Whenever something is managed by the government, that's socialism.
Oh, dear (groan).
No, socialism is NOT state-ownership - some socialists would abolish the state entirely, and have all economic enterprises managed by the employees (as worker co-ops, perhaps, though there are other possibilities). A totally free market, without any government ownership, is compatible with *some* versions of socialism.
Socialism is extremely broad, and contains within its ranks contradictory positions - just like many other political (and social) movements. In fact, it has long since split up into distinct groups, each still claiming in various ways to be the heirs of early 1800s socialism.
They often have in common some kind of critique of modern Western capitalist society, with a desire to bring about a more rationalistic, or idealistic, or democratic alternative (state ownership being one of the alternatives proffered) - but it is impossible to spell out *the* socialist critique, or *the* socialist alternative...just like you cannot spell out *the* Republican view of school prayer, or *the* Christian view of the papacy.
Why do you need the VAR statements? You don't have a VAR statement to declare the variable C - and quite right, too. But in any case, why do you need the useless assignment to C? You could just write:
INPUT A
INPUT B
PRINT A+B
GOTO 1
For every language, there is always a language lawyer waiting in the wings to correct you:-)
I get it. The RIAA represents a number of corporations that are supposed to be competing *against* each other in order to serve their customers more efficiently.
The association of these supposed competitors allows them to exert more pressure against the customer and against their suppliers (musicians). It allows them to pool funds to lobby legislators and political executives, and conduct expensive litigation.
In other words, the RIAA is a cartel. It exists in order to distort the market in favour of the recording companies, and against their suppliers and customers. It does not exist to promote competition (and hence efficiency) between its members.
This may be capitalism, but it sure don't look to me like the free market.
first they want all sorts of personal info that really shouldn't be required (phone #, street address, etc...)
I just love it when they ask for phone numbers - and insist that it is mandatory. I live on the other side of the world (hello! this is the Internet, not just America).
Like, they are going to ***phone*** me from the US about a free download???? Do they even know what time zone it is here?
---- The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. (Try actually thinking about that for a minute.)
I did think about it for a minute - maybe even longer.
If you have to be eternally vigilant, are you still free?
Think about it. On a wild frontier, maybe, you have to be vigilant, for you never know when you might be attacked.But that is hardly a state of freedom - it is a state of threat and insecurity.
Gtk is well documented - and much easier than the win32 api. No one *has to* write raw xlib stuff to create a window, unless they are implementing a new toolkit. Sensible people can find lots of toolkits - some very easy to learn. And you can buy a number of books, as well as get the free documentation from the web - heaps more than just man pages (and even those aren't bad...)
so we therefore can't make some `Start-up Wizard' that loads when the OS boots-up and makes start time 4 times faster (think M$FT Windows/Office).
Why not?
Just load a daemon at boot time which keeps most of the required libraries on hand, and then when the user clicks on the StarOffice icon, you just need to load the front end, not the whole damn engine.
It may or may not be a good idea, but I cannot see how it is difficult, just because no one owns the OS.
the differences between a public and a private university
Where I come from this could actually be just the difference between a big university and a small university (almost all Unis here are government-owned).
I attended one university with about 35,000 students (it had several peripheral campuses), and even as a post-grad I felt like a number.
I also attended one with 3,000 internal students and 3,000 external students and I was telephoned by the lecturer to tell me my results, and invited to the professor's house for morning tea at my graduation.
Sadly, the former university had the higher academic standards, but the latter was much better at teaching. They knew and cared about their students.
it's rather a sad indictment on the judicial system that having the one of the best lawyers seems to matter so much
Why? Do you consider it a sad indictment of the health system that having a good doctor matters so much when you are facing a ground-breakingly new surgical technique?
The law is complex in parts - that is life, not necessarily a conspiracy. The natural world is complex (or do you think physics and biology should be simple enough for any average scientist - we shouldn't need an Einstein to solve scientific problems); and the social world is also complex. Laws attempting to deal fairly with all the permutations of human behaviour often need to be complex.
Not all legal questions are this difficult (eg the average property transfer or will). But some are. And it makes sense that these more complex questions should be handled by the more outstanding lawyers.
An apt saying here: "For every complex problem there is a simple solution - and it is wrong."
Ah, but who shall determine what is "unreasonable"?
Not you, but a court. And they may well be more influenced by whatever law agency has arrested you for concealing your personal secrets, than by your claims to privacy.
This is why constitutions can not really guarantee rights - they are always conditional on what the courts etc think "reasonable" at a particular time.
When they abolished slavery, they also abolished *your right* to sell yourself into slavery. This is called 'a lesser constraint to preserve a greater freedom' (I just made that up).
No doubt, back in them thar slave-owning days, the ex-slave-owners were real sad about this loss of rights for the former slaves. "Hey, that represents a loss of freedom. They used to be able to sell themselves into slavery any time they ran out of money - now they aren't allowed. What happended to people's rights!?!."
But if you like, I could give you the names of some countries....
One of things about communist countries was, that you could not travel to the western countries.... Now people are FREE to do it
Yeah, but they are not free to travel back to their homes, as Sklyarov found out when he visited the West.
Re:As long as I can connect...
on
Taming the Web
·
· Score: 1
This reminds me of a story about two friends, one behind the Iron Curtain. They always knew that soviet spies would listen to their phone calls, so they used to converse in Latin. They could hear much coming and going of interpreters listening in, perhaps thinking they were speaking Rumanian, until a voice would break into their call, demanding they speak in an offical national language. They replied that they were speaking in the official language of the Vatican State. By that stage they had had about 15 minutes of free speech.
And during world war 2, the US army allegedly used Navaho radio operators, so that Japanese interceptors could not understand the messages being relayed.
So...let's brush up on our obscure languages and dialects - (Imagine using babelfish to decrypt.....)
Historically, you don't really have a CLUE what the answer is to the question "Which is better: GOVERNMENT or CORPORATION?" because the impact of the corporation on our culture has changed so much in only the past 150 years.
Back 150-200 years ago, only propertied people could vote. The poor (and women) were not considered independent citizens capable of voting for themselves.
Nowadays all adults have the right to vote for governments. But only propertied people can vote for the directors of a corporation - and their vote is directly in proportion to the amount of property they have invested. There is no such thing as 'shareholder democracy' in most corporations - they are out and out plutocracies (rule by the wealthy).
It is interesting that this wealth-ruled corporate power was growing at just the same time as universal suffrage was allowed in government elections.The wealthy don't mind you having the vote, if they control the *real* corridors of power.
And it is also interesting that only the people who invest money in a corporation get to vote - why not the people who invest all their human capital, who invest their working lives in the business (employees)? What about the people in the local area, who may be massively affected by corporate decisions?
Corporations are tools for the massive aggregation of power - but they are accountable only to the people with shares at stake. This economic plutocracy negates the great strides made in the 19th century towards political democracy.
I am waiting for Microsoft to get the Appeals Court so fed up with their behaviour in court, that the Appeal judges start talking to journalists... and end up reversing Penfold Jackson's remedies for being too soft.
MS managed to irritate the bench once. Why not a second time?
What the heck is insightful about this post - it makes very basic logical blunders, and never comes close to refuting the original post. It is totally deluded about its own "realism" - it is just a simple failure to read the original post.
The original poster never said he lives without money. He never said he doesn't work. It is totally irrelevant how much a bunch of consumer items cost. What does that have to do with the pursuit of profit?
He said that PROFIT (not "money") is not the highest goal in his life - he is a subsistence worker: he wants to earn enough to get by, not earn enough to own the whole world.
Slashdot Mirror
Whenever something is managed by the government, that's socialism.
Oh, dear (groan).
No, socialism is NOT state-ownership - some socialists would abolish the state entirely, and have all economic enterprises managed by the employees (as worker co-ops, perhaps, though there are other possibilities). A totally free market, without any government ownership, is compatible with *some* versions of socialism.
Socialism is extremely broad, and contains within its ranks contradictory positions - just like many other political (and social) movements. In fact, it has long since split up into distinct groups, each still claiming in various ways to be the heirs of early 1800s socialism.
They often have in common some kind of critique of modern Western capitalist society, with a desire to bring about a more rationalistic, or idealistic, or democratic alternative (state ownership being one of the alternatives proffered) - but it is impossible to spell out *the* socialist critique, or *the* socialist alternative...just like you cannot spell out *the* Republican view of school prayer, or *the* Christian view of the papacy.
There are more than one.
And if you REALLY want lightweight, why not just:
LOOP PRINT (INPUT + INPUT)
Why do you need the VAR statements? You don't have a VAR statement to declare the variable C - and quite right, too. But in any case, why do you need the useless assignment to C? You could just write:
:-)
INPUT A
INPUT B
PRINT A+B
GOTO 1
For every language, there is always a language lawyer waiting in the wings to correct you
The RIAA represents "an industry".
I get it. The RIAA represents a number of corporations that are supposed to be competing *against* each other in order to serve their customers more efficiently.
The association of these supposed competitors allows them to exert more pressure against the customer and against their suppliers (musicians). It allows them to pool funds to lobby legislators and political executives, and conduct expensive litigation.
In other words, the RIAA is a cartel. It exists in order to distort the market in favour of the recording companies, and against their suppliers and customers. It does not exist to promote competition (and hence efficiency) between its members.
This may be capitalism, but it sure don't look to me like the free market.
first they want all sorts of personal info that really shouldn't be required (phone #, street address, etc...)
I just love it when they ask for phone numbers - and insist that it is mandatory. I live on the other side of the world (hello! this is the Internet, not just America).
Like, they are going to ***phone*** me from the US about a free download???? Do they even know what time zone it is here?
---- The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. (Try actually thinking about that for a minute.)
I did think about it for a minute - maybe even longer.
If you have to be eternally vigilant, are you still free?
Think about it. On a wild frontier, maybe, you have to be vigilant, for you never know when you might be attacked.But that is hardly a state of freedom - it is a state of threat and insecurity.
How to create a window in X?
Using Gtk in X (and Win32) you just write:
window = gtk_window(GTK_TOPLEVEL_WINDOW);
And...
gtk_widget_show(window); will let you see it.
So hard.
Gtk is well documented - and much easier than the win32 api. No one *has to* write raw xlib stuff to create a window, unless they are implementing a new toolkit. Sensible people can find lots of toolkits - some very easy to learn. And you can buy a number of books, as well as get the free documentation from the web - heaps more than just man pages (and even those aren't bad...)
The backslash as directory separator.
The only thing that make this nicer is when they get uppity when you ask basic trouble shooting questions.
I charge them: All the chocolate cake and coffee I can consume while fixing their problem.
One neighbourhood "client" gave me a bottle of Baileys Irish Cream for diagnosing that her PC had a virus.
Because users depend on you, they will pour gratitude on you when you fix simple problems. At least, my neighbours do.
Yes, that is why Linus has bought out all those companies, and now has a fortune of $50 billi...oh wait, he doesn't.
You can't disagree with Torvalds point of view because he doesn't have one
I disagree
I think you can't disagree with him because he refuses to argue - he has a view about things, but he is more interested in doing than talking.
His views on GPL? He put the kernel, his baby, under it.
His views about Windows? He uses and develops Linux.
Commercial exploitation? He gives his work away.
He speaks by his actions. Volumes.
so we therefore can't make some `Start-up Wizard' that loads when the OS boots-up and makes start time 4 times faster (think M$FT Windows/Office).
Why not?
Just load a daemon at boot time which keeps most of the required libraries on hand, and then when the user clicks on the StarOffice icon, you just need to load the front end, not the whole damn engine.
It may or may not be a good idea, but I cannot see how it is difficult, just because no one owns the OS.
the differences between a public and a private university
Where I come from this could actually be just the difference between a big university and a small university (almost all Unis here are government-owned).
I attended one university with about 35,000 students (it had several peripheral campuses), and even as a post-grad I felt like a number.
I also attended one with 3,000 internal students and 3,000 external students and I was telephoned by the lecturer to tell me my results, and invited to the professor's house for morning tea at my graduation.
Sadly, the former university had the higher academic standards, but the latter was much better at teaching. They knew and cared about their students.
it's rather a sad indictment on the judicial system that having the one of the best lawyers seems to matter so much
Why? Do you consider it a sad indictment of the health system that having a good doctor matters so much when you are facing a ground-breakingly new surgical technique?
The law is complex in parts - that is life, not necessarily a conspiracy. The natural world is complex (or do you think physics and biology should be simple enough for any average scientist - we shouldn't need an Einstein to solve scientific problems); and the social world is also complex. Laws attempting to deal fairly with all the permutations of human behaviour often need to be complex.
Not all legal questions are this difficult (eg the average property transfer or will). But some are. And it makes sense that these more complex questions should be handled by the more outstanding lawyers.
An apt saying here: "For every complex problem there is a simple solution - and it is wrong."
If you guys hate MS so much why do you spend so much energy talking about it?
If you are so annoyed about guys hating MS and talking about it, why do *you* spend so much energy talking about it?
Warning: this thread is recursive.
I don't normally comment on spelling or grammatical errors, but I too cracked up when I read about the "Forth" Amendment
I assume it has something to do with defending Basic rights.
Ah, but who shall determine what is "unreasonable"?
Not you, but a court. And they may well be more influenced by whatever law agency has arrested you for concealing your personal secrets, than by your claims to privacy.
This is why constitutions can not really guarantee rights - they are always conditional on what the courts etc think "reasonable" at a particular time.
Um, no.
When they abolished slavery, they also abolished *your right* to sell yourself into slavery. This is called 'a lesser constraint to preserve a greater freedom' (I just made that up).
No doubt, back in them thar slave-owning days, the ex-slave-owners were real sad about this loss of rights for the former slaves. "Hey, that represents a loss of freedom. They used to be able to sell themselves into slavery any time they ran out of money - now they aren't allowed. What happended to people's rights!?!."
But if you like, I could give you the names of some countries....
Yeah, but they are not free to travel back to their homes, as Sklyarov found out when he visited the West.
This reminds me of a story about two friends, one behind the Iron Curtain. They always knew that soviet spies would listen to their phone calls, so they used to converse in Latin. They could hear much coming and going of interpreters listening in, perhaps thinking they were speaking Rumanian, until a voice would break into their call, demanding they speak in an offical national language. They replied that they were speaking in the official language of the Vatican State. By that stage they had had about 15 minutes of free speech.
And during world war 2, the US army allegedly used Navaho radio operators, so that Japanese interceptors could not understand the messages being relayed.
So...let's brush up on our obscure languages and dialects - (Imagine using babelfish to decrypt.....)
... the Mob have been in business.
100,000 years ago?
Was that when the last Martians left to colonise Earth?
Historically, you don't really have a CLUE what the answer is to the question "Which is better: GOVERNMENT or CORPORATION?" because the impact of the corporation on our culture has changed so much in only the past 150 years.
Back 150-200 years ago, only propertied people could vote. The poor (and women) were not considered independent citizens capable of voting for themselves.
Nowadays all adults have the right to vote for governments. But only propertied people can vote for the directors of a corporation - and their vote is directly in proportion to the amount of property they have invested. There is no such thing as 'shareholder democracy' in most corporations - they are out and out plutocracies (rule by the wealthy).
It is interesting that this wealth-ruled corporate power was growing at just the same time as universal suffrage was allowed in government elections.The wealthy don't mind you having the vote, if they control the *real* corridors of power.
And it is also interesting that only the people who invest money in a corporation get to vote - why not the people who invest all their human capital, who invest their working lives in the business (employees)? What about the people in the local area, who may be massively affected by corporate decisions?
Corporations are tools for the massive aggregation of power - but they are accountable only to the people with shares at stake. This economic plutocracy negates the great strides made in the 19th century towards political democracy.
Exactly!
I am waiting for Microsoft to get the Appeals Court so fed up with their behaviour in court, that the Appeal judges start talking to journalists ... and end up reversing Penfold Jackson's remedies for being too soft.
MS managed to irritate the bench once. Why not a second time?
What the heck is insightful about this post - it makes very basic logical blunders, and never comes close to refuting the original post. It is totally deluded about its own "realism" - it is just a simple failure to read the original post.
The original poster never said he lives without money. He never said he doesn't work. It is totally irrelevant how much a bunch of consumer items cost. What does that have to do with the pursuit of profit?
He said that PROFIT (not "money") is not the highest goal in his life - he is a subsistence worker: he wants to earn enough to get by, not earn enough to own the whole world.
Mod this guy's post down.