You are showing a way too simple view of the case. Let me show how just in your own post:
OS market
What is an "OS"? Just a kernel? A kernel and file browser? A kernel, a file-browser, a window manager, and a task switcher? A kernel, file-browser, window manager, task switcher, and a text editor? According Merriam Webster, an operating system is "software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the processing of programs". By this definition any "program" is not part of the OS. Therefore, bundling Notepad with Windows is anti-competitve.
The point here is this: at what point does the "operating system" end and the "applications" start? People dont buy traditional Computer Science defiend "operating systems". They buy a "personal computer", and they want it to do X, Y, and Z. MS's argument was that X, Y, and Z is what they provide. The fundamental question is: what is the difference between bundling ANY non-system related software and another piece? If MS can legally bundle Paint how can they not legally bundle Media Player. They both provide the same class of functionality - ie - opening files. Neither are part of the operating system in tradational ways.
Next question.
t is illegal to exploit a monopoly in one market to gain one in another
What is a market? Is there such a market as "Internet browsers" or "media players", etc? Why? Because one or two thingsa re sold in them? If I write a replacement for a piece of Windows is that suddenely a new market? Does that mean MS has to stop bundling its version? If I write my own shell for Windows (done it, got the shirt) does that mean MS is stifling me to ship their own? That is a big unresolve question.
Thus MS cannot simply add applications into Windows
So in fact MS has achieved success with Windows as dictated by the market and now must freeze it, add no new features, and wait for vultures to kill the companys vastly successful product? If they simple cannot add any new applications to the OS then Windows is dead. Sure, they can make new versionf of file systems and other mundane things, but it is your belief that the anti-trust laws should be read to say "once you make a product that becomes a standard or monopoly item, it cannot be improved or changed because that might hurt competition"?
unfair advantage over their competitors,
The main argument against this is this: regardless of what MS puts into their OS, none of what they do excludes competitors from writing functional equivalents. Having Windows Media Player installed does not preclude one from installing Real Player, Winamp, or Quicktime, or anything else.
they made it impossible to uninstall them
An entirely irrelevant piece of useless information that is still oversimplified. If I write a drop-in-replacement file-system for Windows is MS required to make it so that NTFS or FAT support is removable from Windows? What about if I make a drop-in replacement for Notepad? Must MS provide functionality to remove Notepad from the system? What about Internet Explorer? How is that different from Notepad? How is that different from the file system? What if I create a replacement shell in place of Explorer - shall MS be required to let you and OEM's remove the shell and install mine?
I made an OS and a media app
Lets say you made an OS that had low-level APIs for decoing and encoding audio. And lets say I had my own audio codec. As did others. Should MS be able to bundle their own codecs with Windows? Doing so woudl limit my ability to sell and make a profit and compete with MS in the audio-codec market. OF course I cant just go out and make my own OS to bundle it with, so if MS includes the built in ability to play sounds, encode recordings, or use compressed sound then they are infringing on my right to compete with them, correct?
Its not a joke at all.. you are 100% right. I have two relatives who died waiting for procedures that in the US would not have been a big deal.
One had kidney problems and needed to have some "plumbing" cleaned up. There were something like 4 people in all of Canada who could do the surgery, and 1 decided to stop practicing cause of the trouble. The remaining three were booked for a long time. Basically, they had lots of stop-gap things to do - drugs, therapy, etc etc but the surgery was scheduled 8 months out.
Another relative had an accident in the car and was hurt. The delay in emergency surgery combined with some bad judgement pretty much ended that situation with little chance for survival.
Yeah, it could probably happen in the US, but there are far more hospitals, far more choices in the US.
In the US somewhere between 18% and 40% of all care is provided as "charity care" - ie - without upfront payment.
On top of that, the US has the largest network of free-of-charge hospitals (many teaching hospitals) in the world who perform all manner of procedures for little or no compensation.
This has the net effect of driving up costs for everyone, but hey, its better than letting people die on the streets.
FYI also, all doctors of repute in the world pledge to treat patients in front of them. If a sick or injured person is in front of a doctor and he refuses to help them, that person isn't a doctor anymore.
Hopefully, this will improve the development of the desktop Linux.
That makes no sense. Novell has exactly ZERO experience with making desktop operating systems.
Additionally, they have VIRTUALLY ZERO experience with development windowing systems and GUI interfaces.
Also, Mono will probably get major improvements, becoming a good.net alternative.
Again, ZERO sense. Xiamian has tons more experience with.NET - why would adding Novell to mix help Novell?
Novell - all those years of nasty unbelievable licensing costs and certifications must have left them with a warchest of huge proportions.
A linux installation is less of a building construct than an organism that constantly is refined and renewed. Like the human body, we change out every cell in our body every 7 years or so.
What the HELL is wrong with people?
Linux is SOFTWARE. That's what it is. it isn't like the human body. It is isn't a path, it isn't a philosophy.
Linux is SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE. BITS ARRANGED IN ORDER TO DO STUFF ON SPECIFIC HARDWARE.
Christ almighty. Everyone, take a step back from your humanities classes and realize what Linux is actually about. It is software. It performs useful tasks.
You say clearly that the Patriot Act requires Abit to escrow the keys. I am saying, I have looked for this language and cannot find it.
So please, please please quote for us where these government agencies are able to require companies to escrow encryption keys. I can't find it and would like to know what is out there.
and with all this Patriot Act stuff, even if this WERE truly secure, like they dont have to escrow keys to some "agency".
Can you please quote for me and the crowd where in the USA Patriot Act anyone is required to escrow keys to anyone?
I looked through the text and couldn't find this section.
The forging procress arranges molecules into a specific structure whihc we find to be rather hard. Taking the same types of molecules and arranging them into the same structure would produce an *identical* end-result without going to the middle forging process step.
A "sythesized" version of steel, made by nano-processes would be identical to forged steel.
Unless we have free energy, the requirements for what you just described will not be practical for some time. Nanoscale manufacturing for common materials doesn't make much sense at the consumer level, at least for the forseeable future. Metal is cheeeeep.
One the individual level, perhaps.
BUT, let's say that instead of a big nasty sprawl of a supermarket, there was instead a fabrication center. You go in, give your list, and get the items at a fraction of thier current cost.
If you break down very strong materials down to the molecular level, you have the same elements present in everything. If a machine could be devised that accepted raw materials in the form elemental matter - a container for hydrogen, a container for iron, a container for gold, a container for silicon - and then arranged those elemental molecules in perfect replication of forged steel, or cold-rolled alumnimum you'd have the ability to create nearly anything.
If engineering gets to the point where molecules can be precisely arranged in mass quantity, anything will be possible. You could fabricate a cooked steak with your favorite barbeque sauce and those little black lines that indicate grilling. You could fabricate a spoon, a fork, and a knife. And a napkin, and a carraffe to hold your manufactuered wine.
And at the end of the day your waste could collected and broken down to elemental matter, and the process repeated. In the end, if the unit runs off solar power the entire system could be very energy efficent.
Right now the physics of the issue are daunting. But progress is being made.
Passion isn't enough. This type of programming is not "write a text editor" or write a replacement for Notepad.
Its scientific, requires loads of specific realm based knowledge, and eons of refinement and highly technical skills.
Its a simulation engine that is precise and accurate. It's not just a toy.
OSS is great. But not for everything. Somethings are too narrow for a sufficently wide pool of programmers to latch onto and program on thier own. The number of OSS-comitted programmers, with aero-engineering skills, with 3D programming knowlegdge, with sufficent free time and sufficent drive to replicate this level of work is very, very, very small.
1. The President's whips at the capitol are not sharp enough to keep his people in line. This puts out the word that pressure from the White House isn't the be all end all. A veto-override literally opens to the door to other bills that normally would be DOA because of Veto-threat.
2. The President's grip on Congress is weak, or non-existant. The President uses his bully position to get congress to do things. Everyone knows who the President is. But it takes weeks of concerted effort for Senators and especially Reps. to get a point across. POTUS is the most quoted person on the nightly news. But a veto override shifts this balance more towards Congresscritters.
3. The President's advisors and calculators took a bad risk on something that should be straightforward. Few veto overrides are razor thin. This means that either the Administration is ignorant, arrogant, or capable of miscalculating remedial details. All of these things are bad, and are hammerred on by major media outlets.
But it's ok to call the President a communist, right?
No. Because I doubt there is even a single elected American politican who wants establish this nation a communist society. Therefore, it is not okay (if someone is in fact an open communist, thats another story).
But again, it was ok to criticize Clinton, right?
No, not in the way it was done. There was very little principled criticism of Clinton.
Unless you are attacking Clinton, then you are a patriot!
Nope. Never said that, don't believe. There were principled dissenters to the actions in Kosovo, but they worked quietly and were'nt part of the boisterous crowd that came out of the anti-Clinton closet.
Protesting the war, of course.
The point being the Iraq anti-war cause was massive, the Kosovo one very tiny. That's the difference. The Kosovo group was mostly republicans pissed at Clinton. Under all that were some principled anti-war dissenters. They have my respect.
Actually the left-wing of American politics was very much against it, those damn unAmerican commies!
Ahh, no. It's simply false. There was very little widespread dissent. Compare the days of 500,000 person plus gatherings to what happened with Kosovo. Virtually incomparable.
Check out some of the liberal leaning websites that were around back in the mid 90's and you'll find a lot of opposition to Kosovo
I am not doubting there are left-leaning organizations and individuals who opposed Kosovo. But I am claiming that out of the people who protested Iraq, the vast majority did so out of spite of Bush, not out of anti-war conscience. That's just how it is.
same, both are corrupted of morals and ethics
The fact is that the elected representatives of the left in America supported Clinton in Kosovo because of politics just now as the elected representatives of the right supported Bush in Iraq for political purposes. The underlying issues are largely irrelevant. The congressional democrats - for example Daschle - supported Kosovo and went right around this time and bashed Bush for Iraq. Likewise Republicans - like for example Hastert - bashed Clinton and then went around and supported Bush.
Also homosexuals and muslims in this nation face the real threat of physical violence against them
These cases are far rarer than they seem. It is a joke to think about comparing what they face to what blacks faced leading up to modern times - throughout the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Quite frankly, it is simply amazing that you'd suggest. Minorities in this country do not face *widespread* physical oppression. That's just fact. Individual cases - yes. Systemic oppression and violence - no.
What happened in the 2000 election is typical. There was nothing special EXCEPT that the margins were much smaller and therefore every little incident was a major issue.
In an election with forty-million votes to be case it is not unusual for groups of problems to occur. But to claim that the 2000 election was disorderly is a monumental joke. Unbelievable joke. Look at how elections in other countries are often held and get back to me.
Finally, I have to respond to this:
You may want to deny it but al large part of this economy was built off slave labor
Ahh, no. A large part of the 1800's argrian economy was built of slave labor. The south was largely agricultural. The north industrial. Agrigrian economics make it attractive for slave labour, industrial not so much. Today's modern economy has very little in common with that of southern 1860's economic activity. The agricultural business of today dictates that far fewere people manage exponentially greater number of acres. Technology has long surpassed the contributions of slaves. Symbolically, yes, slaves built much of the south and feed the nation. But realistically, your claim is just not supportable.
The point about Kosovo is this: it shows perfectly that both the support and opposition to these wars has very little to do with the war itself and everything to do with politics.
That's the fundamental point. And when this political calculation leads to the most vile accustations - "anti-American", "unpatrotic", "communist", "fascist", "dictator" etc, it really has gone way past dissent.
1. Deep Breaths! Are you aquainted with Hyperbole? It's a literary device.
The labels being tossed around - unpatroic, communist, fascist, etc are not. Look around - take a look at democrats.com, or salon.com, or indymedia.org - they are not kidding! They are not literay devices!
2. The process, such as it was, was almost entirely ad-hoc and evolving.
Uhh.. no. Canidates in an election had questions about the process and outcome. They appealed (both sides took court action at some point) to relevant courts. Courts made decisions. That's how jurisprudence in this country works. It was not ad-hoc.
Just because you agree with your blow-hard politicos and talking heads doesn't mean that they are acting in good faith.
I do not believe any of those people are acting good faith. They acting in bad faith equally as or maybe more often the protestors. They are supporting one side not because of principle but because of politics.
4. Repeat: Deep breaths. Remember: things aren't going to hell in a handbasket, they went a long time ago.
I never claimed elsewise. I am just saying that the arguments made these days are not based on principle (in 99% of the cases), but on politics.
Suddenly if you point out the problems you're un-patriotic
When you call the president a facist, you've pretty much trashed not just the country, not just its leaders, but everything the country is about.
The defining characteristic of this country is the orderly transfer of power. When someone starts calling people "fascists" - intimating that they are dictators -- they are trashing the fundamental principle of this country.
Regardless of how you dislike the embattled outcome of the last election it was *orderely*. There was no military coup, there was no mass unrest. It was orderly. A process was followed.
The main point here is that criticism going on mostly these days is not in good faith. It is made in bad faith to score political or other points. And that does reflect badly on the opposition. It shows that you are not a patriot, but an opportunist. If you have concerns, come out with them and take positive steps to work them out. That's not whats going on. What's going is that a lot of the political opposition in this country is purposely being drastically extreme, seeking to paint various people as fascists, or conspirators, etc. Dissenting in a country where dissent is legal and respected doesn't make you special. You are not patriotic for doing it. We need to get past that. Anyone with concerns should come forward with them. Whats happening now though is artifical concern. We have people using their dissent as a mask.
Let me just present this to you: where was the large anti-war movement in Kosovo. That's a big question. The UN was against it, Europe wasn't against it, and the left-wing of the American politics wasn't against it. The right-wing of American politics was against it. Now, fast forward to the Iraq conflict. Now this time around, things are exactly opposite. The left-wing is freaking out. The right-wing is all for it. Why? Politics. That's all.
Dissent yes, but lets not kid ourselves. 99% of the dissent we see is not principled, but rather, based on politics.
Do you have any idea how many laws there are in this (USA) country?
I agree with your sentiment, but in the end, there are SO many laws that if you are walking down the street any cop can arrest without reason. Why? Because I *guarantee* they can come up with some law that you are breaking. We've all heard the absurd laws, but now its all those (can't wear stripes on weekdays, blah blah blah) PLUS general "decision call" laws like disturbing the peace, failing to disburse, etc.
I'll give you an example. A high-school friend of mine was walking down the street in the arts district of my city. The local beat cops thought they recognized him as a persistent trouble maker and suspected he would have drugs/contraband on him and probably some outstanding warrants. They stopped him and asked him what his name was. He told them, and they called him a liar. My friend told the cops his name again and tried to walk around them. At that point it was three people abrest - two cops and him. One cop grabbed his wrist and threw the cuffs on him. The charge? Obstructing a public side walk. Based on that charge, they were allowed to search his person, get his wallet, look at his ID, call in his info. to the state, AND search his car which was parked about 1/4 mile away.
No charges were filed and he posted $60 bail. That was the end of that case.
The point is with the high-number of laws any law-enforcement person can essentially detain you for little or no cause and be completely legally justified. It's even worse if you are driving. In a lot of states if you look suspicious you are eligible for arrest and blood-based intoxication testing.
Your sentiment would be correct if the laws were specific and relatively few. Instead they are the opposite. Living 'legit' is simply not enough. The 500,000 law enforcement officers in this country have nearly as many laws to use as tools.
Whatever. I'll just watch the videos and ooh and ahh. Everything he types makes me feel like a retard.
You think that's an accident?
I am not for dumbing anything down, but there is a certain class of well-educated well-spoken articulate people who go out of thier way to subjugate and dominate others via their written and spoken words. Sometimes it's subtle, sometime's its glaring.
The worst offenders here are science people, followed closely by technical people. Mix those together, and you get Carmack. He is a brilliant guy, and I lot of what I've seen him write directed to the general public seems to be overly complex.
The quote you provide is a good example. He could have said: "Our scaled down 2'-diameter model is almost ready to be tested. We changed the throttling to use servo valves instead of the solenoid valves we used up to now. Drogue cannon stabilization after burnout is ready to be tested, as well as the altitude-aware canopy (parachute) release system. We should be able to fly the model transonic -- that is at speeds approaching or slightly above the speed of sound. We would have flown it by now but we have problems with the propellant."
Instead, he used unnecessary jargon, made complex technical decisions seem trivial (ie, "of course"), and used long complex sentences alternated against short sparse sentences. All of it adds up to someone who is way to comfortable writing with the goal of creating a specific result regardless of content. People often do this in business proposals, contracts, and editorials. The idea is to create a feeling of the writer being correct, smart, or "on top of things" without examining the content of the message.
It's okay to write technical for a technical crowd. And it's okay to write with unnecessary "flourish" if you are trying to impress yourself or pass a college-level writing class. In the real world, it's best to write for real humans. Write what you mean, write it like it would be spoken, and write it for easy comprehension. Just my two cents on something that has always bugged me about Carmack.
That said, Carmack is to programming as Jesus is to Christians:-).
You can't have everything. Being a good capitialist isn't always easy. You can't always meet every demand and maintain the lowest capital expenditures.
What town do you live in? I'd be surprised if you didnt have: (a) organic food stores, (b) farmers markets, (c) co-ops, (d) gardens.
I luckily dont have to go to any privacy invading supermarkets. The supermarket down my street is a big chain where I live, and I have written them letter after letter detailing why I will gladly drive 10 miles to avoid their store that is less than 1/2 mile from my house.
Keep looking for alternatives, keep writing paper letters, and keep making your opinion known.
Slashdot Mirror
You are showing a way too simple view of the case. Let me show how just in your own post:
OS market
What is an "OS"? Just a kernel? A kernel and file browser? A kernel, a file-browser, a window manager, and a task switcher? A kernel, file-browser, window manager, task switcher, and a text editor? According Merriam Webster, an operating system is "software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the processing of programs". By this definition any "program" is not part of the OS. Therefore, bundling Notepad with Windows is anti-competitve.
The point here is this: at what point does the "operating system" end and the "applications" start? People dont buy traditional Computer Science defiend "operating systems". They buy a "personal computer", and they want it to do X, Y, and Z. MS's argument was that X, Y, and Z is what they provide. The fundamental question is: what is the difference between bundling ANY non-system related software and another piece? If MS can legally bundle Paint how can they not legally bundle Media Player. They both provide the same class of functionality - ie - opening files. Neither are part of the operating system in tradational ways.
Next question.
t is illegal to exploit a monopoly in one market to gain one in another
What is a market? Is there such a market as "Internet browsers" or "media players", etc? Why? Because one or two thingsa re sold in them? If I write a replacement for a piece of Windows is that suddenely a new market? Does that mean MS has to stop bundling its version? If I write my own shell for Windows (done it, got the shirt) does that mean MS is stifling me to ship their own? That is a big unresolve question.
Thus MS cannot simply add applications into Windows
So in fact MS has achieved success with Windows as dictated by the market and now must freeze it, add no new features, and wait for vultures to kill the companys vastly successful product? If they simple cannot add any new applications to the OS then Windows is dead. Sure, they can make new versionf of file systems and other mundane things, but it is your belief that the anti-trust laws should be read to say "once you make a product that becomes a standard or monopoly item, it cannot be improved or changed because that might hurt competition"?
unfair advantage over their competitors,
The main argument against this is this: regardless of what MS puts into their OS, none of what they do excludes competitors from writing functional equivalents. Having Windows Media Player installed does not preclude one from installing Real Player, Winamp, or Quicktime, or anything else.
they made it impossible to uninstall them
An entirely irrelevant piece of useless information that is still oversimplified. If I write a drop-in-replacement file-system for Windows is MS required to make it so that NTFS or FAT support is removable from Windows? What about if I make a drop-in replacement for Notepad? Must MS provide functionality to remove Notepad from the system? What about Internet Explorer? How is that different from Notepad? How is that different from the file system? What if I create a replacement shell in place of Explorer - shall MS be required to let you and OEM's remove the shell and install mine?
I made an OS and a media app
Lets say you made an OS that had low-level APIs for decoing and encoding audio. And lets say I had my own audio codec. As did others. Should MS be able to bundle their own codecs with Windows? Doing so woudl limit my ability to sell and make a profit and compete with MS in the audio-codec market. OF course I cant just go out and make my own OS to bundle it with, so if MS includes the built in ability to play sounds, encode recordings, or use compressed sound then they are infringing on my right to compete with them, correct?
Its not a joke at all.. you are 100% right. I have two relatives who died waiting for procedures that in the US would not have been a big deal.
One had kidney problems and needed to have some "plumbing" cleaned up. There were something like 4 people in all of Canada who could do the surgery, and 1 decided to stop practicing cause of the trouble. The remaining three were booked for a long time. Basically, they had lots of stop-gap things to do - drugs, therapy, etc etc but the surgery was scheduled 8 months out.
Another relative had an accident in the car and was hurt. The delay in emergency surgery combined with some bad judgement pretty much ended that situation with little chance for survival.
Yeah, it could probably happen in the US, but there are far more hospitals, far more choices in the US.
No,
In the US somewhere between 18% and 40% of all care is provided as "charity care" - ie - without upfront payment.
On top of that, the US has the largest network of free-of-charge hospitals (many teaching hospitals) in the world who perform all manner of procedures for little or no compensation.
This has the net effect of driving up costs for everyone, but hey, its better than letting people die on the streets.
FYI also, all doctors of repute in the world pledge to treat patients in front of them. If a sick or injured person is in front of a doctor and he refuses to help them, that person isn't a doctor anymore.
Hopefully, this will improve the development of the desktop Linux.
.net alternative. .NET - why would adding Novell to mix help Novell?
That makes no sense. Novell has exactly ZERO experience with making desktop operating systems.
Additionally, they have VIRTUALLY ZERO experience with development windowing systems and GUI interfaces.
Also, Mono will probably get major improvements, becoming a good
Again, ZERO sense. Xiamian has tons more experience with
Novell - all those years of nasty unbelievable licensing costs and certifications must have left them with a warchest of huge proportions.
A linux installation is less of a building construct than an organism that constantly is refined and renewed. Like the human body, we change out every cell in our body every 7 years or so.
What the HELL is wrong with people?
Linux is SOFTWARE. That's what it is. it isn't like the human body. It is isn't a path, it isn't a philosophy.
Linux is SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE. BITS ARRANGED IN ORDER TO DO STUFF ON SPECIFIC HARDWARE.
Christ almighty. Everyone, take a step back from your humanities classes and realize what Linux is actually about. It is software. It performs useful tasks.
You say clearly that the Patriot Act requires Abit to escrow the keys. I am saying, I have looked for this language and cannot find it.
So please, please please quote for us where these government agencies are able to require companies to escrow encryption keys. I can't find it and would like to know what is out there.
Thank you.
and with all this Patriot Act stuff, even if this WERE truly secure, like they dont have to escrow keys to some "agency".
Can you please quote for me and the crowd where in the USA Patriot Act anyone is required to escrow keys to anyone?
I looked through the text and couldn't find this section.
Thank you.
Yeah, its really amazing! Thinking about it makes me both interested, horrified, and curious at the same time!
Wrong.
The forging procress arranges molecules into a specific structure whihc we find to be rather hard. Taking the same types of molecules and arranging them into the same structure would produce an *identical* end-result without going to the middle forging process step.
A "sythesized" version of steel, made by nano-processes would be identical to forged steel.
Unless we have free energy, the requirements for what you just described will not be practical for some time. Nanoscale manufacturing for common materials doesn't make much sense at the consumer level, at least for the forseeable future. Metal is cheeeeep.
One the individual level, perhaps.
BUT, let's say that instead of a big nasty sprawl of a supermarket, there was instead a fabrication center. You go in, give your list, and get the items at a fraction of thier current cost.
If you break down very strong materials down to the molecular level, you have the same elements present in everything. If a machine could be devised that accepted raw materials in the form elemental matter - a container for hydrogen, a container for iron, a container for gold, a container for silicon - and then arranged those elemental molecules in perfect replication of forged steel, or cold-rolled alumnimum you'd have the ability to create nearly anything.
If engineering gets to the point where molecules can be precisely arranged in mass quantity, anything will be possible. You could fabricate a cooked steak with your favorite barbeque sauce and those little black lines that indicate grilling. You could fabricate a spoon, a fork, and a knife. And a napkin, and a carraffe to hold your manufactuered wine.
And at the end of the day your waste could collected and broken down to elemental matter, and the process repeated. In the end, if the unit runs off solar power the entire system could be very energy efficent.
Right now the physics of the issue are daunting. But progress is being made.
Passion isn't enough. This type of programming is not "write a text editor" or write a replacement for Notepad.
Its scientific, requires loads of specific realm based knowledge, and eons of refinement and highly technical skills.
Its a simulation engine that is precise and accurate. It's not just a toy.
OSS is great. But not for everything. Somethings are too narrow for a sufficently wide pool of programmers to latch onto and program on thier own. The number of OSS-comitted programmers, with aero-engineering skills, with 3D programming knowlegdge, with sufficent free time and sufficent drive to replicate this level of work is very, very, very small.
No, but a Veto override shows three things:
1. The President's whips at the capitol are not sharp enough to keep his people in line. This puts out the word that pressure from the White House isn't the be all end all. A veto-override literally opens to the door to other bills that normally would be DOA because of Veto-threat.
2. The President's grip on Congress is weak, or non-existant. The President uses his bully position to get congress to do things. Everyone knows who the President is. But it takes weeks of concerted effort for Senators and especially Reps. to get a point across. POTUS is the most quoted person on the nightly news. But a veto override shifts this balance more towards Congresscritters.
3. The President's advisors and calculators took a bad risk on something that should be straightforward. Few veto overrides are razor thin. This means that either the Administration is ignorant, arrogant, or capable of miscalculating remedial details. All of these things are bad, and are hammerred on by major media outlets.
Except if MS trumps it all and goes to Congress. Then MS fucks Sony, which is it's plan anyways.
Yes, it is ordinary. Audits typically take a few years to get "caught-up" because of the vastly inefficent IRS computer system.
3-4 years isn't surprising anymore. People now are getting audited for 1999, 2000, and 2001.
Some points:
But it's ok to call the President a communist, right?
No. Because I doubt there is even a single elected American politican who wants establish this nation a communist society. Therefore, it is not okay (if someone is in fact an open communist, thats another story).
But again, it was ok to criticize Clinton, right?
No, not in the way it was done. There was very little principled criticism of Clinton.
Unless you are attacking Clinton, then you are a patriot!
Nope. Never said that, don't believe. There were principled dissenters to the actions in Kosovo, but they worked quietly and were'nt part of the boisterous crowd that came out of the anti-Clinton closet.
Protesting the war, of course.
The point being the Iraq anti-war cause was massive, the Kosovo one very tiny. That's the difference. The Kosovo group was mostly republicans pissed at Clinton. Under all that were some principled anti-war dissenters. They have my respect.
Actually the left-wing of American politics was very much against it, those damn unAmerican commies!
Ahh, no. It's simply false. There was very little widespread dissent. Compare the days of 500,000 person plus gatherings to what happened with Kosovo. Virtually incomparable.
Check out some of the liberal leaning websites that were around back in the mid 90's and you'll find a lot of opposition to Kosovo
I am not doubting there are left-leaning organizations and individuals who opposed Kosovo. But I am claiming that out of the people who protested Iraq, the vast majority did so out of spite of Bush, not out of anti-war conscience. That's just how it is.
same, both are corrupted of morals and ethics
The fact is that the elected representatives of the left in America supported Clinton in Kosovo because of politics just now as the elected representatives of the right supported Bush in Iraq for political purposes. The underlying issues are largely irrelevant. The congressional democrats - for example Daschle - supported Kosovo and went right around this time and bashed Bush for Iraq. Likewise Republicans - like for example Hastert - bashed Clinton and then went around and supported Bush.
Also homosexuals and muslims in this nation face the real threat of physical violence against them
These cases are far rarer than they seem. It is a joke to think about comparing what they face to what blacks faced leading up to modern times - throughout the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Quite frankly, it is simply amazing that you'd suggest. Minorities in this country do not face *widespread* physical oppression. That's just fact. Individual cases - yes. Systemic oppression and violence - no.
What happened in the 2000 election is typical. There was nothing special EXCEPT that the margins were much smaller and therefore every little incident was a major issue.
In an election with forty-million votes to be case it is not unusual for groups of problems to occur. But to claim that the 2000 election was disorderly is a monumental joke. Unbelievable joke. Look at how elections in other countries are often held and get back to me.
Finally, I have to respond to this:
You may want to deny it but al large part of this economy was built off slave labor
Ahh, no. A large part of the 1800's argrian economy was built of slave labor. The south was largely agricultural. The north industrial. Agrigrian economics make it attractive for slave labour, industrial not so much. Today's modern economy has very little in common with that of southern 1860's economic activity. The agricultural business of today dictates that far fewere people manage exponentially greater number of acres. Technology has long surpassed the contributions of slaves. Symbolically, yes, slaves built much of the south and feed the nation. But realistically, your claim is just not supportable.
The point about Kosovo is this: it shows perfectly that both the support and opposition to these wars has very little to do with the war itself and everything to do with politics.
That's the fundamental point. And when this political calculation leads to the most vile accustations - "anti-American", "unpatrotic", "communist", "fascist", "dictator" etc, it really has gone way past dissent.
1. Deep Breaths! Are you aquainted with Hyperbole? It's a literary device.
The labels being tossed around - unpatroic, communist, fascist, etc are not. Look around - take a look at democrats.com, or salon.com, or indymedia.org - they are not kidding! They are not literay devices!
2. The process, such as it was, was almost entirely ad-hoc and evolving.
Uhh.. no. Canidates in an election had questions about the process and outcome. They appealed (both sides took court action at some point) to relevant courts. Courts made decisions. That's how jurisprudence in this country works. It was not ad-hoc.
Just because you agree with your blow-hard politicos and talking heads doesn't mean that they are acting in good faith.
I do not believe any of those people are acting good faith. They acting in bad faith equally as or maybe more often the protestors. They are supporting one side not because of principle but because of politics.
4. Repeat: Deep breaths. Remember: things aren't going to hell in a handbasket, they went a long time ago.
I never claimed elsewise. I am just saying that the arguments made these days are not based on principle (in 99% of the cases), but on politics.
Suddenly if you point out the problems you're un-patriotic
When you call the president a facist, you've pretty much trashed not just the country, not just its leaders, but everything the country is about.
The defining characteristic of this country is the orderly transfer of power. When someone starts calling people "fascists" - intimating that they are dictators -- they are trashing the fundamental principle of this country.
Regardless of how you dislike the embattled outcome of the last election it was *orderely*. There was no military coup, there was no mass unrest. It was orderly. A process was followed.
The main point here is that criticism going on mostly these days is not in good faith. It is made in bad faith to score political or other points. And that does reflect badly on the opposition. It shows that you are not a patriot, but an opportunist. If you have concerns, come out with them and take positive steps to work them out. That's not whats going on. What's going is that a lot of the political opposition in this country is purposely being drastically extreme, seeking to paint various people as fascists, or conspirators, etc. Dissenting in a country where dissent is legal and respected doesn't make you special. You are not patriotic for doing it. We need to get past that. Anyone with concerns should come forward with them. Whats happening now though is artifical concern. We have people using their dissent as a mask.
Let me just present this to you: where was the large anti-war movement in Kosovo. That's a big question. The UN was against it, Europe wasn't against it, and the left-wing of the American politics wasn't against it. The right-wing of American politics was against it. Now, fast forward to the Iraq conflict. Now this time around, things are exactly opposite. The left-wing is freaking out. The right-wing is all for it. Why? Politics. That's all.
Dissent yes, but lets not kid ourselves. 99% of the dissent we see is not principled, but rather, based on politics.
So what does that mean?
He ignored AIDS. Big deal. It's not like he was going aroudn spreading it. The Reagan-AIDS flap is a big joke.
It's sexually spread. That's been known for a very long time - even in the beginning when it was called GRIDS.
It's not like some random airborne deadly virus. You have to try to get it.
Do you have any idea how many laws there are in this (USA) country?
I agree with your sentiment, but in the end, there are SO many laws that if you are walking down the street any cop can arrest without reason. Why? Because I *guarantee* they can come up with some law that you are breaking. We've all heard the absurd laws, but now its all those (can't wear stripes on weekdays, blah blah blah) PLUS general "decision call" laws like disturbing the peace, failing to disburse, etc.
I'll give you an example. A high-school friend of mine was walking down the street in the arts district of my city. The local beat cops thought they recognized him as a persistent trouble maker and suspected he would have drugs/contraband on him and probably some outstanding warrants. They stopped him and asked him what his name was. He told them, and they called him a liar. My friend told the cops his name again and tried to walk around them. At that point it was three people abrest - two cops and him. One cop grabbed his wrist and threw the cuffs on him. The charge? Obstructing a public side walk. Based on that charge, they were allowed to search his person, get his wallet, look at his ID, call in his info. to the state, AND search his car which was parked about 1/4 mile away.
No charges were filed and he posted $60 bail. That was the end of that case.
The point is with the high-number of laws any law-enforcement person can essentially detain you for little or no cause and be completely legally justified. It's even worse if you are driving. In a lot of states if you look suspicious you are eligible for arrest and blood-based intoxication testing.
Your sentiment would be correct if the laws were specific and relatively few. Instead they are the opposite. Living 'legit' is simply not enough. The 500,000 law enforcement officers in this country have nearly as many laws to use as tools.
Whatever. I'll just watch the videos and ooh and ahh. Everything he types makes me feel like a retard.
:-).
You think that's an accident?
I am not for dumbing anything down, but there is a certain class of well-educated well-spoken articulate people who go out of thier way to subjugate and dominate others via their written and spoken words. Sometimes it's subtle, sometime's its glaring.
The worst offenders here are science people, followed closely by technical people. Mix those together, and you get Carmack. He is a brilliant guy, and I lot of what I've seen him write directed to the general public seems to be overly complex.
The quote you provide is a good example. He could have said: "Our scaled down 2'-diameter model is almost ready to be tested. We changed the throttling to use servo valves instead of the solenoid valves we used up to now. Drogue cannon stabilization after burnout is ready to be tested, as well as the altitude-aware canopy (parachute) release system. We should be able to fly the model transonic -- that is at speeds approaching or slightly above the speed of sound. We would have flown it by now but we have problems with the propellant."
Instead, he used unnecessary jargon, made complex technical decisions seem trivial (ie, "of course"), and used long complex sentences alternated against short sparse sentences. All of it adds up to someone who is way to comfortable writing with the goal of creating a specific result regardless of content. People often do this in business proposals, contracts, and editorials. The idea is to create a feeling of the writer being correct, smart, or "on top of things" without examining the content of the message.
It's okay to write technical for a technical crowd. And it's okay to write with unnecessary "flourish" if you are trying to impress yourself or pass a college-level writing class. In the real world, it's best to write for real humans. Write what you mean, write it like it would be spoken, and write it for easy comprehension. Just my two cents on something that has always bugged me about Carmack.
That said, Carmack is to programming as Jesus is to Christians
You can't have everything. Being a good capitialist isn't always easy. You can't always meet every demand and maintain the lowest capital expenditures.
What town do you live in? I'd be surprised if you didnt have: (a) organic food stores, (b) farmers markets, (c) co-ops, (d) gardens.
I luckily dont have to go to any privacy invading supermarkets. The supermarket down my street is a big chain where I live, and I have written them letter after letter detailing why I will gladly drive 10 miles to avoid their store that is less than 1/2 mile from my house.
Keep looking for alternatives, keep writing paper letters, and keep making your opinion known.