How about with something based one REAL currency with intrinsic value, like silver and gold,
And then what happens when, say, Russia floods the world with cheap gold from their huge reserves? [which was a very real possibility that was floated during the Y2K thing, which was why smart people did NOT put their money into gold]
Gold does not have intrinsic value. Like everything else, it has value based on supply and demand. Dollars have value because of common consent. The difference is that we, as a country, control the supply and aren't at the mercy of a foreign power who might flood the market with gold.
The Federal Reserve may not be a perfect system, but it's way better than basing it on arbitrary metals. Heck, how about basing the currency on oil? Think about how insane that would be, and apply the same thinking to gold or silver.
The non-acceptance of the GPL causes no loss of freedom over and above what you already have. Acceptance of the GPL causes you (by choice) to limit yourself. Ultimately, choice is, in itself, freedom.
Fine, but that's still less freedom than other licenses that let you use the software in any way you choose, without the restrictions on freedom that the GPL imposes.
Doesn't section 5 of the GPL allow you to reject the license and be bound by the usual copyright laws as they might be in your country?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but section 5 basically says you can't modify or redistribute the software if you don't accept the license, which is a limitation on your freedom to use the software.
If Nader's your guy, then I understand why you're upset. But I have to be honest -- to me, Nader is on the same level as the Peace and Freedom guy or the Socialist guy. Granted, he has a small amount of support more, but the support level is pretty small. And I don't think the support level is small because nobody knows who Nader is or what he believes in. I think he and his ideas have simply been rejected by the voting population.
Like I said, Perot proved that someone can capture a fair amount of the vote if he can take hold at a grass-roots level.
My gut feeling is the standard should probably be about 10%. If someone can't get 10% support, then they don't belong on the national stage.
The things people read into my sig that aren't there is a never ending source of fascination to me.
Obviously people can choose whatever license they want, but that has nothing to do with my sig. It's the limitation of freedom of usage imposed by GPL'd software that it's referring to.
So, um, why shouldn't we let these "minor" candidates speak? Oh yeah, they might win by accident.
While I don't doubt that some candidates want to remove "dangerous" candidates, there does need to be some standard. There is an infinite about of time in a debate, and letting in every nutcase who runs for president just wastes time.
Put it this way, Perot was able to get to a reasonable level of support, and he was included.
but instead the solution is (somehow) getting a preferential voting system.
Did it ever occur to you that the ideas of the third parties are simply rejected by the mass majority of people? I love it; if no one like your candidate, then it must be the system's fault.
One mistake I think a lot of people make is looking solely at the candidate, rather than the beliefs of the party. Obviously the candidate matters, but I think the party actually matters more. Let me explain.
Despite what the popular press would have you believe, Presidents simply don't have that much power. They have most of the foreign policy power, but most of the domestic policy power lies in Congress. Presidents can suggest legislation, but all bills are ultimately written by congress. The President only gets the ability to do a thumbs up or thumbs down on the whole package (unless he eventually gets the line-item veto). That's why you see weird things get attached to bills, because a President is reluctant to down an entire bill over one pork-barrel project.
Bottom line, even if you don't like a particular candidate, vote for the party anyway. For example, I don't think Bush is the best possible candidate in the U.S. However, despite my reservations about the religious wing of the Republican party, I would much rather have conservative, limited economic government policies than the Democrat's "socialism light". Without economic freedom, all other freedoms are just an intellectual exercise.
And by the way, don't let anyone tell you that there is "no difference to the parties". That is just idiocy. Anyone who says that is simply ignorant and is just parroting things they have "heard" with no rational thought.
Once again gender stereotypes rear their ugly head. Slashdot moderators, when will you realize that women are not mentally inferior?
Er, exactly where does "mentally inferior" enter into anything?
You do realize that men and women are different, right? Not inferior or superior, just different. And, of course, that doesn't mean that every man has no interest in sewing, or that every woman has no interest in battlebots. But on the average, it's true.
It's like saying that men are physically superior to women. They're not; men are far stronger physically than women on the average, but women can bear children. Which is superior? It depends on what measurement you use.
There was nothing in the original constitution that was prohibitive of slavery, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.
I would be all in favor of an amendment making it illegal to transfer wealth from one individual to another without voluntary consent. It's called "freedom".
What's really funny about this is that you'll get a lot of people nodding their head in agreement, and then they'll go out and vote for the most socialistic candidate.
First of all, there's a world of difference between "free" and "cheap". The point of a certificate is to prove identity, and the point of a CA is to be a trusted authority. Maybe you don't care how trusted the authority is, but the point is that they should go through some motions to verify identity before issuing a certificate.
It's hard to imagine how a free service could pay the people to do the corporate research.
I don't suppose there are any free CAs out there that are already setup in IE by default...
Think about what you're asking for. The whole point of a certificate is to prove identity. If there was some free service out there, they're not going to do much proving of identity.
apparently Katz hasn't noticed the skyrocketing salaries of the past few years. Longer hours? Yes, someone can choose to work at a job where you work longer hours. On the other hand, I have plenty of friends who work 8:30-5 (with hour lunch) and never think about their job during off-hours.
...productivity in exchange for less security...
And please explain to me why your company owes you one shred of "security". They are not your parents. If you are looking at anyone but yourself for your security, be it government or company, you are a fool. Unfortunately, people have been brainwashed since the new deal to think everybody owes them something.
Risking the wrath of the copyright police, here is the Popular Science blurb (nov 2000 issue). It gives a bit more info. I typed it fast, so beware of typos:
Proton Power
A NEW TYPE of battery that relies on a proton traveling between its poles, rather than bulky molecules, could change how you think about rechargeable batteries. Not only would the new batteries recharge much more quickly, but also they could be recharged an unlimited number of times.
The new protocol polymer battery, developed by Japan's NEC Corp., works more like a capacitor--which stores an electrical charge--than a conventional electrochemical battery. When the battery is fully charged, hydrogen atoms, which each have on electron and one proton, are bound within the cathode material. When an electrical circuit is opened, the electrons split from the atoms and flow through the circuit toward the anode, giving off electricity. The protons flow through an electrolyte to the anode, where they recombine with incoming electrons, forming hydrogen atoms and binding to the anode material. Recharging the battery reverses the process.
The tiny protons speed through the electrolyte quicker than the complex molecules that carry charges in conventional batteries. This means a 12-volt proton polymer battery recharges in just 5 minutes. The battery also generates more power in a shorter period of time--important in, say, an electric motor for a car.
The capture and release of electrons also causes less degredation of the electrodes than the electrochemical reaction of conventional batteries, giving the proton polymer battery a life of tens of thousands of cycles, instead of the hundreds for conventional rechargeables. NEC believes a virtually limitless cycle life--along with the ability to deliver power in pulses--makes the new battery ideal for the recently introduced Bluetooth short-range radio technology, which wirelessly links notebook PCs, mobile phones, and other portable gadgets.
NEC is showing the battery to other manufacturers, but it's too early to tell when (or if) it will go into production.
How about a little mirror that takes the incoming beam, and swings around to aim it at a proper outgoing sensor. The size is to hold the big-ass superconducting magnet needed to swing the mirror at Ghz speeds.
So here's the question. How small would the mirror have to be so that it wouldn't have to swing faster than relativistic speeds, and then how much power would it take to make it move a 100 million times a second (Let's say 10Ghz optical switch, 1000 bit packet size)? Come on Physics students, step up to the plate.:)
Slashdot Mirror
How about with something based one REAL currency with intrinsic value, like silver and gold,
And then what happens when, say, Russia floods the world with cheap gold from their huge reserves? [which was a very real possibility that was floated during the Y2K thing, which was why smart people did NOT put their money into gold]
Gold does not have intrinsic value. Like everything else, it has value based on supply and demand. Dollars have value because of common consent. The difference is that we, as a country, control the supply and aren't at the mercy of a foreign power who might flood the market with gold.
The Federal Reserve may not be a perfect system, but it's way better than basing it on arbitrary metals. Heck, how about basing the currency on oil? Think about how insane that would be, and apply the same thinking to gold or silver.
--
Just out of curiosity, what do you propose replacing the Federal Reserve with?
--
The non-acceptance of the GPL causes no loss of freedom over and above what you already have. Acceptance of the GPL causes you (by choice) to limit yourself. Ultimately, choice is, in itself, freedom.
Fine, but that's still less freedom than other licenses that let you use the software in any way you choose, without the restrictions on freedom that the GPL imposes.
--
Doesn't section 5 of the GPL allow you to reject the license and be bound by the usual copyright laws as they might be in your country?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but section 5 basically says you can't modify or redistribute the software if you don't accept the license, which is a limitation on your freedom to use the software.
--
If Nader's your guy, then I understand why you're upset. But I have to be honest -- to me, Nader is on the same level as the Peace and Freedom guy or the Socialist guy. Granted, he has a small amount of support more, but the support level is pretty small. And I don't think the support level is small because nobody knows who Nader is or what he believes in. I think he and his ideas have simply been rejected by the voting population.
Like I said, Perot proved that someone can capture a fair amount of the vote if he can take hold at a grass-roots level.
My gut feeling is the standard should probably be about 10%. If someone can't get 10% support, then they don't belong on the national stage.
--
The things people read into my sig that aren't there is a never ending source of fascination to me.
Obviously people can choose whatever license they want, but that has nothing to do with my sig. It's the limitation of freedom of usage imposed by GPL'd software that it's referring to.
--
So, um, why shouldn't we let these "minor" candidates speak? Oh yeah, they might win by accident.
While I don't doubt that some candidates want to remove "dangerous" candidates, there does need to be some standard. There is an infinite about of time in a debate, and letting in every nutcase who runs for president just wastes time.
Put it this way, Perot was able to get to a reasonable level of support, and he was included.
--
I would also like to see the following charts, which are just as valuable as this chart:
The relative levels of the magnetic fields from major credit cards.
The amount of electromagnetic radiation ("Oh no! Radiation!") given off from popular brands of flashlights.
The level of "cooties" my wife's purse gives off.
--
not the unrealistic 15% set by the Republicrats as a criterion to get on the stage
I believe that figure was 5%, which Nader doesn't even qualify for.
--
Maybe the ideas are just bad ideas? Nah, that couldn't be it.
--
but instead the solution is (somehow) getting a preferential voting system.
Did it ever occur to you that the ideas of the third parties are simply rejected by the mass majority of people? I love it; if no one like your candidate, then it must be the system's fault.
--
One mistake I think a lot of people make is looking solely at the candidate, rather than the beliefs of the party. Obviously the candidate matters, but I think the party actually matters more. Let me explain.
Despite what the popular press would have you believe, Presidents simply don't have that much power. They have most of the foreign policy power, but most of the domestic policy power lies in Congress. Presidents can suggest legislation, but all bills are ultimately written by congress. The President only gets the ability to do a thumbs up or thumbs down on the whole package (unless he eventually gets the line-item veto). That's why you see weird things get attached to bills, because a President is reluctant to down an entire bill over one pork-barrel project.
Bottom line, even if you don't like a particular candidate, vote for the party anyway. For example, I don't think Bush is the best possible candidate in the U.S. However, despite my reservations about the religious wing of the Republican party, I would much rather have conservative, limited economic government policies than the Democrat's "socialism light". Without economic freedom, all other freedoms are just an intellectual exercise.
And by the way, don't let anyone tell you that there is "no difference to the parties". That is just idiocy. Anyone who says that is simply ignorant and is just parroting things they have "heard" with no rational thought.
--
Er, why don't you read the quote again. Note the word "net". Your nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with my sig.
Beyond that, "growing up" usually applies to attitudes such as yours. Don't worry; hopefully someday you'll grow out of adolescence.
--
Once again gender stereotypes rear their ugly head. Slashdot moderators, when will you realize that women are not mentally inferior?
Er, exactly where does "mentally inferior" enter into anything?
You do realize that men and women are different, right? Not inferior or superior, just different. And, of course, that doesn't mean that every man has no interest in sewing, or that every woman has no interest in battlebots. But on the average, it's true.
It's like saying that men are physically superior to women. They're not; men are far stronger physically than women on the average, but women can bear children. Which is superior? It depends on what measurement you use.
It's just bizarre to me that this has to be said.
--
There was nothing in the original constitution that was prohibitive of slavery, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea.
I would be all in favor of an amendment making it illegal to transfer wealth from one individual to another without voluntary consent. It's called "freedom".
--
What's really funny about this is that you'll get a lot of people nodding their head in agreement, and then they'll go out and vote for the most socialistic candidate.
--
Ph.D. in Transporter Technology
Ph.D. in Holodeck Science
Ph.D. in Geology, focus of Planet Terraforming
...and dare I say it...
Ph.D. in Artificial Intelligence.
--
First of all, there's a world of difference between "free" and "cheap". The point of a certificate is to prove identity, and the point of a CA is to be a trusted authority. Maybe you don't care how trusted the authority is, but the point is that they should go through some motions to verify identity before issuing a certificate.
It's hard to imagine how a free service could pay the people to do the corporate research.
--
Certificates are routinely sold to companies that turn out to be less-than-honorable. (E trade?)
Certificates prove identity. They have nothing to do with "honor".
--
I don't suppose there are any free CAs out there that are already setup in IE by default...
Think about what you're asking for. The whole point of a certificate is to prove identity. If there was some free service out there, they're not going to do much proving of identity.
--
Work longer hours for less
apparently Katz hasn't noticed the skyrocketing salaries of the past few years. Longer hours? Yes, someone can choose to work at a job where you work longer hours. On the other hand, I have plenty of friends who work 8:30-5 (with hour lunch) and never think about their job during off-hours.
And please explain to me why your company owes you one shred of "security". They are not your parents. If you are looking at anyone but yourself for your security, be it government or company, you are a fool. Unfortunately, people have been brainwashed since the new deal to think everybody owes them something.
--
Risking the wrath of the copyright police, here is the Popular Science blurb (nov 2000 issue). It gives a bit more info. I typed it fast, so beware of typos:
Proton Power
A NEW TYPE of battery that relies on a proton traveling between its poles, rather than bulky molecules, could change how you think about rechargeable batteries. Not only would the new batteries recharge much more quickly, but also they could be recharged an unlimited number of times.
The new protocol polymer battery, developed by Japan's NEC Corp., works more like a capacitor--which stores an electrical charge--than a conventional electrochemical battery. When the battery is fully charged, hydrogen atoms, which each have on electron and one proton, are bound within the cathode material. When an electrical circuit is opened, the electrons split from the atoms and flow through the circuit toward the anode, giving off electricity. The protons flow through an electrolyte to the anode, where they recombine with incoming electrons, forming hydrogen atoms and binding to the anode material. Recharging the battery reverses the process.
The tiny protons speed through the electrolyte quicker than the complex molecules that carry charges in conventional batteries. This means a 12-volt proton polymer battery recharges in just 5 minutes. The battery also generates more power in a shorter period of time--important in, say, an electric motor for a car.
The capture and release of electrons also causes less degredation of the electrodes than the electrochemical reaction of conventional batteries, giving the proton polymer battery a life of tens of thousands of cycles, instead of the hundreds for conventional rechargeables. NEC believes a virtually limitless cycle life--along with the ability to deliver power in pulses--makes the new battery ideal for the recently introduced Bluetooth short-range radio technology, which wirelessly links notebook PCs, mobile phones, and other portable gadgets.
NEC is showing the battery to other manufacturers, but it's too early to tell when (or if) it will go into production.
--
Well, I thought it was apparent from the post that I was joking, but...
On the other hand, some of the other posters are saying that they may actually be using microscopic mirrors, so the joke's on both of us.
--
Really? I just posted a joke about this. I didn't think they would really do it using mirrors. Seems so ... crude ... somehow.
--
How about a little mirror that takes the incoming beam, and swings around to aim it at a proper outgoing sensor. The size is to hold the big-ass superconducting magnet needed to swing the mirror at Ghz speeds.
So here's the question. How small would the mirror have to be so that it wouldn't have to swing faster than relativistic speeds, and then how much power would it take to make it move a 100 million times a second (Let's say 10Ghz optical switch, 1000 bit packet size)? Come on Physics students, step up to the plate. :)
--