In addition to what the other responder mentioned, with a charitable system as opposed to a capitalistic system, you still have an answer to the question, "How does one game the system?"
For charities, it would involve either bribing/donating to/threatening the people who decide how the list is sorted.
A situation like that ends up being just like Congress, and we can all see where that's gotten us...
Huh. Makes sense. Yeah, when I'm getting plowed in the ass daily, I'll make up some invisible friend in the sky who did this to me. Then, when I meet him, I'll kill him.
I want the government to sift through all publicly available information to find people planning or engaged in activities which would cause me or another 2,966 of my countrymen to be deprived of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.
Look to the oval office for the conspirators, then.
From this report: "At least 2,289 service members have died since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count."
See also this page, which shows that the estimated Iraqi body count is 10 times higher than the deaths we experienced that were caused by other agents acting through another sovereign nation to do their killing (in other words, Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC towers falling, which was the inital reason given for the US invading).
These systems are extremely specialised and targetted at law enforcement and/or large corporations with huge databases.
Seccessful OSS projects tend to be the ones that are used by the people writing them, and are of use to a wide community. If the developers do not have a vested interest in the product, then development will tend to stagnate.
I think it is hard to argue that OSS has been successful in making products that are targetted at such specific (and wealthy) groups.
While what you say is true, note that these are government officials and departments wanting these tools, not a private corporation. So the collaboration that can make development more efficient could (and should!) be done in public, so that the taxpayers who are purchasing this (whether they want to or not) can benefit from the research done in this area.
Are they really going to try to stop us from leaving the planet? Is that (one of the reasons) what all the spying is about?
I would guess she's aware that Microsoft has abused the wording of previous legal decisions against them in order to carry on with assorted malpractices and she would likely want to avoid that.
I wonder (in all seriousness; Microsoft has been known to lie in court before, doctoring that videotape) whether Microsoft's abusive behavior (including the chair-throwing and threatening to "fucking kill", "cut off air supply", etc.) would ever extend towards taking out the judge in order to buy more time.
So if someone did submit a patent for a perpetual motion machine that actually worked, he'd have to sit around until the end of the universe to be granted his patent.
Ah, but if it was drawing power from another universe, perhaps it would help prevent the end of this universe. We should have our scientists working only on these!
Not to mention the danger of tampering with the content. Yes, they will encrypt it, yes, they will make it near impossible to inject anything, but there is still the danger that in the middle of a Disney Movie you suddenly get to see... use your imagination.
You're not kidding. Years ago I went searching for Finding Nemo on Kazaa (yes, it's a quaint story;-), and found 7 other movies, one of which was a neat Swedish porn.
Now, if my kids had found that while innocently looking for Finding Nemo, I'd have to first ask "where'd you guys come from?" and second, I'd be upset to expose these young unknowns to such non-warlike images. However, the fact that I found it just reminds me of Woody Allen, who said in Annie Hall, "Hey, don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love!"
I do not disagree. I am simply stating that "Give me a raise, because I saved the company $50,000 last month" sounds better than "Give me a raise, because I need need need in my personal life."
I'm always amused by how many people who clamor for a local principality's 'right' to perform gay marriages get their panties in a bunch when another local principality flexes its muscles to enforce their 'right' to ban what they consider obscene. Two sides of the same coin: suck it up.
Most certainly not.
One side is constitutional. The other side is not.
To be sparklingly clear: there is no constitutional ban on gay marriages. There is a constitutional right to free speech.
Interesting. I'm not saying you didn't achieve something, but it's rare that an employer takes interest in an employee's personal goals and spends corporate resources helping the employee achieve them simply because the employee laid them out.
What I'm getting at is, I tend to reserve my negotiations for solely the impact I'm having on the company's bottom line. Whether I want to own a home or a Ferrarri shouldn't matter to my employers, or change how they feel I should be compensated.
Saving $50,000 a month through implementing a new process, though, that's something that will definitely be rewarded.
But hey, good on you that you were able to negotiate successfully!
I don't recall. It wasn't about the engine; it was just a random line from a skit that was about something else. It might even have been a "cut scene," like the "and now for something completely different..."
An ASCII representation of that idea which I've seen before, a few years ago:
...._____ ___/_____\___
The structure is not solid, and just accelerates a body horizontally from one end to the other of the top surface, which is something like a mile up (I think; I just searched but cannot find the write-up).
(Also, ignore the dots; I added them because I couldn't figure out how to make non-breaking spaces via Slashdot...)
At any rate, the reason it's accelerated horizontally is because that can be done fairly simply using current technology, and possibly even maglev like your other responders pointed out.
If you took the above and turned it upside down, so that instead of a structure above ground, it was a tunnel below ground, then you'd have a similar setup to "wisdom brewing"'s response.
Reading your comment I was reminded that, ever since I saw that damned skit, I can't get the slow pronunciation of "wank-el ro-ta-ry en-gine" out of my head. (Thanks, Monty Python, for being there in my childhood.)
To be clear: there are three parties. Two are married. One of those is cheating. The state of marriage for the third party (and even whether s/he is in a relationship which forbids outside sexual contact) is unknown -- and, also, orthogonal.
In my experience, at least, it's generally not two cheaters having a relationship. It's generally one cheater, and a bystander (managed/manipulated by the cheater to be ignorant of the cheater's existing relationship).
We have been monitored a long time and for many different reasons. The public is mostly ignorant, AS THEY SHOULD BE. Could someone explain to me why we would want everyone to know that our governments have monitoring in place? It isn't something that could ever openly be acknowledged.
Everyone should know so that they can act appropriately. For instance, what's the point in voting when Diebold will just hand the election to the highest bidder?
The monitoring should go both ways. Elected officials should be monitored 24/7, audio and video, and these feeds should be made available to the public for their amusement and also to ensure that we know when they're talking to Diebold, or Enron, or Halliburton, ad nauseum. This would go a long way towards eliminating corruption--which is of course why they'll never go for it.
Randall: "I'm not going to miss what's probably going to be the social event of the season."
Dante: "You hate people!"
Randall: "But I love gatherings... isn't it ironic?"
Or this one, from earlier:
Randall (to Dante about the customer who got offended by his speech, and then the nudie magazine that Randall opened in front of him): "That guy's an asshole. Everybody that comes in here is way too uptight. This job would be great if it wasn't for the fucking customers."
Slashdot Mirror
If one God doesn't impress your people, invent a couple more! (What the fuck is the holy spirit, anyway?)
Reminds me of someone's sig: "XML is like violence. if it doesn't solve the problem, just use more."
Zipit.
Mother FUCKER!
For charities, it would involve either bribing/donating to/threatening the people who decide how the list is sorted.
A situation like that ends up being just like Congress, and we can all see where that's gotten us...
Is that the same Lorenz that Einstein mentioned in his theory of relativity? (Lorenz transforms.)
Huh. Makes sense. Yeah, when I'm getting plowed in the ass daily, I'll make up some invisible friend in the sky who did this to me. Then, when I meet him, I'll kill him.
Yeah, I figured the response would either be that, or "whacko!"
Look to the oval office for the conspirators, then.
From this report: "At least 2,289 service members have died since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count."
See also this page, which shows that the estimated Iraqi body count is 10 times higher than the deaths we experienced that were caused by other agents acting through another sovereign nation to do their killing (in other words, Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC towers falling, which was the inital reason given for the US invading).
While what you say is true, note that these are government officials and departments wanting these tools, not a private corporation. So the collaboration that can make development more efficient could (and should!) be done in public, so that the taxpayers who are purchasing this (whether they want to or not) can benefit from the research done in this area.
Are they really going to try to stop us from leaving the planet? Is that (one of the reasons) what all the spying is about?
Sounds like a trout.complex to me...
Whew! Glad there's no tag on Slashdot.
I wonder (in all seriousness; Microsoft has been known to lie in court before, doctoring that videotape) whether Microsoft's abusive behavior (including the chair-throwing and threatening to "fucking kill", "cut off air supply", etc.) would ever extend towards taking out the judge in order to buy more time.
Ah, but if it was drawing power from another universe, perhaps it would help prevent the end of this universe. We should have our scientists working only on these!
You're not kidding. Years ago I went searching for Finding Nemo on Kazaa (yes, it's a quaint story ;-), and found 7 other movies, one of which was a neat Swedish porn.
Now, if my kids had found that while innocently looking for Finding Nemo, I'd have to first ask "where'd you guys come from?" and second, I'd be upset to expose these young unknowns to such non-warlike images. However, the fact that I found it just reminds me of Woody Allen, who said in Annie Hall, "Hey, don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love!"
I do not disagree. I am simply stating that "Give me a raise, because I saved the company $50,000 last month" sounds better than "Give me a raise, because I need need need in my personal life."
Most certainly not.
One side is constitutional. The other side is not.
To be sparklingly clear: there is no constitutional ban on gay marriages. There is a constitutional right to free speech.
What I'm getting at is, I tend to reserve my negotiations for solely the impact I'm having on the company's bottom line. Whether I want to own a home or a Ferrarri shouldn't matter to my employers, or change how they feel I should be compensated.
Saving $50,000 a month through implementing a new process, though, that's something that will definitely be rewarded.
But hey, good on you that you were able to negotiate successfully!
I don't recall. It wasn't about the engine; it was just a random line from a skit that was about something else. It might even have been a "cut scene," like the "and now for something completely different..."
(Also, ignore the dots; I added them because I couldn't figure out how to make non-breaking spaces via Slashdot...)
At any rate, the reason it's accelerated horizontally is because that can be done fairly simply using current technology, and possibly even maglev like your other responders pointed out.
If you took the above and turned it upside down, so that instead of a structure above ground, it was a tunnel below ground, then you'd have a similar setup to "wisdom brewing"'s response.
Reading your comment I was reminded that, ever since I saw that damned skit, I can't get the slow pronunciation of "wank-el ro-ta-ry en-gine" out of my head. (Thanks, Monty Python, for being there in my childhood.)
With a gas chromatograph. Glayven!
Barbs for the logic.
To be clear: there are three parties. Two are married. One of those is cheating. The state of marriage for the third party (and even whether s/he is in a relationship which forbids outside sexual contact) is unknown -- and, also, orthogonal.
In my experience, at least, it's generally not two cheaters having a relationship. It's generally one cheater, and a bystander (managed/manipulated by the cheater to be ignorant of the cheater's existing relationship).
Everyone should know so that they can act appropriately. For instance, what's the point in voting when Diebold will just hand the election to the highest bidder?
The monitoring should go both ways. Elected officials should be monitored 24/7, audio and video, and these feeds should be made available to the public for their amusement and also to ensure that we know when they're talking to Diebold, or Enron, or Halliburton, ad nauseum. This would go a long way towards eliminating corruption--which is of course why they'll never go for it.
Or this one, from earlier: