considering that Mozilla was so damn slow to start out with, it's not really that great. Maybe significant from a programming point of view, but not from the pov of the end user. The end user, such as myself, wants "the internet" -- along with everything else -- to load instantaneously.
No-one is going to notice a 10% improvement. It is a non-factor. You need to double performance to make a noticeable difference. Granted, if they keep on improving by 10% each release, it will eventually be really good, but don't call a 10% improvement "dramatic" (or whatever the original author called it).
Personally, I like Galeon and Firefox. I just need a web-browser.
Well, it's been a while, and I don't know how much things have evolved...but when I was kicking ass in Descent 2, and someone came in and launched 30 earth-shakers at a fast click, I did "kick playername". There's also restricted games, where players have to get permission to enter. Or you can set up closed games with players who you know don't cheat.
Wtf is that about? They're providing you with an article for free, on the condition that you give them some information so they can maybe recover their costs, and you bitch about it? If you don't like registration, don't register -- but then you don't get articles from websites that want to do that. Also, when they say "Free", they obviously mean registration has no monetary cost, not that it has no cost at all (e.g., privacy cost, time cost to fill out form). Many people place a high value on money, but a lower value on time and privacy (to the extent that private info is revealed by these forms).
As Murray Rothbard has explained, within one continuous corporation, operations are essentially communistic. This sets a practical limit on the size of any corporation, as when corporations grow large enough, they start to collapse from their own internal inefficiencies. Corporations, up to a certain size, function well because they are not "an island unto themselves" and have to buy things from outside sources, hence have prices to allow them to determine cost-efficiency.
Actually, you can separate the monetary system from the authorities. As a matter of fact, gold and silver became accepted standards for currency on the free market, because people chose them. If we want money to be as sound as possible, then we need to eliminate the government's monopoly on money. Please read the articles I referred to, which make note of this.
As for "necessary and sufficient government", no government is necessary. Absent a State, the free market takes care of justice (see Ancient Ireland, Ancient Iceland, and the Wild West). All The State is is a robber who steals from you and then has the audacity to follow you around proclaiming to be your protector, while continually robbing you (which he calls a tax, for his "services").
The same idiotic perceptions have plagued every bull-market, going back to the bull market of the 1920s. There are these idiots who think "we've entered a 'new economy' without busts". The simple fact is, the business cycle will never end unless we get money out of the hands of the government, which means allowing the free market to determine what to use as money.
You don't understand the nature of money. Any given quantity of money is as good as any other quantity, so long as the money is divisible and storeable (store of value). Money is a unit of exchange, which acquires it's value on the free market because there's an inordinate amount of demand for it (thus, it can be used for indirect exchange).
There will always be booms and busts until The State stops inflating the monetary supply. In other words, until we get The State out of money, and go back to allowing the free market to choose money. This would almost certainly result in a gold and silver standard, with banks issuing bank-notes redeemable in certain weights in gold or silver. Fraudulent note-issuing would be checked by bank-runs (banks would no-longer be protected) triggered by customers and other banks. Also, fractional reserve banking is a fraud in which banks loan out assets they don't have title to, while still claiming to be able to redeem at any time (in other words, there is no way they could possibly meet all of their obligations, thus are insolvent at all times). See this article.
does any of that have to do with the fact that those who get government-benefits in the form of payouts are the beneficiaries of robbery? How does his situation change the fact that robbery is wrong? If The State is giving him money -- be it for unemployment, welfare, whatever -- then he is benefitting from the robbery of others (to be differentiated from him receiving a tax-break, in which case, he isn't being stolen from as much as he was before).
The following example may help illustrate my point. If there's a robber in our neighborhood who steals 50% of everyone's salary every week, and he gives me $100 of the money he stole, I am the benefiary of theft. Accepting that money would be immoral. On the other hand, if he offers me an option such that he only steals 25% of my salary, then I am not the beneficiary of theft, but rather am not being stolen from as much.
Flamebait is something specifically designed to invoke reaction, with no material. E.g., "FU". My post was not flamebait.
Offtopic means it is not pertinent to the message it was replying to. My response clearly dealt with accepting state-benefits, which is what the parent-poster was talking about.
Moderators need to learn how to read. If you don't agree with a post, that doesn't make it off-topic or flamebait. Over-rated, maybe, but you should note there is no moderation "wrong".
What managers are failing to understand there is the difference between an employee and a contract-for-hire. If they want to do that, they should put out bids for programmers to do certain projects. However, employees desire a certain stability, and creating a corporate repuation for instability is not going to attract good employees.
in a matter-of-fact manner. Assigned to certain project, laid off before completion. Etc. Then explain how you got another job. If you plainly explain to your employer that your job-switching was because of your employers decisions, it probably won't effect them. The more important thing is that you get jobs relatively quickly after being fired. Especially in a fast-moving field like CS, things change a lot very quickly. Once you've been unemployed for a year, people start to wonder why you were unemployed that long -- "obviously, there's a reason". You start to get shelf-life, and get stale. It shows that other employers don't want you, or that you're not actively pursuing jobs, neither of which is a good sign. Worse yet, it is a time-frame during which you can fall behind in the profession, and get rusty.
taking advantage of state benefits (except in the form of tax-breaks) shows your willing to parasite off of tax-payers, who are being stolen from. It may not show that you're lazy, but it does show a lack of moral character, in my opinion. Admittedly, you've been brainwashed along with everyone else into thinking that taxes aren't theft, but in reality, that's what they are (if me and 9 other people decided to "tax" you for our "societal benefit", we'd be laughed out of court...indeed, we wouldn't even have the temerity to use that defense against robbery...but yet, as the numbers go from 10 to 10-million, how the public becomes duped by sophistry).
Since most of us have already stolen $3,000 from them anyway in CD's we saved money on...er, almost forgot, no-one was going to buy 214CDs this year, and there is no such thing as property rights in non-scarce goods anyways. Oh yea, that's right, copyrights are just an artificially State-created monopoly with no moral authority, and no-more legal authority than the dictates of a mafia organization.
Rather than advocating that NASA steal even more money from the taxpayer, why not create a private initiative to fund for the repair and improvement of Hubble? It's going to be in orbit for 3 more years, right? If enough people really think it's valuable, then that should be plenty of time to raise funds.
Obviously, these guys are putting a lot of confidence in you. Do you think that upper management normally hands over fixing a dysfunctional team to someone who has yet to have any leadership experience? No, normally, that is a job that's given to veterans.
You need to do a few things before you take the job. Firstly, you need to find out everything you can about the people working on that team, the ex-management, the project, it's history, and what-not -- everything! -- before you meet any of the members of the team. You need to walk in there knowing the situation from day one. Secondly, you need to talk to your superior who offered you the job about what he thinks is wrong with the team and some general ideas he might have. You should also ask him to get you in touch with the best managers at the company, preferrably one's who have done turn-around jobs. Thirdly, you need to make sure you're walking in there with absolute authority to hire, fire, and discipline workers. You can't have those on your team second-guessing everything you say and jumping over your head to higher management. Fourthly, you need to understand exactly what your superiors expect from you, and the possible consequences of not succeeding. If this is something they really don't expect to be turned around, they probably won't hold it against you for failing.
Once your introduced to your team, you need to assume immediate authority as to what's going to go on, but you should also be receptive to inputs from your team-members.
except it's the computer person who's violating norms if he's up at 3:00 in the morning clanking on his keyboard. Going out in the hall, however, is a good solution.
Would be simply to be considerate of the other person, and not be using the computer at ghastly late times in the night, or very early times in the morning.
What you've gotten to here is the problem of minarchism: who decides what the minimal level of government activity should be? The arbitrariness of that decision is one of the many reason's why I am not a minarchist, but an anarcho-capitalist. The anarcho-capitalist view is best described by Murray N. Rothbard (economist, philosopher, libertarian, historian) in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.
Speaking generally, the first, and most important, argument is that The State is inherently immoral. It necessitates violating the non-aggression axiom (that no-one should initiate violence against anyone else). The reason it necessitates this is that it must be funded by taxes or inflation, and even if not, to be a State, by definition, it must violently exclude anyone else from law-enforcement.
The second -- and far less important -- argment is that The State (socialism/interventionalism) is inherently wasteful, inefficient, and anti-productive, in all areas from the making of shoes to the realization of justice.
Slashdot Mirror
considering that Mozilla was so damn slow to start out with, it's not really that great. Maybe significant from a programming point of view, but not from the pov of the end user. The end user, such as myself, wants "the internet" -- along with everything else -- to load instantaneously.
No-one is going to notice a 10% improvement. It is a non-factor. You need to double performance to make a noticeable difference. Granted, if they keep on improving by 10% each release, it will eventually be really good, but don't call a 10% improvement "dramatic" (or whatever the original author called it).
Personally, I like Galeon and Firefox. I just need a web-browser.
Well, it's been a while, and I don't know how much things have evolved...but when I was kicking ass in Descent 2, and someone came in and launched 30 earth-shakers at a fast click, I did "kick playername". There's also restricted games, where players have to get permission to enter. Or you can set up closed games with players who you know don't cheat.
"soul sucking 'Free' registration required)"
Wtf is that about? They're providing you with an article for free, on the condition that you give them some information so they can maybe recover their costs, and you bitch about it? If you don't like registration, don't register -- but then you don't get articles from websites that want to do that. Also, when they say "Free", they obviously mean registration has no monetary cost, not that it has no cost at all (e.g., privacy cost, time cost to fill out form). Many people place a high value on money, but a lower value on time and privacy (to the extent that private info is revealed by these forms).
As Murray Rothbard has explained, within one continuous corporation, operations are essentially communistic. This sets a practical limit on the size of any corporation, as when corporations grow large enough, they start to collapse from their own internal inefficiencies. Corporations, up to a certain size, function well because they are not "an island unto themselves" and have to buy things from outside sources, hence have prices to allow them to determine cost-efficiency.
As for "necessary and sufficient government", no government is necessary. Absent a State, the free market takes care of justice (see Ancient Ireland, Ancient Iceland, and the Wild West). All The State is is a robber who steals from you and then has the audacity to follow you around proclaiming to be your protector, while continually robbing you (which he calls a tax, for his "services").
I'd suggest you look at the following articles:
http://www.mises.org/money.asp
http://www.mise
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=14
You don't understand the nature of money. Any given quantity of money is as good as any other quantity, so long as the money is divisible and storeable (store of value). Money is a unit of exchange, which acquires it's value on the free market because there's an inordinate amount of demand for it (thus, it can be used for indirect exchange).
There will always be booms and busts until The State stops inflating the monetary supply. In other words, until we get The State out of money, and go back to allowing the free market to choose money. This would almost certainly result in a gold and silver standard, with banks issuing bank-notes redeemable in certain weights in gold or silver. Fraudulent note-issuing would be checked by bank-runs (banks would no-longer be protected) triggered by customers and other banks. Also, fractional reserve banking is a fraud in which banks loan out assets they don't have title to, while still claiming to be able to redeem at any time (in other words, there is no way they could possibly meet all of their obligations, thus are insolvent at all times). See this article.
In his comment, he specifically said there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of state-benefits. I said there is. It is clearly not off-topic.
does any of that have to do with the fact that those who get government-benefits in the form of payouts are the beneficiaries of robbery? How does his situation change the fact that robbery is wrong? If The State is giving him money -- be it for unemployment, welfare, whatever -- then he is benefitting from the robbery of others (to be differentiated from him receiving a tax-break, in which case, he isn't being stolen from as much as he was before).
The following example may help illustrate my point. If there's a robber in our neighborhood who steals 50% of everyone's salary every week, and he gives me $100 of the money he stole, I am the benefiary of theft. Accepting that money would be immoral. On the other hand, if he offers me an option such that he only steals 25% of my salary, then I am not the beneficiary of theft, but rather am not being stolen from as much.
Flamebait is something specifically designed to invoke reaction, with no material. E.g., "FU". My post was not flamebait.
Offtopic means it is not pertinent to the message it was replying to. My response clearly dealt with accepting state-benefits, which is what the parent-poster was talking about.
Moderators need to learn how to read. If you don't agree with a post, that doesn't make it off-topic or flamebait. Over-rated, maybe, but you should note there is no moderation "wrong".
What managers are failing to understand there is the difference between an employee and a contract-for-hire. If they want to do that, they should put out bids for programmers to do certain projects. However, employees desire a certain stability, and creating a corporate repuation for instability is not going to attract good employees.
in a matter-of-fact manner. Assigned to certain project, laid off before completion. Etc. Then explain how you got another job. If you plainly explain to your employer that your job-switching was because of your employers decisions, it probably won't effect them. The more important thing is that you get jobs relatively quickly after being fired. Especially in a fast-moving field like CS, things change a lot very quickly. Once you've been unemployed for a year, people start to wonder why you were unemployed that long -- "obviously, there's a reason". You start to get shelf-life, and get stale. It shows that other employers don't want you, or that you're not actively pursuing jobs, neither of which is a good sign. Worse yet, it is a time-frame during which you can fall behind in the profession, and get rusty.
taking advantage of state benefits (except in the form of tax-breaks) shows your willing to parasite off of tax-payers, who are being stolen from. It may not show that you're lazy, but it does show a lack of moral character, in my opinion. Admittedly, you've been brainwashed along with everyone else into thinking that taxes aren't theft, but in reality, that's what they are (if me and 9 other people decided to "tax" you for our "societal benefit", we'd be laughed out of court...indeed, we wouldn't even have the temerity to use that defense against robbery...but yet, as the numbers go from 10 to 10-million, how the public becomes duped by sophistry).
means I'm not buying it. I don't play that many games, but I'm dedicated to the ones I do play.
Since most of us have already stolen $3,000 from them anyway in CD's we saved money on...er, almost forgot, no-one was going to buy 214CDs this year, and there is no such thing as property rights in non-scarce goods anyways. Oh yea, that's right, copyrights are just an artificially State-created monopoly with no moral authority, and no-more legal authority than the dictates of a mafia organization.
Balder-dash is a patch made by fans to Baldur's Gate. If MS renamed Windows to Balder-Dash, he'd be violating trademark, and they should sue him.
On a humerous note, maybe this phenomena of the gravitational lense can be used to help geeks see their penis'.
Rather than advocating that NASA steal even more money from the taxpayer, why not create a private initiative to fund for the repair and improvement of Hubble? It's going to be in orbit for 3 more years, right? If enough people really think it's valuable, then that should be plenty of time to raise funds.
Obviously, these guys are putting a lot of confidence in you. Do you think that upper management normally hands over fixing a dysfunctional team to someone who has yet to have any leadership experience? No, normally, that is a job that's given to veterans.
You need to do a few things before you take the job. Firstly, you need to find out everything you can about the people working on that team, the ex-management, the project, it's history, and what-not -- everything! -- before you meet any of the members of the team. You need to walk in there knowing the situation from day one. Secondly, you need to talk to your superior who offered you the job about what he thinks is wrong with the team and some general ideas he might have. You should also ask him to get you in touch with the best managers at the company, preferrably one's who have done turn-around jobs. Thirdly, you need to make sure you're walking in there with absolute authority to hire, fire, and discipline workers. You can't have those on your team second-guessing everything you say and jumping over your head to higher management. Fourthly, you need to understand exactly what your superiors expect from you, and the possible consequences of not succeeding. If this is something they really don't expect to be turned around, they probably won't hold it against you for failing.
Once your introduced to your team, you need to assume immediate authority as to what's going to go on, but you should also be receptive to inputs from your team-members.
except it's the computer person who's violating norms if he's up at 3:00 in the morning clanking on his keyboard. Going out in the hall, however, is a good solution.
Would be simply to be considerate of the other person, and not be using the computer at ghastly late times in the night, or very early times in the morning.
Speaking generally, the first, and most important, argument is that The State is inherently immoral. It necessitates violating the non-aggression axiom (that no-one should initiate violence against anyone else). The reason it necessitates this is that it must be funded by taxes or inflation, and even if not, to be a State, by definition, it must violently exclude anyone else from law-enforcement.
The second -- and far less important -- argment is that The State (socialism/interventionalism) is inherently wasteful, inefficient, and anti-productive, in all areas from the making of shoes to the realization of justice.
You mis-understand my point. My point is that *any* "investment" made by the government is wasteful, and relies on THEFT FROM THE TAXPAYER via taxes or inflation. Thus, it is immoral no matter what. See Who Should Pay for Science? by Michael Levin and State Science, State Truth by Wendy McElroy (also author of XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography).