Not only is this not funny, it's based on completely false assumptions. By far most Open Source/Free Software is not in the public domain. That is, it is benefitting from copyright law.
Well, I don't think Amazon has a patent on "patenting obvious things with tons of prior art" yet, so Microsoft can patent away. What would establish them better than beating Amazon at their own game?
So, wouldn't that make the M8 a US military version of the H&K G36? Interestingly, the US military was also interested in the H&K G11 back in the '80's. That was a much more futuristic and ambitious assault rifle design that seems to have been a good one, though it never went into production.
That's a great story, but you cleaned the rifle before trying it again. Couldn't one have done the same with an M-16 or any rifle? Forgive me for my firearm ignorance. I've never owned one, though I did fire a friend's MAK-90 (Chinese AK-47 clone) and SKS once.
I think you're absolutely right. Probably, a lot of the current problems the US is facing are partially our fault because we did try to help someone at some point. Of course, there were always other agenda too, and I'm ashamed of a lot US foreign policies for both the reasons and the results.
I don't think it should generally be the role of a government to give foreign aid, whether military or humanitarian. That's simply not one of the jobs given to the US government in the Constitution. Rather, individuals should be the ones to give humanitarian aid. There are many mission and humanitarian organizations that are helping a lot of people all over the world, uninhibited by major political pressure from the people giving the money.
Of course, giving military aid may contribute directly to the national defense, as did the US aid to the UK and other states during the Second World War. However, most of the aid since then can't be characterized as directly contributing to US defense.
It is easy to accuse the UN of incompetence, but unfortunately, it is only as strong as members make it out to be, and I seem to recall the US is waaaay late in paying its UN debts.
Perhaps the UN is accused of incompetence because it refused to do anything to enforce its policies in Iraq. The US and UK did it for them and you have the gall to say the US is responsible for UN weakness. I'm not entirely convinced that a war in Iraq was necessary, but you can at least partially blame the UN for it.
You seem to be scoffing at any belief in God. You certainly have a right to believe what you want, but where do your morals come from? If they come from nothing higher than your own mind, you can accuse anyone of being immoral if he doesn't agree with you.
I would agree that there are economic interests in the Iraq war. However, it's not that simple. There are also defense issues. It's too early to tell, but we may even see that the Iraqi people are better off in the long run.
In addition, American power ended two world wars, and prevented a third that was threatining between the UK and the US in the middle of the 1920/30's.
I must have missed a chapter in history class. Are you saying that there was almost a "world war" between the US and UK somewhere between 1920 and 1930? How would be a world war if it was between exactly two states?
In a way however, I do feel threatened as well. The second admendment was put in place as a system of checks and balances; when the government gets too powerful, we're supposed to fight back. What chance do civilians with guns(that the damn democrats try to restrict) have against the super soldiers that look like they come out of StarShip Troopers?? Of course, I guess this isn't too much of an issue considering that the current generation of Americans don't mind our liberties taken away anyways...
Obviously, the answer is Free Weapons development. We can develop more effective ways to kill if we collaborate over the Internet. Of course, it wouldn't look good if it turned out one of the main contributors was a member of Hamas.
He didn't call them "niggers," because he was talking about Middle Easterners, not African Americans. He wanted to use the correct racist/derogatory term. Of course it was wrong to use the term, but your response wasn't much better. At least he had something to say surrounding his unfortunate usage of an inflammatory term.
Well, don't you sound fancy talkin' 'bout yer high-tech spears. I say give 'em some good, hefty rocks. Nothin' like bashin' in the skull of yer enemy to make a man outta ya.
Perhaps the person who was worried about security forgot that the military was concerned with secure communications and encryption long before anyone else. Yes, security will be a major issue, which is why the designers of the system will be thinking very hard about it.
Military planers have been anticipating the emergence of the "information war" for years. A system like this will not be using entirely new ideas. It will be taking ideas that have been in effect in the air war for decades and implementing them on the ground.
That's good for everyone, with the possible exception of the enemy. If there are fewer soldiers out there doing the same amount of work, that's fewer men to get killed or wounded.
Well, that way is only a couple of hundred years old. Actually, open sights like on the M-16 are lot newer than that, right? Did you learn to aim a bow or crossbow? I'll bet you weren't even trained with a sword or spear.:)
But seriously, folks, I think the point is that there needs to be a balance between relying on new technology and remaining familiar with the tried and true. What it comes down to is that a soldier (or anybody, for that matter) needs to be flexible and adaptable. If one tool breaks, another can be used. It would be a mistake to rely completely on something that's only a few years old. It would be equally foolish to refuse to rely on something at all, just because it's new.
Well some would probably say that minimum wage itself is socialist. I wouldn't call it that, but the term means different things to different people. Things like minimum wage and the self-service ban would not be socialism according to a strict definition like this:
"WordNet (r) 1.7" socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital syn:
socialist economy ant: capitalism
I was thinking of the more general definition referred to in this fragment of an Encyclopedia Britannica article:
[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.
So, I guess I need to define and use terms more carefully, especially ones as emotionally charged as "socialism."
Are you saying that the price ends up being about the same? It seems very odd to me that a government would feel it needs to muck about with a cost-effectiveness issue. Why can't the market figure it out? The market will certainly do a much better job than any government in finding the most efficient way to deliver a product. Did someone think self-service was inherently dangerous?
If there's such a small difference in cost, why is gas self service at most gas stations (at least that I've seen) in the country? Evidently, people are cheap enough that the difference in price (whether it's two cents or twenty) was enough for them to forgo full service. Why does the government need to meddle? Let the market decide. It's not as if it's a major public safety issue, like seat belts or turn signals.
I'm sure there is mismanagement of funds and corruption in the government, but tactics like this one are just part of the problem. If legislators really want to fix it, they need to decide on one small step at time toward fixing it, and ask the voters if they can do that. Even if the step involves increasing taxes, the legislators must have the integrity to tell it like it is. Underhanded tactics will only increase voters' distrust.
Well, as everyone here seems to agree, it is extremely farging stupid. It seems the only reason anyone is considering it is that citizens won't approve the the much needed increase in gas taxes. They're in a tough spot, so I don't know what I'd do, but this plan is dependent on the ignorance and stupidity of the voters.
How could this system produce revenue more efficiently? It might move taxation around a bit; that is, some people might pay slightly more, while others slightly less, but there's no evidence that taxation would be more fair. The bottom line is that more tax money is needed for the roads, and that money must come from the same taxpayers it does now, no matter how creative the accounting. The voters should kick all the bums out for insulting their intelligence.
That's bizarre that self-serve gas is illegal. Does anyone know why? Is it because of some gas pumpers' lobby? Come to think of it, gas was all full service in the places I grew up (South and Central America), but I don't know if there was a legal issue. I guess completely automated gas pumps are illegal too then, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you mean the Ribwich? (gurgle gurgle)
Not only is this not funny, it's based on completely false assumptions. By far most Open Source/Free Software is not in the public domain. That is, it is benefitting from copyright law.
Well, I don't think Amazon has a patent on "patenting obvious things with tons of prior art" yet, so Microsoft can patent away. What would establish them better than beating Amazon at their own game?
That was the basis of the joke.
So, wouldn't that make the M8 a US military version of the H&K G36? Interestingly, the US military was also interested in the H&K G11 back in the '80's. That was a much more futuristic and ambitious assault rifle design that seems to have been a good one, though it never went into production.
That's a great story, but you cleaned the rifle before trying it again. Couldn't one have done the same with an M-16 or any rifle? Forgive me for my firearm ignorance. I've never owned one, though I did fire a friend's MAK-90 (Chinese AK-47 clone) and SKS once.
I think you're absolutely right. Probably, a lot of the current problems the US is facing are partially our fault because we did try to help someone at some point. Of course, there were always other agenda too, and I'm ashamed of a lot US foreign policies for both the reasons and the results.
I don't think it should generally be the role of a government to give foreign aid, whether military or humanitarian. That's simply not one of the jobs given to the US government in the Constitution. Rather, individuals should be the ones to give humanitarian aid. There are many mission and humanitarian organizations that are helping a lot of people all over the world, uninhibited by major political pressure from the people giving the money.
Of course, giving military aid may contribute directly to the national defense, as did the US aid to the UK and other states during the Second World War. However, most of the aid since then can't be characterized as directly contributing to US defense.
Corporal Punishment? Does that have something to do with what a user does when he sees a Colonel Panic?
Perhaps the UN is accused of incompetence because it refused to do anything to enforce its policies in Iraq. The US and UK did it for them and you have the gall to say the US is responsible for UN weakness. I'm not entirely convinced that a war in Iraq was necessary, but you can at least partially blame the UN for it.
You seem to be scoffing at any belief in God. You certainly have a right to believe what you want, but where do your morals come from? If they come from nothing higher than your own mind, you can accuse anyone of being immoral if he doesn't agree with you.
I would agree that there are economic interests in the Iraq war. However, it's not that simple. There are also defense issues. It's too early to tell, but we may even see that the Iraqi people are better off in the long run.
In addition, American power ended two world wars, and prevented a third that was threatining between the UK and the US in the middle of the 1920/30's.
I must have missed a chapter in history class. Are you saying that there was almost a "world war" between the US and UK somewhere between 1920 and 1930? How would be a world war if it was between exactly two states?
Obviously, the answer is Free Weapons development. We can develop more effective ways to kill if we collaborate over the Internet. Of course, it wouldn't look good if it turned out one of the main contributors was a member of Hamas.
He didn't call them "niggers," because he was talking about Middle Easterners, not African Americans. He wanted to use the correct racist/derogatory term. Of course it was wrong to use the term, but your response wasn't much better. At least he had something to say surrounding his unfortunate usage of an inflammatory term.
Well, don't you sound fancy talkin' 'bout yer high-tech spears. I say give 'em some good, hefty rocks. Nothin' like bashin' in the skull of yer enemy to make a man outta ya.
Perhaps the person who was worried about security forgot that the military was concerned with secure communications and encryption long before anyone else. Yes, security will be a major issue, which is why the designers of the system will be thinking very hard about it.
Military planers have been anticipating the emergence of the "information war" for years. A system like this will not be using entirely new ideas. It will be taking ideas that have been in effect in the air war for decades and implementing them on the ground.
That's good for everyone, with the possible exception of the enemy. If there are fewer soldiers out there doing the same amount of work, that's fewer men to get killed or wounded.
Well, that way is only a couple of hundred years old. Actually, open sights like on the M-16 are lot newer than that, right? Did you learn to aim a bow or crossbow? I'll bet you weren't even trained with a sword or spear. :)
But seriously, folks, I think the point is that there needs to be a balance between relying on new technology and remaining familiar with the tried and true. What it comes down to is that a soldier (or anybody, for that matter) needs to be flexible and adaptable. If one tool breaks, another can be used. It would be a mistake to rely completely on something that's only a few years old. It would be equally foolish to refuse to rely on something at all, just because it's new.
I was thinking of the more general definition referred to in this fragment of an Encyclopedia Britannica article:
So, I guess I need to define and use terms more carefully, especially ones as emotionally charged as "socialism."
OK, so it's Socialist thinking. I guess that explains it. I disagree with it, but at least it makes some sense.
Are you saying that the price ends up being about the same? It seems very odd to me that a government would feel it needs to muck about with a cost-effectiveness issue. Why can't the market figure it out? The market will certainly do a much better job than any government in finding the most efficient way to deliver a product. Did someone think self-service was inherently dangerous?
If there's such a small difference in cost, why is gas self service at most gas stations (at least that I've seen) in the country? Evidently, people are cheap enough that the difference in price (whether it's two cents or twenty) was enough for them to forgo full service. Why does the government need to meddle? Let the market decide. It's not as if it's a major public safety issue, like seat belts or turn signals.
I can just imagine the question on the Oregon Service Station Attendant Qualification Test (OSSAQT):
If a customer begins to dispense gasoline by herself, should you:
A) take the spigot from the customer and replace it, reminding her of the law against self-service
B) allow the customer to continue, then call the police
C) refuse to wipe the customer's windshield, since she has snubbed you in your primary purpose
D) check whether the customer is soaking herself in gasoline, allowing you to ignore the offense, as it is assured she will not commit it again
I'm sure there is mismanagement of funds and corruption in the government, but tactics like this one are just part of the problem. If legislators really want to fix it, they need to decide on one small step at time toward fixing it, and ask the voters if they can do that. Even if the step involves increasing taxes, the legislators must have the integrity to tell it like it is. Underhanded tactics will only increase voters' distrust.
Well, as everyone here seems to agree, it is extremely farging stupid. It seems the only reason anyone is considering it is that citizens won't approve the the much needed increase in gas taxes. They're in a tough spot, so I don't know what I'd do, but this plan is dependent on the ignorance and stupidity of the voters.
How could this system produce revenue more efficiently? It might move taxation around a bit; that is, some people might pay slightly more, while others slightly less, but there's no evidence that taxation would be more fair. The bottom line is that more tax money is needed for the roads, and that money must come from the same taxpayers it does now, no matter how creative the accounting. The voters should kick all the bums out for insulting their intelligence.
That's bizarre that self-serve gas is illegal. Does anyone know why? Is it because of some gas pumpers' lobby? Come to think of it, gas was all full service in the places I grew up (South and Central America), but I don't know if there was a legal issue. I guess completely automated gas pumps are illegal too then, right?