I see the Information wants to be free as an observation that information spreads easily, and that once something is out, you can't lock it up again, just like you can't put a genie back into a bottle.
Information is inanimate; its has no wants or desires. People want information to be free.
And this is where the USA is reaping what is sows. By making the first-step a non-resident visa the government is simply encouraging companies to abuse their position as H-1B employers. As a soon-to-be H1-B (if all goes to plan) I dread the thought that my employer will be able to lord this over my head for 4-5 years before I get a Green Card and am "free".
The American government needs to offer a direct-to-PR track for skilled immigrants. While my employer seems to treat H-1Bs no differently than domestic employees, I know many companies that will work the employee like a dog while they can.
But you are free. You are free to get on a plane and fly back home anytime you want to.
The VP debate was funny until I checked the news the next day and everything was about how well Palin did, saying that she even 'won' (politically). Then it was just very sad.
She wants the same job Biden does, she has to meet the same standards.
An IBM developer figured out how to use "make" to start services in parallel (once you have determined the dependencies).
A link to the article is here.
Bear in mind, this is circa 2003. 8)
Very good article. The utility of Make is highly underrated.
Okay, this was stupid, but it does touch on a point I've wondered about: religion seems to be the foundation of much of our societal moral code. Without the framework of religion, why is it "wrong" to kill someone?
Within the framework of religion its okay to kill someone, you just label them hethans who are going to burn anyway.
Outside of the framework of religion, they're people.
You are a banker who has US$700b in bad loans mostly provided to people who had a history of bad debt and whom have defaulted on their repayments. The Government is offering you somebody elses money to cover your poor judgement and prop up your terrible lending practices. Answer the following questions (1 point each):
Is US$700b enough?
What will be the total value wiped of the global stock markets by your ineptitude?
How big will your bonus be this year
Bonus question: Is lending a value that is worth 125% of the house it is secured against a good idea? State your reasons why and show your working out.
Here's another one for your banker friend.
Well you already charged the sub-prime borrowers a higher interest rate to offset them as a credit risk didn't you? or was the reasoning for the higher interest rate complete BS?
Or in summary, were you lying to the people you were lending the money to, or are you lying now?
There is one problem with the constructivist approach : you can't construct real numbers. Oops... So you'd never get anywhere near a physical theory with a constructivist approach, never mind a theory with singularities.
You're missing the point of Definition. Definitions don't have to be proved, they are a starting point to create the rules with are used to define things.
Therefore for the theory of relativity (and all physical theories, and all chemistry theories, and all...) one of the following is true:
-> the theory is inconsistent (and therefore wrong)
-> the theory is unproveable
No theory is provable. We can only show that a theory is incomplete: GR and QM, which makes doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but limits the scope of the theory. We can show that a theory doesn't work at all: Autodynamics and Electric Universe. by simple measurements.
Of course in your world, measurements don't count because they can't be made objectively, and real numbers don't exist, because they're a faith based construct.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp
She didn't try to ban books outright... rather she asked the librarian "Would you ban a book if I told you too" and then after asking 3 times, she threatened to fire her because she didn't feel she had the librarys support.
Don't get facts crossed, reality is scarier then fiction.
I'm surprised the didn't just have the sheriff remove and burn them.
Unfortunately it's been proven that it does not exist. It cannot exist in mathematics, therefore if mathematical logic applies in "the universe" it cannot have a rational basis.
What I mean here by a rational basis is a non-dogmatic basis. A basis that is not dependant on axioms, which are unexaplainable, eternal, non-negotiable truths.
Such a theory does not exist. It's not just that we don't have such a theory yet, we have a mathematical proof that there is no such theory.
Whatever theory "explains" the universe, it will be dogmatic. Worse than that, it is known that there are infinitely many laws of nature in that dogmatic theory. So not only are there eternal, unviolable laws, there are a hell of a lot of them.
We only know a few of them, a few simple ones. OTOH this is also good news : science will only "be over" after an infinite amount of time has passed, after any finite amount of time has passed there are necessarily laws of nature that haven't been discovered or described yet. The universe truly is a beauty.
Please take some real physics courses while you're studying the crackpots.
Reality is fact: Gravity, Inertia, those are facts. Whatever is in your head are NOT facts.
But gravity and inertia are also in your head. They are ideas, mental constructions, descriptions of patterns of observations.
Its only in our head because we observe the fact, and create constructs to model it. Our constructs have no affect on reality, but reality had better affect our constructs.
You might want to check the accuracy of that statement. It has most certainly not been proved to be wrong. It has been proven to be extremely slightly inaccurate in a few cases.
Besides, the law that replaced it is VERY similar to newton's law of gravity. It just contains extra terms that correct for a very, VERY insignificant inaccuracy. Note that this factor is always simplified to "1" for any calculation that applies to anything relating to humans.
So what has really happened to newton's law of gravity ? It's been proven that for certain required accuracy, in certain extreme conditions, there's a better - but equally dogmatic (in fact more dogmatic) and non-negotiable - alternative. Which still contains newton's law in it's entirety, but corrects it by a tiny, tiny factor. (you might say that the old dogma is a 99,99999999999999% correct simplification of the new dogma)
You are more than welcome to makeup something to replace Relativity, especially GR. All you have to do is supply the math and the evidence backing it up.
Since this is only dogma it shouldn't be that hard.
It's been shown the ISO is deep in the pockets of M$
No such thing has been shown. You've bought into IBM FUD.
How do I know? Because unlike 99% of those in the open source world, I'm suspicious of *everyone* with a large financial stake in something, not just MS.
Why just the people with a large financial stake? I'm suspicious of everybody.
Gov. Schwarzenegger ordered a cut in pay to California state workers, and was told that it would be impossible to implement because the payroll system is in Cobol and nobody can touch it.
Sounded like political bull to me, but then again...
Do you think any of the state employeed developers actually want to write code to reduce themselves to minimum wage?
Learning to deal with twits dictating from their high horse is part of the real world... deal.
Re:You could at least explain what you mean
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
... by "anti-business"! There are about a thousand different things you could mean by that, and frankly I have no idea which of them you mean.
Do you mean they are "anti-giant-corporate-monopolistic-practices"??
Do you mean they don't want to see your company make a profit?
Do you mean they take a stand against certain business practices engaged in by this corporation?
There are many, many more. So: WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN? Your post was about as clear as mud.
You forgot: "Refuse to work for free."
And: "Precognative understandering of what the stakeholders want and need."
Slashdot Mirror
I am a Liberal.
I believe in the Constitution which contains the right to bear arms and seperation of church and state.
I believe in the United States of America, not Jesusland.
When the American Right stops trying to destroy the First Amendment, which incidentally comes before the Second Amendment, I will consider it.
Until then, you're welcome to relocate to a country more amiable to your theocratic oligarchy: I think Iran would suit you nicely.
I see the Information wants to be free as an observation that information spreads easily, and that once something is out, you can't lock it up again, just like you can't put a genie back into a bottle.
Information is inanimate; its has no wants or desires. People want information to be free.
Both candidates will have 100's of people helping them make decisions, they will be able to handle themselves.
The ability of the current administration to make decisions contradicts your argument.
The only thing the current administration has shown to be good at is winning elections, and that's only because they're the ones who took office.
Well it was. It was replaced by Metacity as the default window manager for Gnome over half a decade ago.
Wasn't it Enlightnment, then Sawfish then Metacity?
Its your bill, in at least the fact that you voted for it?
Since you're a Senator are you going show some genuine spine, and sponsor legislation to change or repeal that POS?
Are you sure you got a CS degree? And from an accredited university?
I knew someone who got an MIS degree from Troy State, or whatever they're calling themselves now, and called it a CS degree.
And this is where the USA is reaping what is sows. By making the first-step a non-resident visa the government is simply encouraging companies to abuse their position as H-1B employers. As a soon-to-be H1-B (if all goes to plan) I dread the thought that my employer will be able to lord this over my head for 4-5 years before I get a Green Card and am "free".
The American government needs to offer a direct-to-PR track for skilled immigrants. While my employer seems to treat H-1Bs no differently than domestic employees, I know many companies that will work the employee like a dog while they can.
But you are free. You are free to get on a plane and fly back home anytime you want to.
The VP debate was funny until I checked the news the next day and everything was about how well Palin did, saying that she even 'won' (politically). Then it was just very sad.
She wants the same job Biden does, she has to meet the same standards.
She deserves no slack.
An IBM developer figured out how to use "make" to start services in parallel (once you have determined the dependencies). A link to the article is here. Bear in mind, this is circa 2003. 8)
Very good article. The utility of Make is highly underrated.
Okay, this was stupid, but it does touch on a point I've wondered about: religion seems to be the foundation of much of our societal moral code. Without the framework of religion, why is it "wrong" to kill someone?
Within the framework of religion its okay to kill someone, you just label them hethans who are going to burn anyway.
Outside of the framework of religion, they're people.
You are a banker who has US$700b in bad loans mostly provided to people who had a history of bad debt and whom have defaulted on their repayments. The Government is offering you somebody elses money to cover your poor judgement and prop up your terrible lending practices. Answer the following questions (1 point each):
Bonus question: Is lending a value that is worth 125% of the house it is secured against a good idea? State your reasons why and show your working out.
Here's another one for your banker friend.
Well you already charged the sub-prime borrowers a higher interest rate to offset them as a credit risk didn't you? or was the reasoning for the higher interest rate complete BS?
Or in summary, were you lying to the people you were lending the money to, or are you lying now?
11. Inform company that you'll be working from home
12 Hire programer from third world country, at one tenth your salary, to do the work.
13. Profit!
14. find another job.
15. GOTO 11
There I fixed it for you.
You're missing the point of Definition. Definitions don't have to be proved, they are a starting point to create the rules with are used to define things.
No theory is provable. We can only show that a theory is incomplete: GR and QM, which makes doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but limits the scope of the theory. We can show that a theory doesn't work at all: Autodynamics and Electric Universe. by simple measurements.
Of course in your world, measurements don't count because they can't be made objectively, and real numbers don't exist, because they're a faith based construct.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp She didn't try to ban books outright... rather she asked the librarian "Would you ban a book if I told you too" and then after asking 3 times, she threatened to fire her because she didn't feel she had the librarys support. Don't get facts crossed, reality is scarier then fiction.
I'm surprised the didn't just have the sheriff remove and burn them.
Unfortunately it's been proven that it does not exist. It cannot exist in mathematics, therefore if mathematical logic applies in "the universe" it cannot have a rational basis.
What I mean here by a rational basis is a non-dogmatic basis. A basis that is not dependant on axioms, which are unexaplainable, eternal, non-negotiable truths.
Such a theory does not exist. It's not just that we don't have such a theory yet, we have a mathematical proof that there is no such theory.
Whatever theory "explains" the universe, it will be dogmatic. Worse than that, it is known that there are infinitely many laws of nature in that dogmatic theory. So not only are there eternal, unviolable laws, there are a hell of a lot of them.
We only know a few of them, a few simple ones. OTOH this is also good news : science will only "be over" after an infinite amount of time has passed, after any finite amount of time has passed there are necessarily laws of nature that haven't been discovered or described yet. The universe truly is a beauty.
Please take some real physics courses while you're studying the crackpots.
The biggest hypocrisy of modern times is the blind faith people have in science.
You can quote me on that (now I wish I was signed in).
That's only because they're too lazy to actually study it.
Furthermore you can't be and expert in everything. It takes years of math to understand GR. Most people don't have that kind of time.
But gravity and inertia are also in your head. They are ideas, mental constructions, descriptions of patterns of observations.
Its only in our head because we observe the fact, and create constructs to model it. Our constructs have no affect on reality, but reality had better affect our constructs.
You might want to check the accuracy of that statement. It has most certainly not been proved to be wrong. It has been proven to be extremely slightly inaccurate in a few cases.
Besides, the law that replaced it is VERY similar to newton's law of gravity. It just contains extra terms that correct for a very, VERY insignificant inaccuracy. Note that this factor is always simplified to "1" for any calculation that applies to anything relating to humans.
So what has really happened to newton's law of gravity ? It's been proven that for certain required accuracy, in certain extreme conditions, there's a better - but equally dogmatic (in fact more dogmatic) and non-negotiable - alternative. Which still contains newton's law in it's entirety, but corrects it by a tiny, tiny factor. (you might say that the old dogma is a 99,99999999999999% correct simplification of the new dogma)
You are more than welcome to makeup something to replace Relativity, especially GR. All you have to do is supply the math and the evidence backing it up.
Since this is only dogma it shouldn't be that hard.
No such thing has been shown. You've bought into IBM FUD.
How do I know? Because unlike 99% of those in the open source world, I'm suspicious of *everyone* with a large financial stake in something, not just MS.
Why just the people with a large financial stake? I'm suspicious of everybody.
Last year, Microsoft had $51bn in revenue and IBM had $98bn. So if it's about money, IBM is twice as important as Microsoft.
And who had more profit?
Gov. Schwarzenegger ordered a cut in pay to California state workers, and was told that it would be impossible to implement because the payroll system is in Cobol and nobody can touch it.
Sounded like political bull to me, but then again...
Do you think any of the state employeed developers actually want to write code to reduce themselves to minimum wage?
Learning to deal with twits dictating from their high horse is part of the real world... deal.
... by "anti-business"! There are about a thousand different things you could mean by that, and frankly I have no idea which of them you mean. Do you mean they are "anti-giant-corporate-monopolistic-practices"?? Do you mean they don't want to see your company make a profit? Do you mean they take a stand against certain business practices engaged in by this corporation? There are many, many more. So: WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN? Your post was about as clear as mud.
You forgot: "Refuse to work for free."
And: "Precognative understandering of what the stakeholders want and need."
Whats your point?
I don't think that your $6.50 Gameboyrun WarCraft or StarCraft either; it won't even run Star Control.
You can get one on eBay for like $6.50, with Tetris. What else do you need?
How about something that will run games I actually want to play?