1. Patents last too long. This is a general problem with IP law these days
Who is to say how long is too long? Is it too long for the software industry, which is barely even comparable to what it was two decades ago? Probably. Is it too long for the drug industry, in which the development of drugs coming to market now may have been ongoing for the last two decades? Maybe not (healthcare effects notwithstanding). The patent system needs to be revised so that it reflects a solution to the problem: it has drifted from its goal of making innovation profitable and protecting the investment and ideas of innovators. Perhaps different patents for different classes of IP?
2. Patents are too easy to get.
I suggest trying it sometime. It isn't that easy after all. Moreover, it's pretty expensive to get a patent on anything non-trivial. Make it harder, and you make it more expensive still, which means individual garage inventors are not going to be protecting themselves, which doesn't seem like much of an idea either. After all, your local neighborhood global corporation doesn't care if a patent costs it $15,000 or $150,000.
I don't dispute that things are broken, but there's no easy fix, either.
On a lark, I've tried searching P2P (in this case, Kazaa), for things that people have inadvertently made available. The things I found were jaw-dropping. Beyond the expected credit card and finance information, I found patent applications, doctoral dissertations, corporate documents, etc.
I'm pretty laissez faire on this one. If you leave your keys in the car and car running, the insurance company won't cover its theft (or at least, so goes the lore). Same principle applies here, I think.
doctors...posted in the Nuremberg case are private citizens, the RNC delegates are public citizens
This is an errant distinction, for several reasons. First, the judges and legislators in the Nuremberg files were undoubtedly public servants, even if the doctors were not. Moreover, even public servants have some recognized right to privacy in public places (example of a Massachusetts motorist who illegally recorded a police officer during a traffic stop). Finally, it is not clear to me that there is such thing as a distinction between "public" and "private" citizens. Name, address, phone, spouse, etc. are available in public records and are therefore considered public domain.
Sure, the incitement to murder was illegal, but it is not my understanding that there was nothing illegal about posting the public domain information. Absent an explanation of the constructive use, though, I would still be opposed to it.
You've ignored my final question: what is the supposed constructive use, other than to harrass delegates personally? If the Nuremberg files were stripped of incitement, would you defend those?
You are correct about the central banks, of course. Mental slip. While the investment rationale is not there, manipulating currency markets to benefit their exports will continue to be in their benefit, at least immediately.
I'm uncertain that I understand your mortgage point. I agree with your assessment of the trends--which could increase debt now but be advantageous in the long term (consider: I am considering buying; though it would be a stretch, the advantageous rates potentially make it a better long-term decision). As far as a "bubble" is concerned, certain markets are overheated, yes, but in-depth analysis of some of the markets reveals a more complicated picture (example: New York prices are off the charts, but there is substantial evidence that they have further to rise, based on structural factors like rent parity, new construction, and demographics).
And you are correct about the non-zero-sum game. I don't view a billion Indian consumers with real buying power as a bad thing, for them or for the United States. Relatively, sure, they close the gap. But from a narrow standpoint of my individual benefit in absolute terms, I think they probably help.
I read about this yesterday, and I was originally troubled. However, I no longer am. More power to the government, I say.
Let me explain.
Another post herein points out, to paraphrase, that being a schmuck isn't right even if it is legal and in support of a cause you think is just. The intent here is undeniably to harrass (and possibly intimidate?) delegates. I think physical harm is a remote possibility, but I grant that it is a possibility.
What the protesters are doing is materially no different than what the Nuremberg Files (more info at religioustolerance.org) did to abortion doctors, judges, politicians, spouses, etc. Was it legal? Sure. Public information. But it still wasn't right, it was meant to enable harrassment, and it's the same thing the protesters are doing.
Whether or not you (or I) agree with the cause is not relevant here. I'm sure some think that it's 100% wrong for the government to investigate, and that's fine. We just need to remember that often such freedom is generally a double-edged sword.
I do have a legitimate question: other than harrassment, what is a legitimate purpose for these postings?
Actually not so, but mea culpa for being imprecise.
The US Personal Savings Rate fell below zero several times in the late 1990s. I seem to recall other such periods, but I don't have time to look at the moment. Google "personal savings rate" or "negative personal savings rate" for a few references.
This post seems a bit mired in the media's understanding of economics--and their reporting of it.
First of all, it is difficult to argue that Asian banks prop up the dollar as an act of goodwill. Rather, they do so as they have incentive to--dollars and dollar-denominated assets continue to be reasonably stable investments over the long term. The US government still ain't going anywhere. Moreover, a US collapse is inconceivable without the rest of the world following, at least until China has had another couple of decades to dramatically increase its domestic consumption. Where are Japanese electronics and autos being sold if US dollars can't buy them? Where is the foreign investment going to come from in China?
The second point is redundant; non-sustainable (sic) spending is by definition unsustainable. The only problem is that so far the unsustainable spending has been sustained, and it shows no signs of slowing. I don't hear many claims to understand why the US economy has thrived for decades, often with a *negative* average consumer savings rate. Recently, however, it is conceivable that the benefits of low rates in the past year-plus might be offset by the encouragement to finance additional debt while the rates hold. Thus consumer debt might be a lagging indicator; a flurry of low, fixed-rate mortgages would appear to be a harbinger of doom, for example, but could easily be advantageous in the long run as consumers stretch now to build equity that will bring them benefit later. (Disclaimer: I haven't really looked into this in any depth, but there are a number of possible explanations that need to be assessed before we declare the sky to be falling.)
The third point ignores that convenient economic x-factor, namely productivity. While tech explains some of it, McKinsey research, among others, suggests that much of it is "real," that is, process and product improvement that is sustainable into the future. I often view productivity as a convenient fudge-factor for exonomists. Lately, though, I've been reconsidering...
In the end, the US (and global) economy have some troubling characteristics (even more troubling to me is the fact that neither of the two real candidates for the Presidency has any realistic plan for addressing the issues). Time and again, however, we and others (Asian tigers, Europe, etc.) have proven that even severe impacts can be managed over a reasonable timespan. This is not license to ignore the problems, of course. Then again, I don't expect soup lines anytime soon.
But the French ambassador to the UK is not North African, and while at a cocktail party he reportedly described Israel as a "s***ty little country." While painting all Frenchmen with a broad brush doesn't accurately describe the situation (after all, what do you do about Jewish Frenchmen?), exonerating French natives en masse is equally broad--and equally inadequate.
It is not, after all, the fact that "Most Jews in France are emigrants from North Africa" that "creates the impression that anti-Semitism is on the rise" (disclaimer: English is not Mr. Avnery's first language; hence, this may be just semantic imprecision). Rather, it is the very real fact that anti-Jewish threats and acts have doubled this year (AP article in Ha'Aretz). One might also cite the ADL anti-semitism index, which uses four (or eleven, depending on the country) classic anti-Jewish statements to assess popular attitudes about Jewish people. It concluded that 25% of the French population harbors classically anti-Jewish attitudes. Surely 25% of the French population is not from North Africa.
Moreover, while Uri Avnery is a respected journalist, ex-soldier, and former Member of Knesset (Israeli parliament), quoting him as an objective source seems disingenuous. Mr. Avnery is a celebrated leader of the left fringe in Israeli politics; it would be roughly the equivalent of quoting Noam Chomsky's "expertise" on a polarizing issue, say, the US as "the world's biggest terrorist state" (from a Salon.com interview, as well as other places) or the Holocaust.
Avnery here presents an opinion, and fails to back it with facts. Deeper analysis at the very least suggests that he should perhaps provide further explanation.
Perhaps measuring the amount of people getting certified for hardware platforms, languages, etc. might provide more insight into how many people are pursuing computer science type jobs.
I think maybe measuring the certifications might provide insight into who is pursuing technology-type jobs, not computer science-type jobs. My CS degree didn't teach me to do a darned thing with a Cisco router and doesn't even necessarily make me a very good programmer. Likewise, all the Cisco certifications in the world don't mean that one knows snot about computer science. The two are not exclusive, mind you, but they're not synonymous either.
I'm afraid you need to do some more research on these issues. There's a kernel of truth to what you say, but I don't think, in general, that you are correct.
Human intelligence is not really the purview of the US military. Their intelligence arm, mostly integrated with individual units, is primarily tasked with synthesis, that is, gleaning the operational meaning from existing information. Not to undercut the DIA, but intelligence gathering has been primarily the domain of the CIA. Perhaps a subtle difference, but it is totally different colors of money, and the DoD can't really contribute to the CIA budget.
As for language skills, the US military actually has some of the better language schools around. Army Rangers speak a second language; my understanding is that most Special Operations Command troops do. Perhaps what you are referring to is a shortage of Arabic speakers. That's sort of a structural thing; there is a limited number of people who were interested in learning Arabic. They are correcting now, and I don't really see how spending more money would make it go faster.
Regarding peacekeeping/policing, I'm unclear on the complaint. The military has certainly learned since Somalia; the lessons learned there have been employed to great effect in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Fallujah Brigade, while a mixed success so far, is certainly an innovative idea. The ING already has a unit patrolling on its own in the Sunni triangle--not even any American "advisors." Talk to some soldiers in the theater now and I think you'll find a remarkably different story than what's told in the news. They think we're pretty effective. That 90% of the Afghan population is registered to vote, according to the UN, suggests that we probably are. The Iraqi oil industry is actually *ahead* of projections. Sure, there are killings and there is sabotage, but to demand that there be none of either is to suggest that the NYPD needs to spend more money on policing because someone got robbed on the subway.
Nonsense. Gates's argument is almost a truism! Look at the number of CPUs per admin in a well-run Linux shop versus a Windows shop. Typically, the Linux shop sees between 4x and 10x more CPUs per admin than the MS one. Now, assuming one doesn't need more CPUs for the Linux shop, some people are definitely out of a job.
Of course, I'm not sure that inefficiency in the name of employment is a good thing...
Even a terrorist wouldn't want one. It just isn't cost effective. For $5000, Bruce will build me a cruise missile that will carry 10kg of explosives 160km. Or I could find myself a brainwashed kid (free), strap him (or her) up with 10kg of explosive (dunno how much it costs, but Bruce's missile is batteries-not-included in this regard, so I have to buy it anyhow) and some ball bearings ($2?) in a backpack (used, $5), and have 'em hitch a ride to find an Israeli disco, bus, or religious gathering. Then I can pocket the $4993 before going on TV to talk about the "cycle of violence."
I don't disagree too much, but lets be realistic here. Broadband in a home is effectively a non-rival good, that is, it doesn't get used up. My company doesn't pay for my broadband, and I work almost exclusively from home when I'm not on the road. But I would have broadband anyway.
I understand why a company should pay for rival goods that are used for company purposes (i.e. I expense cellphone minutes that are used for business, because I then can't use them for myself), but my broadband doesn't suffer, nor do I pay more, because I use it for work too.
If it is really an issue of personal finances, then go ahead and give up your broadband, and then present your problem to the CIO ("It causes me financial hardship, so I'll either need to continue on dialup or have subsidized broadband.").
Truly, though, how many people who report to CIOs who don't have broadband at home anyhow?
Of course there's an academic argument to be made about whether more propaganda from every source is good for the democratic process. I suppose whatever your view on that debate defines the "greater good".
Self-censorship has nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with responsibility and appropriateness. Authority plays no role. No one will punish Michael Moore (and if so, I'd like to be punished with 8.x million dollars), but only an ignoramus would suggest that he did not add to the already ample acrimony surrounding our political process.
It seems to me that what your alternative is something akin to verbal diarrhea. Maybe everything you and Moore say is insightful and worthy of discussion. A lot of what I have to say is crap, and I therefore choose not to say it aloud.
Of course Moore has a right to spout whatever he wants. Showtime too, when they aired their 9/11 documentary that painted Bush as a hero.
Whatever your political views, I'm not certain that Hollywood creating "documentaries" in a fairly naked attempt to affect an election is a healthy thing for our democracy. Consider the scenario if Kerry wins. The Republicans will have to take away two messages: 1) online fundraising and organization is indispensible in a campaign's early stages and 2) using all available media outlets, particularly those that are popular and have few, if any, constraints placed upon them (the FEC will most likely not rule on whether Fahrenheit 9/11 commercials violate McCain-Feingold), is de rigeur for winning elections.
The outcome? We can expect increasingly strident and polarizing movies to accompany every important election.
So yes, Moore could make his movie, and his money from it. But I think I'd rather he chose not to. Then again, when has he ever chosen the mature road?
No offense, but this arrogance is exactly why Linux has insignificant desktop market share. Until the Linux community can get off its high horse ("This is the correct behavior??" Who says?), it will fail to attract users.
Specifically, it will fail the "my mother" test: Why would my mother want to use this? As a disclaimer, let me point out that my mother has postgraduate education, has started a successful business, is a successful archaeologist, etc. We're not talking about a country bumpkin here. But she doesn't much like, or understand, computers. It took her long enough to figure out Ctrl-c Ctrl-v; she doesn't want to learn another behavior.
The fact is that if Linux wants people to "adapt", then it needs to offer *evident* benefits beyond what Windows offers (again, subject to the my mother test; she doesn't care to recompile anything at all, ever). I might see enough benefit to tolerate some annoyance (I've never really noticed this as a big one, though I'll now be sure to count the times that I errantly cut/paste things), but she doesn't.
Let's twist it around for a moment. Suppose/. were a legal community, and a lawyer said "I've got a great idea for a program, but I don't want to pay one of those greedy programmers to do it." He might write his program, and maybe even well enough to have it work. But I wouldn't want to bet on it.
Personal feelings aside, lawyers have specialized knowledge that will help you through the process. I am in the middle of it myself. Particularly if you have to defend your application, you will likely want a lawyer.
Note that this is not a blanket endorsement. I went to five lawyers before selecting the one I am using. I did almost all of the searching myself. I met with our attorney (who has a Bachelor's in math and a PhD in Computer Science, for the record) several times to get the facts straight, and I edited the application. But I didn't write it. Patent lawyers make a living writing patents, and they know the ins and outs. Their expertise, IMHO, is worth the money.
77 percent of owners of new Macs keep Mac OS X as the primary OS
Disclaimer: I am knee deep in PERL scripts, so it is possible that my brain isn't working quite properly at the moment.
1 in 4 Mac users is changing the OS? That's a lot of Yellow Dog Linux. I find this number difficult to believe. What are the others using? Who is buying Macs these days that's changing the OS?
I am posting this without any bonuses because I freely acknowledge that it is wildly off-topic.
Nevertheless, it is no more so, and no more inappropriate, than the signature above. A look at Troed's journal provides no means to publicly respond to him, as the discussions are archived. He has not even provided an email address. I regard these circumstances as calling into serious question his contention that he is interested in the free exchange of ideas. Rather, it seems he is attempting to sneak his message in whenever he can, no matter how irrelevant it may be.
I do not question Troed's right to post anything he wants in his sig. I do question his discretion. This topic has nothing to do with the Middle East, so his objective is simply to goad. I need not list the places around the web available for informed and lively debate about the Middle East./. is not one of them. Moreover, the rather underhanded means of calling attention to his view puts other users in an uncomfortable position. Should moderaters mod Troed down? The sig is certainly off topic, even if the post is not. Should those who disagree with him post responses, even though they contribute nothing to the discussion at hand, and set themselves up to be modded down for being offtopic?
The tactic is clever, I'll give it that. I do care, Troed, and my eyes are open, not only to Palestinian terror, but also to your bullying. I urge you to reconsider your sig, and take the discussion to your journal. Otherwise, though it is not an ideal solution, I may add myself to those who mod your down on sight.
Please don't compound your inconsideration, or mine, by carrying this discussion further. Post to your journal, or send me an email.
-db
Re:My favorite browser "feature"
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This is a popular, popular bug. A look at the NS rendering engine, I've heard, shows that NS always uses percentages, and in fact rounds pixel values to then nearest percentage. I have not personally browsed the code, but a quick test on a frustrating page I once did confirmed the performance. The difficulty, of course, is that your granularity goes down as resolution goes up. That is, on a 1024x768 monitor, you can have a minimum of 10 pixels in width; on a 1600x1200 monitor the minimum becomes 16.
One of the most annoying bugs I have ever faced, as there really are only a few acceptable workarounds.
Had this be pointed out, along with the fact that ScummVM extends the accessibility of the original software beyond its original platform, it may make it less likely that the lawyers will respond with tougher measures.
I wish this were true. Unfortunately, the perceived nobility or helpfulness of a copyright infringement does not free the lawyers from their responsibility. As explained to me by our attorneys when we were confronted with issues of how and where to protect ourselves with trademarks and copyrights, a copyright holder is required to make a reasonable effort to prevent infringement. Failure to do so weakens the copyright and may set a precedent that will be damaging in a different case. Hence, if the company perceives infringement, they essentially must pursue it even if they don't actually mind that it is going on.
For a real world example, our attorney used Kleenex and Xerox. Kleenex made little effort to combat the use of "kleenex" in the general lexicon; hence no one could sue you for saying "pass me a kleenex" even if you were referring to a box of Puffs. By contrast, Xerox aggressively (and largely successfully) combated the general use of "Xerox" as in "Xerox these papers for me." Hence, while still reasonably common, it is far from ubiquitous and Xerox retains the strength of its mark.
That said, I would much prefer if LucasArts had sent a letter that said, "here's a self-addressed, stamped envelope, and a licensing agreement. Sign the agreement and enclose a check for $1.00 and we're square," but that, I think doesn't happen. One hopes that ScummVM manages to make them understand.
The British, if I recall correctly, have used a similar method to counteract radio controlled bombs. That is to say, once you have an idea of the frequency on which the bomb is set, sending a signal on that frequency will in fact detonate the bomb. If you are the terrorist with the bomb hidden under your bed and visions of mayhem the next day when you plant it, that will be a Bad Thing.
I agree with your assessment of the editorial post. Just for argument's sake, do we think it is more likely that one person will die from lack of cellphone, or that 25 will die from a terrorist bomb? Does expected value play a role here, meaning that the one person has to be 25 times more likely to die? Who does the accounting?
If you want to object on free speech/free assembly grounds, fine. But this editorial is horribly flimsy.
I'm not sure I see the analogy. Yes, your Honda passes down an assembly line, allowing robots to slap on new parts. But the edge of automotive technology does not involve assembly lines. F1 cars don't have mass-produced engines; Ferraris don't either. Both seem to work pretty well in spite of that. Admittedly, you wouldn't really want to drive either one to the local grocery store, but I submit that if Ferrari wanted to build a station wagon, they could probably build a pretty decent one.
As for the rigor, you are dead on. The question has been how to get users to demand reliability. But the onus will always fall on us as the engineers to deliver it.
As far as the company knows, an employee who is silent is happy with his or her current salary. Sure, they could just throw money at all of their apparently happy employees, but is that the kind of culture where he should want to work (hint: see "dot-com bubble")?
In other industries, offers and counteroffers are, if not commonplace, certainly not unusual. In investment banking and consulting, entire groups get raided, and companies go to great pains to keep their people, usually after a resignation letter is sitting on someone's desk. For someone with the requisite skills and knowledge, it seems to me that the leverage provided by such a letter represents a somewhat more compelling argument than the average request for some consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Patents last too long. This is a general problem with IP law these days
Who is to say how long is too long? Is it too long for the software industry, which is barely even comparable to what it was two decades ago? Probably. Is it too long for the drug industry, in which the development of drugs coming to market now may have been ongoing for the last two decades? Maybe not (healthcare effects notwithstanding). The patent system needs to be revised so that it reflects a solution to the problem: it has drifted from its goal of making innovation profitable and protecting the investment and ideas of innovators. Perhaps different patents for different classes of IP?
2. Patents are too easy to get.
I suggest trying it sometime. It isn't that easy after all. Moreover, it's pretty expensive to get a patent on anything non-trivial. Make it harder, and you make it more expensive still, which means individual garage inventors are not going to be protecting themselves, which doesn't seem like much of an idea either. After all, your local neighborhood global corporation doesn't care if a patent costs it $15,000 or $150,000.
I don't dispute that things are broken, but there's no easy fix, either.
-db
On a lark, I've tried searching P2P (in this case, Kazaa), for things that people have inadvertently made available. The things I found were jaw-dropping. Beyond the expected credit card and finance information, I found patent applications, doctoral dissertations, corporate documents, etc.
I'm pretty laissez faire on this one. If you leave your keys in the car and car running, the insurance company won't cover its theft (or at least, so goes the lore). Same principle applies here, I think.
-db
doctors...posted in the Nuremberg case are private citizens, the RNC delegates are public citizens
This is an errant distinction, for several reasons. First, the judges and legislators in the Nuremberg files were undoubtedly public servants, even if the doctors were not. Moreover, even public servants have some recognized right to privacy in public places (example of a Massachusetts motorist who illegally recorded a police officer during a traffic stop). Finally, it is not clear to me that there is such thing as a distinction between "public" and "private" citizens. Name, address, phone, spouse, etc. are available in public records and are therefore considered public domain.
Sure, the incitement to murder was illegal, but it is not my understanding that there was nothing illegal about posting the public domain information. Absent an explanation of the constructive use, though, I would still be opposed to it.
You've ignored my final question: what is the supposed constructive use, other than to harrass delegates personally? If the Nuremberg files were stripped of incitement, would you defend those?
-db
You are correct about the central banks, of course. Mental slip. While the investment rationale is not there, manipulating currency markets to benefit their exports will continue to be in their benefit, at least immediately.
I'm uncertain that I understand your mortgage point. I agree with your assessment of the trends--which could increase debt now but be advantageous in the long term (consider: I am considering buying; though it would be a stretch, the advantageous rates potentially make it a better long-term decision). As far as a "bubble" is concerned, certain markets are overheated, yes, but in-depth analysis of some of the markets reveals a more complicated picture (example: New York prices are off the charts, but there is substantial evidence that they have further to rise, based on structural factors like rent parity, new construction, and demographics).
And you are correct about the non-zero-sum game. I don't view a billion Indian consumers with real buying power as a bad thing, for them or for the United States. Relatively, sure, they close the gap. But from a narrow standpoint of my individual benefit in absolute terms, I think they probably help.
-db
I read about this yesterday, and I was originally troubled. However, I no longer am. More power to the government, I say.
Let me explain.
Another post herein points out, to paraphrase, that being a schmuck isn't right even if it is legal and in support of a cause you think is just. The intent here is undeniably to harrass (and possibly intimidate?) delegates. I think physical harm is a remote possibility, but I grant that it is a possibility.
What the protesters are doing is materially no different than what the Nuremberg Files (more info at religioustolerance.org) did to abortion doctors, judges, politicians, spouses, etc. Was it legal? Sure. Public information. But it still wasn't right, it was meant to enable harrassment, and it's the same thing the protesters are doing.
Whether or not you (or I) agree with the cause is not relevant here. I'm sure some think that it's 100% wrong for the government to investigate, and that's fine. We just need to remember that often such freedom is generally a double-edged sword.
I do have a legitimate question: other than harrassment, what is a legitimate purpose for these postings?
-db
Actually not so, but mea culpa for being imprecise.
The US Personal Savings Rate fell below zero several times in the late 1990s. I seem to recall other such periods, but I don't have time to look at the moment. Google "personal savings rate" or "negative personal savings rate" for a few references.
-db
This post seems a bit mired in the media's understanding of economics--and their reporting of it.
First of all, it is difficult to argue that Asian banks prop up the dollar as an act of goodwill. Rather, they do so as they have incentive to--dollars and dollar-denominated assets continue to be reasonably stable investments over the long term. The US government still ain't going anywhere. Moreover, a US collapse is inconceivable without the rest of the world following, at least until China has had another couple of decades to dramatically increase its domestic consumption. Where are Japanese electronics and autos being sold if US dollars can't buy them? Where is the foreign investment going to come from in China?
The second point is redundant; non-sustainable (sic) spending is by definition unsustainable. The only problem is that so far the unsustainable spending has been sustained, and it shows no signs of slowing. I don't hear many claims to understand why the US economy has thrived for decades, often with a *negative* average consumer savings rate. Recently, however, it is conceivable that the benefits of low rates in the past year-plus might be offset by the encouragement to finance additional debt while the rates hold. Thus consumer debt might be a lagging indicator; a flurry of low, fixed-rate mortgages would appear to be a harbinger of doom, for example, but could easily be advantageous in the long run as consumers stretch now to build equity that will bring them benefit later. (Disclaimer: I haven't really looked into this in any depth, but there are a number of possible explanations that need to be assessed before we declare the sky to be falling.)
The third point ignores that convenient economic x-factor, namely productivity. While tech explains some of it, McKinsey research, among others, suggests that much of it is "real," that is, process and product improvement that is sustainable into the future. I often view productivity as a convenient fudge-factor for exonomists. Lately, though, I've been reconsidering...
In the end, the US (and global) economy have some troubling characteristics (even more troubling to me is the fact that neither of the two real candidates for the Presidency has any realistic plan for addressing the issues). Time and again, however, we and others (Asian tigers, Europe, etc.) have proven that even severe impacts can be managed over a reasonable timespan. This is not license to ignore the problems, of course. Then again, I don't expect soup lines anytime soon.
-db
But the French ambassador to the UK is not North African, and while at a cocktail party he reportedly described Israel as a "s***ty little country." While painting all Frenchmen with a broad brush doesn't accurately describe the situation (after all, what do you do about Jewish Frenchmen?), exonerating French natives en masse is equally broad--and equally inadequate.
It is not, after all, the fact that "Most Jews in France are emigrants from North Africa" that "creates the impression that anti-Semitism is on the rise" (disclaimer: English is not Mr. Avnery's first language; hence, this may be just semantic imprecision). Rather, it is the very real fact that anti-Jewish threats and acts have doubled this year (AP article in Ha'Aretz). One might also cite the ADL anti-semitism index, which uses four (or eleven, depending on the country) classic anti-Jewish statements to assess popular attitudes about Jewish people. It concluded that 25% of the French population harbors classically anti-Jewish attitudes. Surely 25% of the French population is not from North Africa.
Moreover, while Uri Avnery is a respected journalist, ex-soldier, and former Member of Knesset (Israeli parliament), quoting him as an objective source seems disingenuous. Mr. Avnery is a celebrated leader of the left fringe in Israeli politics; it would be roughly the equivalent of quoting Noam Chomsky's "expertise" on a polarizing issue, say, the US as "the world's biggest terrorist state" (from a Salon.com interview, as well as other places) or the Holocaust.
Avnery here presents an opinion, and fails to back it with facts. Deeper analysis at the very least suggests that he should perhaps provide further explanation.
-db
I figure if I had 1.67 billion dollars, I could probably set that up.
-db
Perhaps measuring the amount of people getting certified for hardware platforms, languages, etc. might provide more insight into how many people are pursuing computer science type jobs.
I think maybe measuring the certifications might provide insight into who is pursuing technology-type jobs, not computer science-type jobs. My CS degree didn't teach me to do a darned thing with a Cisco router and doesn't even necessarily make me a very good programmer. Likewise, all the Cisco certifications in the world don't mean that one knows snot about computer science. The two are not exclusive, mind you, but they're not synonymous either.
-db
I'm afraid you need to do some more research on these issues. There's a kernel of truth to what you say, but I don't think, in general, that you are correct.
Human intelligence is not really the purview of the US military. Their intelligence arm, mostly integrated with individual units, is primarily tasked with synthesis, that is, gleaning the operational meaning from existing information. Not to undercut the DIA, but intelligence gathering has been primarily the domain of the CIA. Perhaps a subtle difference, but it is totally different colors of money, and the DoD can't really contribute to the CIA budget.
As for language skills, the US military actually has some of the better language schools around. Army Rangers speak a second language; my understanding is that most Special Operations Command troops do. Perhaps what you are referring to is a shortage of Arabic speakers. That's sort of a structural thing; there is a limited number of people who were interested in learning Arabic. They are correcting now, and I don't really see how spending more money would make it go faster.
Regarding peacekeeping/policing, I'm unclear on the complaint. The military has certainly learned since Somalia; the lessons learned there have been employed to great effect in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Fallujah Brigade, while a mixed success so far, is certainly an innovative idea. The ING already has a unit patrolling on its own in the Sunni triangle--not even any American "advisors." Talk to some soldiers in the theater now and I think you'll find a remarkably different story than what's told in the news. They think we're pretty effective. That 90% of the Afghan population is registered to vote, according to the UN, suggests that we probably are. The Iraqi oil industry is actually *ahead* of projections. Sure, there are killings and there is sabotage, but to demand that there be none of either is to suggest that the NYPD needs to spend more money on policing because someone got robbed on the subway.
-db
Nonsense. Gates's argument is almost a truism! Look at the number of CPUs per admin in a well-run Linux shop versus a Windows shop. Typically, the Linux shop sees between 4x and 10x more CPUs per admin than the MS one. Now, assuming one doesn't need more CPUs for the Linux shop, some people are definitely out of a job.
Of course, I'm not sure that inefficiency in the name of employment is a good thing...
"So, what wouldja say ya do here?"
-db
Even a terrorist wouldn't want one. It just isn't cost effective. For $5000, Bruce will build me a cruise missile that will carry 10kg of explosives 160km. Or I could find myself a brainwashed kid (free), strap him (or her) up with 10kg of explosive (dunno how much it costs, but Bruce's missile is batteries-not-included in this regard, so I have to buy it anyhow) and some ball bearings ($2?) in a backpack (used, $5), and have 'em hitch a ride to find an Israeli disco, bus, or religious gathering. Then I can pocket the $4993 before going on TV to talk about the "cycle of violence."
-db
I don't disagree too much, but lets be realistic here. Broadband in a home is effectively a non-rival good, that is, it doesn't get used up. My company doesn't pay for my broadband, and I work almost exclusively from home when I'm not on the road. But I would have broadband anyway.
I understand why a company should pay for rival goods that are used for company purposes (i.e. I expense cellphone minutes that are used for business, because I then can't use them for myself), but my broadband doesn't suffer, nor do I pay more, because I use it for work too.
If it is really an issue of personal finances, then go ahead and give up your broadband, and then present your problem to the CIO ("It causes me financial hardship, so I'll either need to continue on dialup or have subsidized broadband.").
Truly, though, how many people who report to CIOs who don't have broadband at home anyhow?
-db
Of course there's an academic argument to be made about whether more propaganda from every source is good for the democratic process. I suppose whatever your view on that debate defines the "greater good".
Self-censorship has nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with responsibility and appropriateness. Authority plays no role. No one will punish Michael Moore (and if so, I'd like to be punished with 8.x million dollars), but only an ignoramus would suggest that he did not add to the already ample acrimony surrounding our political process.
It seems to me that what your alternative is something akin to verbal diarrhea. Maybe everything you and Moore say is insightful and worthy of discussion. A lot of what I have to say is crap, and I therefore choose not to say it aloud.
Soylent Green indeed.
-db
Of course Moore has a right to spout whatever he wants. Showtime too, when they aired their 9/11 documentary that painted Bush as a hero.
Whatever your political views, I'm not certain that Hollywood creating "documentaries" in a fairly naked attempt to affect an election is a healthy thing for our democracy. Consider the scenario if Kerry wins. The Republicans will have to take away two messages: 1) online fundraising and organization is indispensible in a campaign's early stages and 2) using all available media outlets, particularly those that are popular and have few, if any, constraints placed upon them (the FEC will most likely not rule on whether Fahrenheit 9/11 commercials violate McCain-Feingold), is de rigeur for winning elections.
The outcome? We can expect increasingly strident and polarizing movies to accompany every important election.
So yes, Moore could make his movie, and his money from it. But I think I'd rather he chose not to. Then again, when has he ever chosen the mature road?
-db
No offense, but this arrogance is exactly why Linux has insignificant desktop market share. Until the Linux community can get off its high horse ("This is the correct behavior??" Who says?), it will fail to attract users.
Specifically, it will fail the "my mother" test: Why would my mother want to use this? As a disclaimer, let me point out that my mother has postgraduate education, has started a successful business, is a successful archaeologist, etc. We're not talking about a country bumpkin here. But she doesn't much like, or understand, computers. It took her long enough to figure out Ctrl-c Ctrl-v; she doesn't want to learn another behavior.
The fact is that if Linux wants people to "adapt", then it needs to offer *evident* benefits beyond what Windows offers (again, subject to the my mother test; she doesn't care to recompile anything at all, ever). I might see enough benefit to tolerate some annoyance (I've never really noticed this as a big one, though I'll now be sure to count the times that I errantly cut/paste things), but she doesn't.
-db
Let's twist it around for a moment. Suppose /. were a legal community, and a lawyer said "I've got a great idea for a program, but I don't want to pay one of those greedy programmers to do it." He might write his program, and maybe even well enough to have it work. But I wouldn't want to bet on it.
Personal feelings aside, lawyers have specialized knowledge that will help you through the process. I am in the middle of it myself. Particularly if you have to defend your application, you will likely want a lawyer.
Note that this is not a blanket endorsement. I went to five lawyers before selecting the one I am using. I did almost all of the searching myself. I met with our attorney (who has a Bachelor's in math and a PhD in Computer Science, for the record) several times to get the facts straight, and I edited the application. But I didn't write it. Patent lawyers make a living writing patents, and they know the ins and outs. Their expertise, IMHO, is worth the money.
-db
77 percent of owners of new Macs keep Mac OS X as the primary OS
Disclaimer: I am knee deep in PERL scripts, so it is possible that my brain isn't working quite properly at the moment.
1 in 4 Mac users is changing the OS? That's a lot of Yellow Dog Linux. I find this number difficult to believe. What are the others using? Who is buying Macs these days that's changing the OS?
-db
I am posting this without any bonuses because I freely acknowledge that it is wildly off-topic.
/. is not one of them. Moreover, the rather underhanded means of calling attention to his view puts other users in an uncomfortable position. Should moderaters mod Troed down? The sig is certainly off topic, even if the post is not. Should those who disagree with him post responses, even though they contribute nothing to the discussion at hand, and set themselves up to be modded down for being offtopic?
Nevertheless, it is no more so, and no more inappropriate, than the signature above. A look at Troed's journal provides no means to publicly respond to him, as the discussions are archived. He has not even provided an email address. I regard these circumstances as calling into serious question his contention that he is interested in the free exchange of ideas. Rather, it seems he is attempting to sneak his message in whenever he can, no matter how irrelevant it may be.
I do not question Troed's right to post anything he wants in his sig. I do question his discretion. This topic has nothing to do with the Middle East, so his objective is simply to goad. I need not list the places around the web available for informed and lively debate about the Middle East.
The tactic is clever, I'll give it that. I do care, Troed, and my eyes are open, not only to Palestinian terror, but also to your bullying. I urge you to reconsider your sig, and take the discussion to your journal. Otherwise, though it is not an ideal solution, I may add myself to those who mod your down on sight.
Please don't compound your inconsideration, or mine, by carrying this discussion further. Post to your journal, or send me an email.
-db
This is a popular, popular bug. A look at the NS rendering engine, I've heard, shows that NS always uses percentages, and in fact rounds pixel values to then nearest percentage. I have not personally browsed the code, but a quick test on a frustrating page I once did confirmed the performance. The difficulty, of course, is that your granularity goes down as resolution goes up. That is, on a 1024x768 monitor, you can have a minimum of 10 pixels in width; on a 1600x1200 monitor the minimum becomes 16.
One of the most annoying bugs I have ever faced, as there really are only a few acceptable workarounds.
-db
Had this be pointed out, along with the fact that ScummVM extends the accessibility of the original software beyond its original platform, it may make it less likely that the lawyers will respond with tougher measures.
I wish this were true. Unfortunately, the perceived nobility or helpfulness of a copyright infringement does not free the lawyers from their responsibility. As explained to me by our attorneys when we were confronted with issues of how and where to protect ourselves with trademarks and copyrights, a copyright holder is required to make a reasonable effort to prevent infringement. Failure to do so weakens the copyright and may set a precedent that will be damaging in a different case. Hence, if the company perceives infringement, they essentially must pursue it even if they don't actually mind that it is going on.
For a real world example, our attorney used Kleenex and Xerox. Kleenex made little effort to combat the use of "kleenex" in the general lexicon; hence no one could sue you for saying "pass me a kleenex" even if you were referring to a box of Puffs. By contrast, Xerox aggressively (and largely successfully) combated the general use of "Xerox" as in "Xerox these papers for me." Hence, while still reasonably common, it is far from ubiquitous and Xerox retains the strength of its mark.
That said, I would much prefer if LucasArts had sent a letter that said, "here's a self-addressed, stamped envelope, and a licensing agreement. Sign the agreement and enclose a check for $1.00 and we're square," but that, I think doesn't happen. One hopes that ScummVM manages to make them understand.
-db
The British, if I recall correctly, have used a similar method to counteract radio controlled bombs. That is to say, once you have an idea of the frequency on which the bomb is set, sending a signal on that frequency will in fact detonate the bomb. If you are the terrorist with the bomb hidden under your bed and visions of mayhem the next day when you plant it, that will be a Bad Thing.
I agree with your assessment of the editorial post. Just for argument's sake, do we think it is more likely that one person will die from lack of cellphone, or that 25 will die from a terrorist bomb? Does expected value play a role here, meaning that the one person has to be 25 times more likely to die? Who does the accounting?
If you want to object on free speech/free assembly grounds, fine. But this editorial is horribly flimsy.
-db
I'm not sure I see the analogy. Yes, your Honda passes down an assembly line, allowing robots to slap on new parts. But the edge of automotive technology does not involve assembly lines. F1 cars don't have mass-produced engines; Ferraris don't either. Both seem to work pretty well in spite of that. Admittedly, you wouldn't really want to drive either one to the local grocery store, but I submit that if Ferrari wanted to build a station wagon, they could probably build a pretty decent one.
As for the rigor, you are dead on. The question has been how to get users to demand reliability. But the onus will always fall on us as the engineers to deliver it.
-db
As far as the company knows, an employee who is silent is happy with his or her current salary. Sure, they could just throw money at all of their apparently happy employees, but is that the kind of culture where he should want to work (hint: see "dot-com bubble")?
In other industries, offers and counteroffers are, if not commonplace, certainly not unusual. In investment banking and consulting, entire groups get raided, and companies go to great pains to keep their people, usually after a resignation letter is sitting on someone's desk. For someone with the requisite skills and knowledge, it seems to me that the leverage provided by such a letter represents a somewhat more compelling argument than the average request for some consideration.
-db