I mean, I thought it was the Republicans who were destroying America and the Democrats were going to save us? You mean to tell me that they are all beholden to business interests? Say it it isn't so!
Ah, see? And yet again, because it's a Democrat party senator going against the./ grain, the little (D) mark after the name is absent from the intro blurb. Curious how that always happens. Whenever it's a Republican senator or congressman in the hot seat, that little (R) is right there to make sure everyone knows it. I've pointed this out before, and here it is again. Coincidence? Oversight? Not this many times it ain't.
Hmmm.... My gut thought this might be true, but my brain told me I should pay Myth Busters their due by actually taking a peek at a list of relevant stories posted in Slashdot.
By browsing through the list of stories which mention a US Senator, there is no identifiable pattern of senators being identified by party. I see many instances of less-known senators of both parties being identified with their party affiliation, and many more instances of well-known senators of either party being mentioned without noting the party.
It is conceivable that a thorough statistical analysis would show some bias, but it is not at all obvious at a quick glance. The AC's post is demonstrably false as written. the R is not always noted, and the D does show up in a negative context (such as here, or here).
This has nothing to do with whether or not it is capitalism -- though you are mistaken to think it is not.
Making everyone pay for something that only a some use sounds very much like socialism to me. (BTW: I live in a socialistic country)
It's funny; when corporations have enough influence, they behave a lot like governments. The line between capitalism and socialism can appear to be very fuzzy.
The reason I love linux is because I have the choice. Minimal distro, server oriented distro, etc. Trying to make one big distro is absolutely the wrong thinking, it would be impossible to decide on anything first of all, and its been proved this concept doesn't work already, by a company called Microsoft.
Microsoft has been selling multiple Windows "distributions" for years, most recently including (for example) "Windows Server 2008", Windows Vista Home, Windows Vista Ultimate, Windows Mobile, etc.
So no, Microsoft does not have a "one size fits all" approach to operating systems.
The UN warned that Russia's 2005 population of about 143 million could fall by a third by 2050.
Okay, interesting data, but what about this indicates failure of a state? When the biggest pressure the world faces comes from a ridiculously high ratio of people to resources, it looks as if Russia is headed in the right direction for long-term sustainability.
>Did you ever watch the show? They jumped the shark at least >once an episode. That's part of what made it so great.
That is not what jumping the shark means. Jumping the shark is when a show does something so out of character that the basic premise of the show is destroyed. This is usually done to either boost ratings or because the writers have run out of ideas. It usually marks the point where a series turns from being clever and innovative to being trite and predictable.
Precisely. Thus, as the GP stated, Red Dwarf seemed to jump the shark in every episode. The only thing missing was Henry Winkler in waterskis and a motorboat. But now, with finding Earth, maybe.... [crosses fingers]
CEO's are just part of the same thought elite recycling old ideas. Even ones that run technical companies. Stuff like this is only news when real reformers like RMS get cabinet appointments.
Richard Stallman IS part of the "thought elite". His ideas ARE now old ideas. His ideas have become part of the establishment view.
The "thought elite" of business founders and CEOs includes people who have used recycled "old ideas" to get a lot of good stuff done, such as Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Paul Newman, etc.
Writing off the entirety of such a diverse group of people as the CEOs of corporations with the nearly meaningless accusation that they are "recycling old ideas" is not only fallacious, but also foolishly dismissive of the value many of them have to contribute.
He was objecting to "multiple Windows versions customized by PC makers". So, to answer your question on Bill's behalf, nothing changed.
Yes, they're talking about multiple versions, but that's no different than Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Vista. So again, this would be standard operating procedure, pardon the pun. But it is clear that this article is not saying that the PC makers could sell their own custom Windows versions.
PC vendors who want to sell customized operating systems will sell Linux, as they do today.
I say that there is a HUGE difference between the best and the worst. But the problem is not just the Presidency. The best President can be hampered by the worst Congress. Obama may be a good President. He may even be a great President. But he's hampered by Congress. And I believe that this Congress is one of the worst.
Hmmm.... Interesting thoughts. I'm curious about a couple things:
1. What do you want the Congress to do, what do you expect they will do, and why?
2. What is an example of a better Congress, and what did it accomplish that you liked?
Okay, I'm not a Roberts fan, but let's be real. The Roberts administered the oath, got nervous, Obama handled it gracefully, and the job is done. Roberts goes back to not having to speak in front of a ridiculously large number people.
I expect that the abuse Roberts will get from Antonin Scalia alone will be more than enough punishment for getting nervous while administering the oath.
...not going to happen, under this or any administration I fear.
I infer you mean Federal government shrunk to its constitutional tasks only. Then there's the government of the states, and local governments. Consider, for example, the scope of the Texas constitution, which is or would become more than enough to make up for any efficiencies one might hope to achieve at a federal level.
It appears that a lot of people want a lot of stuff, and they don't want to know how it's paid for. You're fighting not only the institutional tendency for continuity, but also the people who want stuff that isn't readily available in the market. (Relative lack of "free market" and reasons for that discussion not included here, though that may be a requirement for an in-depth discussion of more efficient and on-task government.)
If that's what you're waiting for, than you might want to have a look at this article about http://www.usaspending.gov/... It's an eye opener...
This comment (and the GP) illustrates the point that people's expectations for the US government are often much lower than justified. This reflects the fact that there is much in the government that is thoughtful, competent, efficient, and honorable.
The big issue with space missions in mass. Silk worms aren't going to magically create silk worm meat (or whatever you call it) from nothing - for ever 1 kg of silk worm that you grow to eat, you will have to bring along at least 1 kg of silkworm food. So why not just bring human-edible food instead of silk worm food?
Real American(TM) astronauts must eat meat to survive. If their alternative to the horrors of vegetarianism is eating larvae of the Bombyx mori, so be it; I support their right to choose. Bon Apetit!
"I currently run my computer system off solar panels. They (SSDs) consume less power as compared to systems that have hard disks. FYI, I live deep in the country."
Well, I etch my data into massive stone tables. FYI, I live even deeper in the country.
Stone tables, eh? Living that "deep" in the country, I can only assume that your primary export of your area is very shiny, and that you have a beard....
This is how my economist professor explained the reasoning for marrying an absolutely hot and smart woman.
And yet, to me, the reasoning is similar to what I'd do with a winning lottery ticket: I wouldn't say, "no, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with all that wealth; why don't you keep it?" Instead, I'd say, "yes, thank you, I'll take the 'cash now' option please."
"The weed of evil bears bitter fruit." - The Shadow.
I thoroughly enjoyed The Shadow. I don't know if it was Penelope Ann Miller, Tim Curry, Ian McKellan, or Penelope Ann Miller, but I really thought it was pretty cool. Oh, and there were some pretty nice (for the time) special effects. And Alec Baldwin did a pretty good job, too. The story was coherent, sufficiently ridiculous, funny, stylized, and felt on the mark for the "spirit" of The Shadow radio show.
The Phantom, on the other hand, had Billy Zane in a purple diving suit. I seriously can't remember anything else about it.
Will the Spirit suck more than a turbo-charged Hoover? I don't know, but 30 minutes of someone's recount of an unreleased film won't tell you.
``The Linux community would undoubtedly prefer a free software version of the Flash player. However, it is unlikely to be produced by Adobe, since the Flash software business model is based on selling server products: the server and development software. Providing a free implementation of the client would probably result in competition for those products that would result in less revenue for Adobe.''
Something isn't quite right with your reasoning there. If the first part of what you say is true, and Adobe's business model is based on selling server products, then they would win by having the client as widely deployed as possible and lowering the client development costs as much as possible. Both of these can be achieved by making the client open source. By keeping it closed source, they have to fund all the development themselves, which increases their cost and (in practice) limits the presence of the client.
That's what I was thinking at first. Then it occurred to me that if they "freed" the client, that would (I assume) make it much easier to create free development tools and server applications for Flash.
The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid
I'd like to see where he gets that from, I've never talked to anyone personally that works in a company that develops free (as in beer) software.
Is that what you meant to say?
As written, it appears that either you don't know very many people, or you haven't really thought about which companies develop free-as-in-beer software.
A few companies that I am certain develop free-as-in-beer software: Microsoft? Yes IBM? Yes HP? Yes Sony? Yes Also, manufacturers of most hardware devices that require device drivers or have diagnostic software? Yes
Companies that develop free or open source software may be fewer than those that develop free-as-in-beer software. Perhaps that is what you intended to focus on?
Seriously? Did you have to pay to download the flash plugin? No.
So let me get this straight, you get a professionally developed product, which adobe sees absolutely no profit from(unless you want to count the relatively microscopic desktop Linux userbase as "gain"). And you still have reason to complain? Your like the guy on the street who is given a wad of money and complains that the bills are dirty.
Unless that is.. you can think of a business model where flash gives up all control they have over their products and still makes a net profit.(I'm listening)
Vehemence of this response aside, this poses some fair questions, to which there are reasonable answer.
I think the GP was referring to free as in "free and open source software". Fantastic as it is to have the latest Flash player on 64-bit Linux, it's still not "Free and Open Source Software".
The Linux community would undoubtedly prefer a free software version of the Flash player. However, it is unlikely to be produced by Adobe, since the Flash software business model is based on selling server products: the server and development software. Providing a free implementation of the client would probably result in competition for those products that would result in less revenue for Adobe.
As with any free software I know of, a free software flash player business would need to depend on selling service. To my knowledge, Adobe is not prepared to shift to a service-based revenue stream for Flash. It could be done, but it is unlikely to be desirable, as I suspect the vast majority of the Flash client market is completely uninterested in whether they have a free-software-based player. Most of that market is using a non-free operating system and other software; they are extremely unlikely to care about whether the Flash software they downloaded for free has source code available for modification and redistribution.
I congratulate Adobe for having the foresight to provide quality support for Linux clients, enabling them to provide service on low-cost embedded systems and help cement their dominance of the web-based animation and video streaming markets.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, I thought it was the Republicans who were destroying America and the Democrats were going to save us? You mean to tell me that they are all beholden to business interests? Say it it isn't so!
Ah, see? And yet again, because it's a Democrat party senator going against the ./ grain, the little (D) mark after the name is absent from the intro blurb. Curious how that always happens. Whenever it's a Republican senator or congressman in the hot seat, that little (R) is right there to make sure everyone knows it. I've pointed this out before, and here it is again. Coincidence? Oversight? Not this many times it ain't.
Hmmm.... My gut thought this might be true, but my brain told me I should pay Myth Busters their due by actually taking a peek at a list of relevant stories posted in Slashdot.
By browsing through the list of stories which mention a US Senator, there is no identifiable pattern of senators being identified by party. I see many instances of less-known senators of both parties being identified with their party affiliation, and many more instances of well-known senators of either party being mentioned without noting the party.
It is conceivable that a thorough statistical analysis would show some bias, but it is not at all obvious at a quick glance. The AC's post is demonstrably false as written. the R is not always noted, and the D does show up in a negative context (such as here, or here).
I consider this myth busted.
This has nothing to do with whether or not it is capitalism -- though you are mistaken to think it is not.
Making everyone pay for something that only a some use sounds very much like socialism to me. (BTW: I live in a socialistic country)
It's funny; when corporations have enough influence, they behave a lot like governments. The line between capitalism and socialism can appear to be very fuzzy.
The reason I love linux is because I have the choice. Minimal distro, server oriented distro, etc. Trying to make one big distro is absolutely the wrong thinking, it would be impossible to decide on anything first of all, and its been proved this concept doesn't work already, by a company called Microsoft.
Microsoft has been selling multiple Windows "distributions" for years, most recently including (for example) "Windows Server 2008", Windows Vista Home, Windows Vista Ultimate, Windows Mobile, etc.
So no, Microsoft does not have a "one size fits all" approach to operating systems.
The UN warned that Russia's 2005 population of about 143 million could fall by a third by 2050.
Okay, interesting data, but what about this indicates failure of a state? When the biggest pressure the world faces comes from a ridiculously high ratio of people to resources, it looks as if Russia is headed in the right direction for long-term sustainability.
Or am I missing something here?
>Did you ever watch the show? They jumped the shark at least
>once an episode. That's part of what made it so great.
That is not what jumping the shark means. Jumping the shark is when a show does something so out of character that the basic premise of the show is destroyed. This is usually done to either boost ratings or because the writers have run out of ideas. It usually marks the point where a series turns from being clever and innovative to being trite and predictable.
Precisely. Thus, as the GP stated, Red Dwarf seemed to jump the shark in every episode. The only thing missing was Henry Winkler in waterskis and a motorboat. But now, with finding Earth, maybe.... [crosses fingers]
Did we not learn anything by watching Rome?
I believe that what we learned from Rome (or more to the point, the Roman Empire) is how to decline and fall.
great! where do i sign up to cancel my subscription?
At the border, dude. I understand Canada is a fairly popular option.
Oh, awesome... I finally know what the ??? step is!
The facts as I see them are (according to the source you cite):
1. Microsoft employees gave more ($791,342) to Obama than did Google employees ($782,964 -- this is almost 1 million USD?).
2. You believe the Obama administration made an IT decision based on how much money Google's EMPLOYEES gave to his campaign.
3. Profit!!!
CEO's are just part of the same thought elite recycling old ideas. Even ones that run technical companies. Stuff like this is only news when real reformers like RMS get cabinet appointments.
Richard Stallman IS part of the "thought elite". His ideas ARE now old ideas. His ideas have become part of the establishment view.
The "thought elite" of business founders and CEOs includes people who have used recycled "old ideas" to get a lot of good stuff done, such as Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Paul Newman, etc.
Writing off the entirety of such a diverse group of people as the CEOs of corporations with the nearly meaningless accusation that they are "recycling old ideas" is not only fallacious, but also foolishly dismissive of the value many of them have to contribute.
So what changed, Bill?
He was objecting to "multiple Windows versions customized by PC makers". So, to answer your question on Bill's behalf, nothing changed.
Yes, they're talking about multiple versions, but that's no different than Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Vista. So again, this would be standard operating procedure, pardon the pun. But it is clear that this article is not saying that the PC makers could sell their own custom Windows versions.
PC vendors who want to sell customized operating systems will sell Linux, as they do today.
I say that there is a HUGE difference between the best and the worst. But the problem is not just the Presidency. The best President can be hampered by the worst Congress. Obama may be a good President. He may even be a great President. But he's hampered by Congress. And I believe that this Congress is one of the worst.
Hmmm.... Interesting thoughts. I'm curious about a couple things:
1. What do you want the Congress to do, what do you expect they will do, and why?
2. What is an example of a better Congress, and what did it accomplish that you liked?
Okay, I'm not a Roberts fan, but let's be real. The Roberts administered the oath, got nervous, Obama handled it gracefully, and the job is done. Roberts goes back to not having to speak in front of a ridiculously large number people.
I expect that the abuse Roberts will get from Antonin Scalia alone will be more than enough punishment for getting nervous while administering the oath.
Good job Obama for being cool and on task.
...not going to happen, under this or any administration I fear.
I infer you mean Federal government shrunk to its constitutional tasks only. Then there's the government of the states, and local governments. Consider, for example, the scope of the Texas constitution, which is or would become more than enough to make up for any efficiencies one might hope to achieve at a federal level.
It appears that a lot of people want a lot of stuff, and they don't want to know how it's paid for. You're fighting not only the institutional tendency for continuity, but also the people who want stuff that isn't readily available in the market. (Relative lack of "free market" and reasons for that discussion not included here, though that may be a requirement for an in-depth discussion of more efficient and on-task government.)
If that's what you're waiting for, than you might want to have a look at this article about http://www.usaspending.gov/... It's an eye opener...
This comment (and the GP) illustrates the point that people's expectations for the US government are often much lower than justified. This reflects the fact that there is much in the government that is thoughtful, competent, efficient, and honorable.
My apologies: They're talking about eating the pupae, not larvae. In any case, there's strong appeal for the carnivorous astronaut, I expect.
The big issue with space missions in mass. Silk worms aren't going to magically create silk worm meat (or whatever you call it) from nothing - for ever 1 kg of silk worm that you grow to eat, you will have to bring along at least 1 kg of silkworm food. So why not just bring human-edible food instead of silk worm food?
Real American(TM) astronauts must eat meat to survive. If their alternative to the horrors of vegetarianism is eating larvae of the Bombyx mori, so be it; I support their right to choose. Bon Apetit!
"I currently run my computer system off solar panels. They (SSDs) consume less power as compared to systems that have hard disks. FYI, I live deep in the country."
Well, I etch my data into massive stone tables. FYI, I live even deeper in the country.
Stone tables, eh? Living that "deep" in the country, I can only assume that your primary export of your area is very shiny, and that you have a beard....
So why are levels inspired by other games in LittleBigPlanet being modded out?
Possibly out of trademark concerns, and probably out of Sony's desire to keep its development partners and potential partners happy.
This is how my economist professor explained the reasoning for marrying an absolutely hot and smart woman.
And yet, to me, the reasoning is similar to what I'd do with a winning lottery ticket: I wouldn't say, "no, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with all that wealth; why don't you keep it?" Instead, I'd say, "yes, thank you, I'll take the 'cash now' option please."
Back in grade 9, half of the guys in my class had a crush on her.
And as we all know, if you crush her hard enough, she'll turn into a diamond
Regrettably, I have no mod points.... Thank you for the funniest line I have read today.
"The weed of evil bears bitter fruit." - The Shadow.
I thoroughly enjoyed The Shadow. I don't know if it was Penelope Ann Miller, Tim Curry, Ian McKellan, or Penelope Ann Miller, but I really thought it was pretty cool. Oh, and there were some pretty nice (for the time) special effects. And Alec Baldwin did a pretty good job, too. The story was coherent, sufficiently ridiculous, funny, stylized, and felt on the mark for the "spirit" of The Shadow radio show.
The Phantom, on the other hand, had Billy Zane in a purple diving suit. I seriously can't remember anything else about it.
Will the Spirit suck more than a turbo-charged Hoover? I don't know, but 30 minutes of someone's recount of an unreleased film won't tell you.
Don't be bitter.
``The Linux community would undoubtedly prefer a free software version of the Flash player. However, it is unlikely to be produced by Adobe, since the Flash software business model is based on selling server products: the server and development software. Providing a free implementation of the client would probably result in competition for those products that would result in less revenue for Adobe.''
Something isn't quite right with your reasoning there. If the first part of what you say is true, and Adobe's business model is based on selling server products, then they would win by having the client as widely deployed as possible and lowering the client development costs as much as possible. Both of these can be achieved by making the client open source. By keeping it closed source, they have to fund all the development themselves, which increases their cost and (in practice) limits the presence of the client.
That's what I was thinking at first. Then it occurred to me that if they "freed" the client, that would (I assume) make it much easier to create free development tools and server applications for Flash.
The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid
I'd like to see where he gets that from, I've never talked to anyone personally that works in a company that develops free (as in beer) software.
Is that what you meant to say?
As written, it appears that either you don't know very many people, or you haven't really thought about which companies develop free-as-in-beer software.
A few companies that I am certain develop free-as-in-beer software:
Microsoft? Yes
IBM? Yes
HP? Yes
Sony? Yes
Also, manufacturers of most hardware devices that require device drivers or have diagnostic software? Yes
Companies that develop free or open source software may be fewer than those that develop free-as-in-beer software. Perhaps that is what you intended to focus on?
Java is free but Flash is not
Seriously? Did you have to pay to download the flash plugin? No.
So let me get this straight, you get a professionally developed product, which adobe sees absolutely no profit from(unless you want to count the relatively microscopic desktop Linux userbase as "gain"). And you still have reason to complain? Your like the guy on the street who is given a wad of money and complains that the bills are dirty.
Unless that is.. you can think of a business model where flash gives up all control they have over their products and still makes a net profit.(I'm listening)
Vehemence of this response aside, this poses some fair questions, to which there are reasonable answer.
I think the GP was referring to free as in "free and open source software". Fantastic as it is to have the latest Flash player on 64-bit Linux, it's still not "Free and Open Source Software".
The Linux community would undoubtedly prefer a free software version of the Flash player. However, it is unlikely to be produced by Adobe, since the Flash software business model is based on selling server products: the server and development software. Providing a free implementation of the client would probably result in competition for those products that would result in less revenue for Adobe.
As with any free software I know of, a free software flash player business would need to depend on selling service. To my knowledge, Adobe is not prepared to shift to a service-based revenue stream for Flash. It could be done, but it is unlikely to be desirable, as I suspect the vast majority of the Flash client market is completely uninterested in whether they have a free-software-based player. Most of that market is using a non-free operating system and other software; they are extremely unlikely to care about whether the Flash software they downloaded for free has source code available for modification and redistribution.
I congratulate Adobe for having the foresight to provide quality support for Linux clients, enabling them to provide service on low-cost embedded systems and help cement their dominance of the web-based animation and video streaming markets.
Those clever bastards.
Wikipedia provides the new standard of "truth"?
We all know that nothing is "true" until it has been posted on Slashdot. Jimbo Wales is fit to polish Commander Taco's sneakers.