really? from what I remember of musical history most people got to listen to music for free and were encouraged to donate to the travelling bard or musician.
And, of course, every travelling bard or musician was a world-class performer. Please. Sure, one could go listen to the corner fiddler and dance and be merry. And a good time was had by all. But the phonograph allowed everyone to listen to the best musicians in the world, whenever the wanted, as many times as they wanted.
I'm sure you think every podunk town had their own symphony orchestra as well.
Frequently the fastest way to accomplish s six-week project is to take a month to write the tool...which will then complete the project in under a week. Management with your attitude will a) never see tools produced that increase the department's overall productivity and b) you won't have the best people working for you.
What are you talking about? Are you saying you should be able to sit on your ass for two weeks, because you brought in something ahead of schedule? Guess what: you're being paid to work. If you bring in something ahead of schedule, you should expect a "nice job" with points that count eventual promotion and pay raise -- along with a new assignment.
Or to put it another way, when you're late with an assignment, do you pay the company back for the time you've wasted? Thought not.
Respect is a two-way street. No one like working in the hamster wheel, but no one likes managing (or working with) the prima donna who thinks he can just put in solid work when he feels like it.
I doubt MS has changed its goals regarding Sun in the last 10 years.
Microsoft (and nearly the entire industry, really) stopped caring about Sun about five years ago. They are irrelevent to anything important these days.
I'd really like to ask him what he is doing about Microsoft's efforts to poison Java.
You do realize that memo was ten years ago, right?
And the pure Java code it outputs doesn't run on Macs.
Anyway, as you've noticed, Sun ultimately didn't need any help poisoning Java and making it less than useful for everyday life (though, it did do better for what it was intended -- embedded apps).
"Wealth Transfer"? That's a nice euphemism for stealing.
Actually, it's a not a nice euphemism at all. The nice ephemism is "welfare". Anyway, calling taxation "stealing" has always been a Libertarian achilles' heal in their quest for power. They think that resonates with the rank-and-file (since it resonates with them), and it has just the opposite effect. Most reasonable people *want* to belong to a collective society and believe taxes are necessary to keep civilization running. Calling it "stealing" is just strikes people as absurd. Society decides as a whole the proper level of a taxation, and society as a whole decides how it is redistributed back.
Can we both agree that our differences lie in what constitutes individual rights?
Of course -- that's at the center of nearly all political debate.
If so, then I'd argue that Libertarians do not ignore the 9th amendment. We simply believe that these rights are defined differently than you.
That would be fine, except that too many Libertarians use the "that's not in MY constitution!" argument when talking about various policies. That's ignoring the ninth amendment, which pretty much gives carte blanche to ANY right being allowed by the constitution that's not expressly written about. Given that, you can't use the constitution to make any argument about what the country is "supposed" to be like.
Like I said elsewhere in this thread, I'm sympathetic to some Libertarian philosophy. But too many Libertarians drape themselves in the constitution, which is not proof of anything.
This ground has been covered many, many times. I'll just say this: if it's not the individual's fault that they're poor, then whose fault is it? Who keeps them from educating themselves? Who keeps them from saving their money?
I'm not saying that no one ever needs help, but the attitude that individuals are not ultimately responsible for their own lives is one of the burdens of the poor -- the burden of low expectations. They constantly get these messages that it's impossible for them to get out of the poverty trap. That somehow the rich are keeping them down.
Strip away everything I have, tell me that I can't make money in any way that I've ever done before, throw me into the middle of the worst part of town, and I guarantee you I will be out of poverty in a relatively short period of time. That's the message the poor should get, not that they are "born into it and won't get out of it if they aren't given a hand, no matter how hard they work" (!!!) That has be one of the most offensive and terrible messages I've ever heard. That basically says, "the poor are sub-humans incapable of taking care of themselves."
I don't accept excuses for myself, and I don't accept excuses for the poor.
All people, short of physical or mental disability, choose their own lifestyle in the United States.
OK, polemics aside, could you tell me why Libertarians oppose the right to live so vehemently?
I'm not a Libertarian, but their fundamental rule is that it's immoral to forcibly take from one individual to directly benefit another individual. They're not opposed to charity; they only believe that it should be done privately, voluntarily and not forcibly (and inefficiently) by government.
As for me, I'm sympathetic to their views, but unfortunately their ideas wouldn't work in the real world. We'd end up with 18th century poverty and disease.
By then it will be too late. The weatherman is almost always wrong. Are you going to ignore the tornado warnings?
The weatherman is legitimate when it comes to tornado warnings.
By the way, I've invented a machine that will prevent asteroid impacts. If you give me a $1000, I'll be able to finish it. If you don't give it to me now, it'll be TOO LATE! Yeah, yeah, people like me are 'almost' always wrong, but are you going to just ignore the warning? Email me and I'll tell you where to send the money. Cash only, please.
It's best to look at the message and go from there.
Given infinite time and attention, you would be correct. In the real world, it's best to wait to see if a more legitimate messenger shows up to deliver the same message.
I don't understand your sig. The Ninth Amendment would appear to be profoundly libertarian, as it makes clear the idea that unenumerated powers reside with the people, not the government.
Not quite -- the ninth amendment simply says that the people may hold rights that are not enumerated, a subtly different thing. Where Libertarians come in is that whenever the government starts getting too socialist, many like to pull out the, "My constitution doesn't say anything about that!" card. Or the, "The founders never intended that!" card.
The ninth amendment says that it's entirely possible -- and legal -- for any socialist policy to be declared a fundamental right. A right to free food. A right to free medical care. A right to a minimum income. Hell, a fundamental right to Communism!
Now, I don't happen to agree that the above are or should be fundamental rights. But the constitution allows for the possibility, which I've never heard a Libertarian admit to.
Typically a Libertarian would respond to this with, "Well, you can't declare a right that requires stealing from one person to give to another." And why not? First, nothing happens in a vacuum. All enforcement of individual rights requires sacrifice from the whole. Second, nothing in the constitution forbids direct wealth transfer as a right. The Libertarian would argue it's immoral, but that's an opinion -- not a constitutional foundation.
It is very sad indeed that you would ignore a possibly important message just because you don't like the messenger.
Everyone ignores messages, every day. They are simply too voluminous in the modern world. You have to have some sort of filtering system, and one of the filters is the messenger.
To put it another way, if the RIAA claims that unless all computers are locked down immediately, all creative output could cease 'in the near future.' That's a pretty frightening prospect! Sounds like an important message! You better not ignore that 'possibly' important message, just because of the messenger!
Greenpeace has a history of ignoring science for their own publicity and benefit. The messenger matters.
This may or may not be true (I'm skeptical when it's just one single study that had some ambiguous questions), but Greenpeace is not the one that ought to report it. Yes, the messenger does matter. If this is really true, give it to a mainstream organization and let them figure it out.
Of course, we know Greenpeace won't do that, since they're all about the publicity.
Thank you for clarifying that but what was your point and what did you mean?
My point is that people seem to think that just because they get complaints, then somehow the standard organization shouldn't move forward (or shouldn't fast track the standard). I would be surprised if anything with Microsoft's name didn't get complaints.
"despite the detailed complaints from national standards bodies." [...] So what is the point of these national standards bodies? Standards without a method of enforcement, are called "suggestions".
It depends on what the complaints actually were and how legitimate they are. I'm certain a lot of them were variations on "Micro$oft is teh SUX0R". There might have been some reasonable ones as well, but just because someone complains, doesn't mean the complaints are valid.
but because they were very expensive relative to the cost of laptops.
They were very expensive LIMITED lobotomized devices relative to the cost of a FULLY FUNCTIONAL laptop. Given the choice, people chose more function at less cost. This is a fully functional PC in a small form factor, with a FULL RESOLUTION (1024 dot horizontal) screen.
There are smaller devices out there for less money. WinCE/PocketPC PDAs, Zauruses (Zaurii?).
Those are PDAs, with all the limitations of PDAs. They can't run general Windows applications. That's part of the point of this.
So -- and this is a real question -- what sort of application would this device be suited for?When would this be an ideal device instead of a pocket-sized/palmtop computer or a small notebook?
Oh, how about a real web browser (e.g. Google Maps). How about running full Office? How about running Linux? Hell, how about running games? I'm making an assumption here that this thing has a full resolution screen. If it doesn't, it's another useless attempt. But if it had a full resolution screen (with a slick magnifier tool, when needed), it would be awesome.
With the direction they're going with the iPhone, you know it's only a matter of time before Apple whips that technology into something with a 5"-7" display in a far more attractive package with superior software.
What direction with the iPhone? This is a REAL PC, that can run any software you want. The iPhone is a locked-down, "keep your filthy hands out of our l33t device" phone that only runs software that Steve wants you to run (all the while lying about the reasons it's locked down). Not to mention that you "vill take Cingular, and you vill like it". And let's not even talk about the first time you drop and scratch that screen (I wonder if it's replaceable? HA, sorry, sometimes I crack myself up)
The iPhone has some slick features, but Apple's steel-toed boot policies make it hard justify spending the money for it.
I really don't see what this offers over a good PDA.
A PDA is not a real computer. This device is a full PC in a very small form factor. I've been wishing for a REAL PC the size of a PDA for a long time, which no one has produced. I don't know if this is finally someone cluing in that there's a market for a PDA-PC with a full resolution (though small) screen, but I'm praying.
They sell you a small brick for more than a notebook computer costs. [etc, etc] I'm not following.
The point of this is SMALL.
Sony tried this years ago with their Vaio sub-notebook line of computers.
They are bigger, and the screen resolution sucked on them. The question is whether this new device has a "real" screen resolution. And you criticize the keyboard of this new device, missing the point of SMALL. Small is not compatible with "good keyboard".
I don't think that's going to make up for the lousy form factor,
If you think the form factor is "lousy", then you're not looking for SMALL. The product is not for you, which is OK, except that you somehow generalize that no one is looking for small.
Slashdot Mirror
really? from what I remember of musical history most people got to listen to music for free and were encouraged to donate to the travelling bard or musician.
And, of course, every travelling bard or musician was a world-class performer. Please. Sure, one could go listen to the corner fiddler and dance and be merry. And a good time was had by all. But the phonograph allowed everyone to listen to the best musicians in the world, whenever the wanted, as many times as they wanted.
I'm sure you think every podunk town had their own symphony orchestra as well.
Frequently the fastest way to accomplish s six-week project is to take a month to write the tool...which will then complete the project in under a week. Management with your attitude will a) never see tools produced that increase the department's overall productivity and b) you won't have the best people working for you.
What are you talking about? Are you saying you should be able to sit on your ass for two weeks, because you brought in something ahead of schedule? Guess what: you're being paid to work. If you bring in something ahead of schedule, you should expect a "nice job" with points that count eventual promotion and pay raise -- along with a new assignment.
Or to put it another way, when you're late with an assignment, do you pay the company back for the time you've wasted? Thought not.
Respect is a two-way street. No one like working in the hamster wheel, but no one likes managing (or working with) the prima donna who thinks he can just put in solid work when he feels like it.
I doubt MS has changed its goals regarding Sun in the last 10 years.
Microsoft (and nearly the entire industry, really) stopped caring about Sun about five years ago. They are irrelevent to anything important these days.
I'd really like to ask him what he is doing about Microsoft's efforts to poison Java.
You do realize that memo was ten years ago, right?
And the pure Java code it outputs doesn't run on Macs.
Anyway, as you've noticed, Sun ultimately didn't need any help poisoning Java and making it less than useful for everyday life (though, it did do better for what it was intended -- embedded apps).
plug-boards? Yeh whipper snappin' kids. Back in MAH day, we had to put rocks in lines of dirt! And the gawddamn boss made us buy our own rocks!
"Wealth Transfer"? That's a nice euphemism for stealing.
Actually, it's a not a nice euphemism at all. The nice ephemism is "welfare". Anyway, calling taxation "stealing" has always been a Libertarian achilles' heal in their quest for power. They think that resonates with the rank-and-file (since it resonates with them), and it has just the opposite effect. Most reasonable people *want* to belong to a collective society and believe taxes are necessary to keep civilization running. Calling it "stealing" is just strikes people as absurd. Society decides as a whole the proper level of a taxation, and society as a whole decides how it is redistributed back.
Can we both agree that our differences lie in what constitutes individual rights?
Of course -- that's at the center of nearly all political debate.
If so, then I'd argue that Libertarians do not ignore the 9th amendment. We simply believe that these rights are defined differently than you.
That would be fine, except that too many Libertarians use the "that's not in MY constitution!" argument when talking about various policies. That's ignoring the ninth amendment, which pretty much gives carte blanche to ANY right being allowed by the constitution that's not expressly written about. Given that, you can't use the constitution to make any argument about what the country is "supposed" to be like.
Like I said elsewhere in this thread, I'm sympathetic to some Libertarian philosophy. But too many Libertarians drape themselves in the constitution, which is not proof of anything.
Well, if you criticise Greenpeace for generating publicity...
No, I criticized Greenpeace for using publicity for their own manipulative ends. I never criticized publicity itself.
This ground has been covered many, many times. I'll just say this: if it's not the individual's fault that they're poor, then whose fault is it? Who keeps them from educating themselves? Who keeps them from saving their money?
I'm not saying that no one ever needs help, but the attitude that individuals are not ultimately responsible for their own lives is one of the burdens of the poor -- the burden of low expectations. They constantly get these messages that it's impossible for them to get out of the poverty trap. That somehow the rich are keeping them down.
Strip away everything I have, tell me that I can't make money in any way that I've ever done before, throw me into the middle of the worst part of town, and I guarantee you I will be out of poverty in a relatively short period of time. That's the message the poor should get, not that they are "born into it and won't get out of it if they aren't given a hand, no matter how hard they work" (!!!) That has be one of the most offensive and terrible messages I've ever heard. That basically says, "the poor are sub-humans incapable of taking care of themselves."
I don't accept excuses for myself, and I don't accept excuses for the poor.
Yeah, because, like, raising public awareness about things should be done in secret.
I can lie to the public and raise their awareness of the lies as well (and make a HUGE bunch of money at it). Will you praise me for it, too?
You know, like all that lobbying Monsanto does; there's a bunch of publicly-spirited guys doing things the right way! Un huh, un huh...
I see, if I criticize Greenpeace, then I must automatically be in favor of whatever Monsanto does, or must be in favor of secrecy. Ooookay.
The poor just didn't work hard enough?
All people, short of physical or mental disability, choose their own lifestyle in the United States.
OK, polemics aside, could you tell me why Libertarians oppose the right to live so vehemently?
I'm not a Libertarian, but their fundamental rule is that it's immoral to forcibly take from one individual to directly benefit another individual. They're not opposed to charity; they only believe that it should be done privately, voluntarily and not forcibly (and inefficiently) by government.
As for me, I'm sympathetic to their views, but unfortunately their ideas wouldn't work in the real world. We'd end up with 18th century poverty and disease.
By then it will be too late. The weatherman is almost always wrong. Are you going to ignore the tornado warnings?
The weatherman is legitimate when it comes to tornado warnings.
By the way, I've invented a machine that will prevent asteroid impacts. If you give me a $1000, I'll be able to finish it. If you don't give it to me now, it'll be TOO LATE! Yeah, yeah, people like me are 'almost' always wrong, but are you going to just ignore the warning? Email me and I'll tell you where to send the money. Cash only, please.
Only a fucking idiot would entrust the ass-clowns running at least the American media with that responsibility.
Who said anything about the media? When I said "mainstream organization", I was thinking of a science organization or journal.
It's best to look at the message and go from there.
Given infinite time and attention, you would be correct. In the real world, it's best to wait to see if a more legitimate messenger shows up to deliver the same message.
I don't understand your sig. The Ninth Amendment would appear to be profoundly libertarian, as it makes clear the idea that unenumerated powers reside with the people, not the government.
Not quite -- the ninth amendment simply says that the people may hold rights that are not enumerated, a subtly different thing. Where Libertarians come in is that whenever the government starts getting too socialist, many like to pull out the, "My constitution doesn't say anything about that!" card. Or the, "The founders never intended that!" card.
The ninth amendment says that it's entirely possible -- and legal -- for any socialist policy to be declared a fundamental right. A right to free food. A right to free medical care. A right to a minimum income. Hell, a fundamental right to Communism!
Now, I don't happen to agree that the above are or should be fundamental rights. But the constitution allows for the possibility, which I've never heard a Libertarian admit to.
Typically a Libertarian would respond to this with, "Well, you can't declare a right that requires stealing from one person to give to another." And why not? First, nothing happens in a vacuum. All enforcement of individual rights requires sacrifice from the whole. Second, nothing in the constitution forbids direct wealth transfer as a right. The Libertarian would argue it's immoral, but that's an opinion -- not a constitutional foundation.
It is very sad indeed that you would ignore a possibly important message just because you don't like the messenger.
Everyone ignores messages, every day. They are simply too voluminous in the modern world. You have to have some sort of filtering system, and one of the filters is the messenger.
To put it another way, if the RIAA claims that unless all computers are locked down immediately, all creative output could cease 'in the near future.' That's a pretty frightening prospect! Sounds like an important message! You better not ignore that 'possibly' important message, just because of the messenger!
Greenpeace has a history of ignoring science for their own publicity and benefit. The messenger matters.
This may or may not be true (I'm skeptical when it's just one single study that had some ambiguous questions), but Greenpeace is not the one that ought to report it. Yes, the messenger does matter. If this is really true, give it to a mainstream organization and let them figure it out.
Of course, we know Greenpeace won't do that, since they're all about the publicity.
Oh look! It is Roland Piquepaille providing another link to his ad filled blog. FUCK OFF Roland Piquepaille! We don't like you!
You actually look at who submitted the story? Why?
Thank you for clarifying that but what was your point and what did you mean?
My point is that people seem to think that just because they get complaints, then somehow the standard organization shouldn't move forward (or shouldn't fast track the standard). I would be surprised if anything with Microsoft's name didn't get complaints.
"despite the detailed complaints from national standards bodies." [...] So what is the point of these national standards bodies? Standards without a method of enforcement, are called "suggestions".
It depends on what the complaints actually were and how legitimate they are. I'm certain a lot of them were variations on "Micro$oft is teh SUX0R". There might have been some reasonable ones as well, but just because someone complains, doesn't mean the complaints are valid.
The word that conveys the work and technical details involved is "integration". Yes, it's four syllables.
(shaking fist) DAMN YOU KIDS! LEAVE MY DICTIONARY ALONE! I'M TOO OLD TO LEARN NEW LANGUAGE USAGE!
Or to put it another way, DAMN YOU KIDS! STAY OFF OF MY LAWN!
(It actually irritated me too, until I realized that my irritation was a symptom of my "over 30" age, and then promptly got over it)
but because they were very expensive relative to the cost of laptops.
They were very expensive LIMITED lobotomized devices relative to the cost of a FULLY FUNCTIONAL laptop. Given the choice, people chose more function at less cost. This is a fully functional PC in a small form factor, with a FULL RESOLUTION (1024 dot horizontal) screen.
There are smaller devices out there for less money. WinCE/PocketPC PDAs, Zauruses (Zaurii?).
Those are PDAs, with all the limitations of PDAs. They can't run general Windows applications. That's part of the point of this.
So -- and this is a real question -- what sort of application would this device be suited for?When would this be an ideal device instead of a pocket-sized/palmtop computer or a small notebook?
Oh, how about a real web browser (e.g. Google Maps). How about running full Office? How about running Linux? Hell, how about running games? I'm making an assumption here that this thing has a full resolution screen. If it doesn't, it's another useless attempt. But if it had a full resolution screen (with a slick magnifier tool, when needed), it would be awesome.
With the direction they're going with the iPhone, you know it's only a matter of time before Apple whips that technology into something with a 5"-7" display in a far more attractive package with superior software.
What direction with the iPhone? This is a REAL PC, that can run any software you want. The iPhone is a locked-down, "keep your filthy hands out of our l33t device" phone that only runs software that Steve wants you to run (all the while lying about the reasons it's locked down). Not to mention that you "vill take Cingular, and you vill like it". And let's not even talk about the first time you drop and scratch that screen (I wonder if it's replaceable? HA, sorry, sometimes I crack myself up)
The iPhone has some slick features, but Apple's steel-toed boot policies make it hard justify spending the money for it.
I really don't see what this offers over a good PDA.
A PDA is not a real computer. This device is a full PC in a very small form factor. I've been wishing for a REAL PC the size of a PDA for a long time, which no one has produced. I don't know if this is finally someone cluing in that there's a market for a PDA-PC with a full resolution (though small) screen, but I'm praying.
They sell you a small brick for more than a notebook computer costs. [etc, etc] I'm not following.
The point of this is SMALL.
Sony tried this years ago with their Vaio sub-notebook line of computers.
They are bigger, and the screen resolution sucked on them. The question is whether this new device has a "real" screen resolution. And you criticize the keyboard of this new device, missing the point of SMALL. Small is not compatible with "good keyboard".
I don't think that's going to make up for the lousy form factor,
If you think the form factor is "lousy", then you're not looking for SMALL. The product is not for you, which is OK, except that you somehow generalize that no one is looking for small.