'd guess that some organizations would be concerned about legal trouble -- discriminating against the disabled is illegal (in the US, anyway), and using "gimp" out of context might be interpreted as discriminatory.
It bears frequent repeating that the organized effort to create FLOSS for ethical reasons preceded the organized effort to create FLOSS for pragmatic reasons, i.e., the Free Software Foundation preceded the Open Source Initiative. It required a lot of effort by people who, because of an ethical commitment, were willing to put up with software that wasn't as good as proprietary software, before you had a foundation of software that, as it turned out, worked better than proprietary software.
If there were newspapers that were ethically committed to FLOSS, and were therefore willing to commit to its use, and to commit to supporting FLOSS development by hiring programmers to improve the available software, then before long, you'd have FLOSS packages for newspaper publishing that were superior to the available proprietary packages.
Slashdot Mirror
My stepsons go to a really good, progressive private school (with generous tuition assistance), yet there's still an issue with recess time shared with lunch. My eight-year-old stepson eats slowly. We provide him with good, healthy food, which he likes, but he doesn't actually have time to eat it. Naturally, much of the trouble is he'd rather play than eat -- and he should be able to play on recess, of course.
Could somebody tell me what force you guys in America needs graphing calculator in class in the first place?
Texas Instruments is that force. I'm surprised that wasn't obvious.
These calculators are insanely overpriced.
For not much more than $170, you could get a netbook that would give you access to SAGE Notebook, and much else besides.
$170 for a crippled computer is a ripoff.
Well now in social situations when somebody asks you how many chicken nuggets you want, or how long you have been with the company, you don't look like a retard when you put your hands up and start counting fingers.
Counting on your fingers is a handy way of expressing, "Hang on a second, I'm figuring it out." I also find it less annoying than someone pronouncing a long, drawn out, "Ummm," before they give an answer.
OpenDNS has been quite negative about DNSSEC, which is understandable, considering that the hijacking they do is exactly what DNSSEC is supposed to inhibit.
With the transition to IPv6, I think DNS is going to become even more important. You can memorize and type IPv4 addresses much more easily than IPv6 addresses.
I just spent three semesters at a community college in San Francisco, studying system administration. High on my list of places I'd like to work is the healthcare industry, given that I want to find work that actually helps people, and that the healthcare industry is one of the places they're taking personal privacy most seriously. Had this program been available at the school where I studied, it would have helped me enormously. I'd gladly spend more time in school if the financing were available.
Pfft.
Just use your sonic screwdriver to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
Okay, that sounds good. Not too ambitious, and I think we could afford to be more ambitious. But I think this is the right general idea.
Marx's "Capital" was not about socialism; it was a detailed analysis of capitalism.
Of course profit gets reinvested. That's what profit is for. The amount of wealth capitalists spend on reproducing themselves is negligible; the amount they spend on luxuries is almost negligible. The rest is waste or profit. Whether a particular capitalist is a gross glutton or heroically frugal is almost completely irrelevant to the overall economic system. And really, they tend towards the latter.
Capitalism was an improvement over prior economic systems because it made use of a rational measurement for economic progress: profit. One problem is that it over-relies on that one measure.
Other problems: the boom/bust cycle (what do you do with profits when there's too much production to make a profit?); and the social problem that a minority is making social decisions that impact the majority.
You're guessing at numbers, whereas Wikipedia cites several studies, and IEEE and ITU publications.
In much of the underdeveloped world, there's a lack of hard telephone lines, so mobile phones are preferred. For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa, as of 2006, only 2.6% of rural villages had land lines, but 45% had mobile signals.
I haven't been able to track down the source, but I recall reading that in the poorest country in Asia, 50% of the population owned mobile phones. That's consistent with what I cited above.
I literally do not know anyone above the age of ten who does not have at least one mobile phone.
Finally, on the broadcast TV issue: if 15% of the population has access to TV only by broadcast, then that's an argument for extending fiber networks so that everyone has access, not an argument against extending networks.
I hadn't realized that there was any discussion of eliminating broadcast television -- that does seem like a valid concern. However, even if it's a related issue, it appears to be a distinct one. Also, 15% is a much lower rate of usage than I would have guessed.
Handheld wireless devices are very popular *now*. Globally, there were 4.6 billion cell phone contracts as of 2009. Just about all cell phones are capable of Internet access. My point about handheld wireless devices is that they represent a hunger for small, easily portable all-in-one computing devices. With sufficient bandwidth available, we can overcome the limitations in processing power and storage in such devices.
Furthermore, the original point of the article is that there are regions where 100 Mb/s bandwidth is available *now*, and several nations are planning to make it available throughout their territory *soon*. If it's useful, it will be used -- and the US will be technologically backward.
Finally, a major argument for government initiatives to improve bandwidth availability is that bandwidth in the US is overpriced. It's not in the interests of the poor to limit bandwidth and keep it overpriced.
Mod up please. Informative.
Think ahead, please.
Look at how popular handheld wireless devices have become, despite the lack of the bandwidth to support them properly. There's lots that can be done with more bandwidth widely available -- and if it's already available in many places, they'll already be doing it before it's being done in the US.
San Francisco is a clearly defined, densely urbanized area. Yet 100 Mb/s Internet isn't generally available in San Francisco at such modest rates.
Word processors aren't a great example. When I've worked as a word processor, I found that almost all the work could be done, more quickly and conveniently, in a simple text editor. The only things for which a word processor was needed were setting the margins, the line spacing, and the font. The only reason that Microsoft Word would be needed, rather than Wordpad, was so that you could read other Microsoft Word files.
From Wikipedia:
In August 2004, NIST scientists demonstrated a chip-scaled atomic clock.[8] According to the researchers, the clock was believed to be one-hundredth the size of any other. It was also claimed that it requires just 75 mW, making it suitable for battery-driven applications. This device could conceivably become a consumer product.
If atomic clocks become affordable and common, this might be a good idea. Otherwise, you're making up precision out of thin air, and you're probably better off with the ntpd approach wherein you have a hierarchy of timeservers that refer to atomic clocks, with the limited precision that comes with it. It's not like most systems need such precision, anyway. Why rush?
I've usually seen "libertarian socialist" explained as a synonym for "anarchist," though I imagine many anarchists would not accept that expression. Just as an example, Noam Chomsky refers to himself as a libertarian socialist.
As with many other political terms, "libertarian" is a self-description used by lots of groups with dissimilar or even antithetical political beliefs. In general, it's some sort of reference to a desire for liberty, or for liberation from oppression -- what constitutes oppression is actually the point of contention.
At least with Chomsky, he tends to be critical of states in general, but occasionally expresses support for the UN and international law, and for democratic processes, more or less as conventionally understood. On occasion, he points out non-state actors -- non-profits, community groups, workers' co-operatives, and the like -- as especially praiseworthy models of organization.
My impression is that this is a theme among many anarchists, in which they emphasize small, autonomous groups independent of any state.
(Personally, my idea of socialism has always been that any agreement among people upon a plan of action constitutes government, whether that agreement is free or coerced, and that therefore, a distinction between government and economics is a distinction with an imaginary difference. [States are governments with weapons.] The question is how the agreements are made, and I believe that more democratic decisions are better -- consequently, general economic decisions should be made democratically.)
The ethical position is a pragmatic position -- how can we make our software better, if we're not provided with the means to modify it?
True. The catch is, the significance of this isn't immediately obvious to non-programmers. The free software ethic is a form of professional ethics -- it's a commitment by professionals to a general social good, based upon an understanding of the mechanics of their profession. It's still incumbent upon the professionals to explain the rationale of the ethic to everyone.
(It's an ethic that invites extension beyond software, but that's another, more controversial topic.)
Do you really think a significant proportion of the readership of those newspapers is going to rush to read the reaction on Slashdot?
How many people have been put off using Google, because of its use of FLOSS?
Come to think of it, I wonder if this is part of the reason Canonical has dropped GIMP from the default Ubuntu installation.
Too true. The name GIMP is outright offensive. When I've mentioned it in conversation to non-FLOSS people, I've usually felt a need to apologize for the name. I'd guess that some organizations would be concerned about legal trouble -- discriminating against the disabled is illegal (in the US, anyway), and using "gimp" out of context might be interpreted as discriminatory.
It bears frequent repeating that the organized effort to create FLOSS for ethical reasons preceded the organized effort to create FLOSS for pragmatic reasons, i.e., the Free Software Foundation preceded the Open Source Initiative. It required a lot of effort by people who, because of an ethical commitment, were willing to put up with software that wasn't as good as proprietary software, before you had a foundation of software that, as it turned out, worked better than proprietary software.
If there were newspapers that were ethically committed to FLOSS, and were therefore willing to commit to its use, and to commit to supporting FLOSS development by hiring programmers to improve the available software, then before long, you'd have FLOSS packages for newspaper publishing that were superior to the available proprietary packages.
Exactly. The Earth will survive. That doesn't mean that humans will.