Given that we're talking about nanotubes, the energy necessary to get all of the plates to crush upon eachother would more likely turn the earth into a black hole than blow up only the car.
And like with any declarative language, saying what to do is followed by wiggling chicken bones over the database cache and indexing at random places to actually get it do to what you said it should do within your lifetime. Or you can buy this book and figure out the subtleties of finding out how to say what you want with sufficient hints to how you want to get it done for the dumb machine not to choke on it. What was again the advantage of a declarative language?
Why is it not a database problem? Wasn't the whole point of SQL that you could state the result you wanted in a declarative manner and let the database figure out how to get you your result fastest? If it can't, why the hell do we need to write SQL, as I do now how to traverse an indexed btree fast using a simple loop or recursive algorithm? What's that layer doing there apart from being a pain in the neck?
With machines in place that have no audit trail, no independent and verifiable source code audit nor any other means to check the tally, the only sane presupposition is that the count is wrong and that the machines are lying. Please first prove otherwise before starting to defend the results.
This is an easy one. Just point your boss to the countless bankrupt software companies that left their (few) clients hanging high and dry with a piece of software that will never get updated and for which they don't even have the source to do critical fixes if the need arises. Then point to the existing software companies that EOL products whenever they feel like it. Upgrade to the (flaky) new version or be abandoned. Then point to the promise-but-never-deliver type of software companies where you PHB is likely to go shopping. Then finally point to the 'professional' service companies. High consulting fees, low on quality, bad in delivery. Compared with the commercial software world, OSS is actually almost functional.
Re:The diplomatic response
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you commercially depend on an OSS project that doesn't deliver releases, there's only one thing to do: fork it. Get the cvs version, commit it to your own cvs, test it, and finally build a release from it. Yes, this code will never move again, but it's back under control until you find a way to get rid of it.
I partly agree. Airport security is not a waste of time. Having token security is: making people take their shoes off is useless. I remember one long trip in the US with my spouse in which we enjoyed many flights. This was the year 2000. We were wondering about the complete lax security on the US airports, where everybody was allowed to go to the gates completely unhindered, with only a cursory glance. Only international flights were guarded, national flights were security-free. We actually discussed this and concluded that this was an accident waiting to happen.
Fast forward to now. Security in the US is now completely ridicolous, laughable. Checking shoes, because one guy had something hidden in there? Banning lighters? Nobody on the entire earth checks shoes or lighters, only the US. Why? What's the security gained here? This is not security, this is at best a token effort, at worst a well-planned strategy to keep the populace on edge.
One other experience worth mentioning. Again in the US. I was complaining about having lost my lighter to a fellow passenger, an American. I hand these lighters in when asked, otherwise I conveniently forget about them. Yes I smoke. I got one word as a reaction reaction: Osama. I was baffled. I never realized that Osama actually made US law. There's something seriously wrong with the once land of the free that the general population so meekly accepts being restrained for a irrational threat.
Enough of the rant, there's some point buried in here, but I'm too baffled by the complete irrationality of the current US administration and a large part of the US population to actually be able to make a completely coherent point. There's so much wrong now that it is tough to even make a start. Maybe this: where did the bravery and frontier mentality go? The US nowadays looks more like a spoiled child then a proud nation.
You might want to read up on the Data Retention Directive. Although Finland is planning the maximum time delay before implementing this, they will still have to do this. In short, the directive expects from every ISP that they retain information about all internet traffic for a particular period in time (not sure off the top of my head, but between 1 and 3 years). Also in Finland. In many EU countries, these records can be searched by the police without any warrant.
I agree with the grandparent in one respect. Overall in Europe the power of the government in surveillance and control is much greater than that of the USA. But I've got one big reservation for this: this difference in power is on paper only! The EU does its control and power grab by law, and by the book. The US apparently does it sneaky and without any oversight. The net effect is similar, but at least we in the EU we can be proud that we've done it all legally. sigh.
Given that the regulators and the accountants (and to a lesser extent the banks) are all making big bucks of the companies that need to implement Sarbox, I have the nagging feeling that they already did find a new way to fuck us over.
Smallcap businesses are hurt by it. I work for a 300 people public company that develops software for businesses. Since Sox came into effect, the company spends as much money on accounting as they do on software development.
The company has two choices now: grow rapidly so that the accounting overhead (4 million per quarter) becomes less significant, or go private.
The enormous amount of regulations coming with Sox are chilling, and it simply is out of proportion for the damage small and midcap companies can do. This particular company is now running break-even. It would be profitable if not for Sox.
I'm not sure what you're going for here, as I'm one of the (probably) few westerners that embrace their transience. For those not caring to look it up: I don't really care if I die tomorrow; my place in society has been filled. I actually don't want to live forever. I however still value individualism and choice above all other things, and so I think the distinction you draw is orthogonal to permanence/transience. When, for instance, does transience imply bowing authority, and why?
I honestly think Wolf Blitzer is a dirty Republican, and I will tell that to anyone who cares to listen. Please explain why this is a problem and who would sue me?
So, you think your job is there purely for the reason that it's not outsourced yet? I congratulate you on your planning and am sure you'll be a-ok for the next few decades.
Just replying to a random comment here. What this entire discussion speaks of is a thorough loathing of US style unions. US unions stink, no doubt about that. Guess what, that's not the only way. I'm Dutch, and our unions are antiqued as well, but I did live in Denmark for a while, and there they actually work. So, what does a Danish union do for you, you might ask? First of all, they take some of your paycheck. Mandatory. Everyone is unionized. By law. Scared yet? Second, they take care of unemployment benefits. Yes, you heard that right, if you get fired in Denmark (which is just as easy as in the US), the union actually pays for the time you're unemployed. That's where this chunk of your pay goes to. This brings the burden of finding employment on the unions. The net result is that you get a flexible, but organized work force that is enticed, by their unions, to find the new work opportunities if and when they arise.
Bottom line in this discussion is that it's not just about people stiffling the economy by being unionized, but simply to bring something extra to the table. It's a bit dissapointing in this discussion to see that the slashdot geeks cannot see beyond the historical unions and are unable to devise a workable form of organization their own way. It's either the tradisional union, or the total control of the PHB's. Utterly dissapointing. Apparently innovation isn't a strong point here.
Ah the root of the misunderstanding. No, you haven't broken "more" law, you broke exactly the same law, and it should hurt you as much as anyone else, whether you're rich or you're poor. The logic behind this is that a fine is a punishment, not a payment to society.
Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly? Try to run a business depending on generic, custom and niche applications while avoiding the use of windows? Can't be done
The true monopoly that MS has is on 'platforms that run windows applications', and they don't have a competitor there (wine is not functional enough). Funnily enough they created this market, but due to its immense success this market is now too important to be (man)handled by the monopolist that created it.
Yes the EU would, and they have (not for OS's but for pharmaceuticals and chemical industries). The French would however cry foul and murder. Hmm, much like the Americans are doing now.
Media player market: both the actual player and the ability to play content (codecs). RM has its own format that it tries (tried) to license out, and now MS tries to get a monopoly on that market by (a) making its player standard, (b) making sure that most content will be published in the MS codec, and (c) dissallow other players (especially for other platforms) to make use of the MS codecs. No question marks, profits are at (d). MS owns all.
MS is smart and its plan is good. Many simple minds here at slashdot would see problems with making any of steps (a) to (c) illegal, while at the same time would cry murder when they can't view any content without licensing from MS. Every step is seemingly innocent, the end result is simply that MS has another monopoly: on playing and distributing audio and video no less.
The EU does see the plan and simply decided to stop MS at (a), while at the same time making it more difficult to implement (c) by mandating that MS opens up his protocols. It has never been about the player, always about the codecs: the player simply carries the payload.
Yes, I am actually aware of that. There's however a difference between killing on the spot, killing/detention after a short trial or permanent detention and interrogation with no sight on change. That's where humanity and fairness come in. Find a spy, kill him. Find a person that's fighting the big bad invaders of his country with his measly shotgun and detain him forever without trial?
And what about those that actually were not taken on the battlefield, but where later handed in for a bounty reward?
And what about the constant threat (coming back on topic) of people being labelled 'terrorist' and being sent of to Gitmo? Wasn't 'illegal combatant' this one time thing, or is anybody that might do you harm by definition an 'illegal combatant' and can US law be side-stepped so easily?
There are lot of stories with the people in Gitmo, and I'm pretty sure quite a number of them should be in prison. It is however utterly disappointing that the most powerful nation in the world, with one of the strongest democratic and legal traditions cannot actually deal with a small bunch of people that allegedly intend to do it harm. Try them, find out the story behind each and every one of them. Sentence the guilty, and let the innocent go. It's really not that hard.
If you want a Gulag, you now have one. Deal with it, but don't try to defend it as something just, right or even necessary. It's not, it's a weak form of revenge from what is apparently a weak nation.
You might want to read up on this, for instance on the Pedia. One tidbit:
Should there be doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a "competent tribunal" and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war. After such "competent tribunals" have determined their status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants do retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".[3] This latter Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as "protected persons."[4]
Bottom line: if they're not POW, they're civilians. They might however not be 'protected persons', yet still they are civilians with certain rights.
Being held prisoner in a bake-oven in Cuba with a potential 'trial by tribunal' on the other side of eternity, without even having access to a lawyer might be considered 'humane and fair' by some, this is not universally agreed upon outside of the US.
If there was any evidence for the EU playing favourites with their own, I would like to see it. Counter-evidence is there aplenty. EU-based chemical and pharmaceutical companies have been fined for hundreds of millions of euros for price-fixing and other cartel-forming operations. The EU is very busy breaking up various historical cartels in the EU, much to the displeasure of various countries within the EU (most noteably cartel-country France). That American companies operating in the EU are not exempt is simply a fact of life. The situation would never have occurred if the US in the form of Prez. Bush hadn't decided that a free market is actually not such a good idea, as evidenced by their letting go of Microsoft after they had them cornered. The EU is simply cleaning up the mess in its own jurisdiction after the US decided that the mess in their own house was not worth cleaning up.
Hopefully the net effect of the EU action is that, indeed, the Microsoft-only protocols and interop information will become freely available, something that will have a positive effect on the US market as well.
So quit complaining that he big bad EU is taking away the MS toys and get yourselves an administration that actively helps in creating a free market instead of working towards a new aristocracy of untouchables.
The suit wasn't just about bundling the WMP. What also came bundled with WMP were the Microsoft codecs (not generally available) and a business strategy devoted to making sure that electronic releases of content would be released for these codecs only. The EU decided that Microsoft was leveraging its monopoly in the OS market to obtain a monopoly in the electronic movie and music distribution business. If all content is distributed in Microsoft owned (copyright + patent) formats, yet another monopoly is born.
It wasn't about WMP, it was about formats. Forcing MS to open up its formats as a punishment doesn't sound too ridiculous to me.
Nice ideas, but it fails to address the critical issue: why do we need software patents at all? What is currently wrong with software development that needs to be fixed by patenting software? I fail to see that one of the most vibrant and quickly developing fields of industry around has an inherent flaw in it that needs fixing by granting monopolies left and right?
My guess is that if the word 'dupe' appears more than 10 times, you can fairly reliably mark it as a dupe. Maybe write a firefox slashdot 'dupe' counter that shows the number of times some (above -1) comment calls dupe.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that we're talking about nanotubes, the energy necessary to get all of the plates to crush upon eachother would more likely turn the earth into a black hole than blow up only the car.
And like with any declarative language, saying what to do is followed by wiggling chicken bones over the database cache and indexing at random places to actually get it do to what you said it should do within your lifetime. Or you can buy this book and figure out the subtleties of finding out how to say what you want with sufficient hints to how you want to get it done for the dumb machine not to choke on it. What was again the advantage of a declarative language?
Why is it not a database problem? Wasn't the whole point of SQL that you could state the result you wanted in a declarative manner and let the database figure out how to get you your result fastest? If it can't, why the hell do we need to write SQL, as I do now how to traverse an indexed btree fast using a simple loop or recursive algorithm? What's that layer doing there apart from being a pain in the neck?
With machines in place that have no audit trail, no independent and verifiable source code audit nor any other means to check the tally, the only sane presupposition is that the count is wrong and that the machines are lying. Please first prove otherwise before starting to defend the results.
This is an easy one. Just point your boss to the countless bankrupt software companies that left their (few) clients hanging high and dry with a piece of software that will never get updated and for which they don't even have the source to do critical fixes if the need arises. Then point to the existing software companies that EOL products whenever they feel like it. Upgrade to the (flaky) new version or be abandoned. Then point to the promise-but-never-deliver type of software companies where you PHB is likely to go shopping. Then finally point to the 'professional' service companies. High consulting fees, low on quality, bad in delivery.
Compared with the commercial software world, OSS is actually almost functional.
If you commercially depend on an OSS project that doesn't deliver releases, there's only one thing to do: fork it. Get the cvs version, commit it to your own cvs, test it, and finally build a release from it. Yes, this code will never move again, but it's back under control until you find a way to get rid of it.
Fast forward to now. Security in the US is now completely ridicolous, laughable. Checking shoes, because one guy had something hidden in there? Banning lighters? Nobody on the entire earth checks shoes or lighters, only the US. Why? What's the security gained here? This is not security, this is at best a token effort, at worst a well-planned strategy to keep the populace on edge.
One other experience worth mentioning. Again in the US. I was complaining about having lost my lighter to a fellow passenger, an American. I hand these lighters in when asked, otherwise I conveniently forget about them. Yes I smoke. I got one word as a reaction reaction: Osama. I was baffled. I never realized that Osama actually made US law. There's something seriously wrong with the once land of the free that the general population so meekly accepts being restrained for a irrational threat.
Enough of the rant, there's some point buried in here, but I'm too baffled by the complete irrationality of the current US administration and a large part of the US population to actually be able to make a completely coherent point. There's so much wrong now that it is tough to even make a start. Maybe this: where did the bravery and frontier mentality go? The US nowadays looks more like a spoiled child then a proud nation.
First they came for the Arabs...
I agree with the grandparent in one respect. Overall in Europe the power of the government in surveillance and control is much greater than that of the USA. But I've got one big reservation for this: this difference in power is on paper only! The EU does its control and power grab by law, and by the book. The US apparently does it sneaky and without any oversight. The net effect is similar, but at least we in the EU we can be proud that we've done it all legally. sigh.
Given that the regulators and the accountants (and to a lesser extent the banks) are all making big bucks of the companies that need to implement Sarbox, I have the nagging feeling that they already did find a new way to fuck us over.
The enormous amount of regulations coming with Sox are chilling, and it simply is out of proportion for the damage small and midcap companies can do. This particular company is now running break-even. It would be profitable if not for Sox.
I'm not sure what you're going for here, as I'm one of the (probably) few westerners that embrace their transience. For those not caring to look it up: I don't really care if I die tomorrow; my place in society has been filled. I actually don't want to live forever. I however still value individualism and choice above all other things, and so I think the distinction you draw is orthogonal to permanence/transience. When, for instance, does transience imply bowing authority, and why?
Who the fuck is Wolf Blitzer anyway(s)?
So, you think your job is there purely for the reason that it's not outsourced yet? I congratulate you on your planning and am sure you'll be a-ok for the next few decades.
Scared yet? Second, they take care of unemployment benefits. Yes, you heard that right, if you get fired in Denmark (which is just as easy as in the US), the union actually pays for the time you're unemployed. That's where this chunk of your pay goes to. This brings the burden of finding employment on the unions. The net result is that you get a flexible, but organized work force that is enticed, by their unions, to find the new work opportunities if and when they arise.
Bottom line in this discussion is that it's not just about people stiffling the economy by being unionized, but simply to bring something extra to the table. It's a bit dissapointing in this discussion to see that the slashdot geeks cannot see beyond the historical unions and are unable to devise a workable form of organization their own way. It's either the tradisional union, or the total control of the PHB's. Utterly dissapointing. Apparently innovation isn't a strong point here.
Ah the root of the misunderstanding. No, you haven't broken "more" law, you broke exactly the same law, and it should hurt you as much as anyone else, whether you're rich or you're poor. The logic behind this is that a fine is a punishment, not a payment to society.
The true monopoly that MS has is on 'platforms that run windows applications', and they don't have a competitor there (wine is not functional enough). Funnily enough they created this market, but due to its immense success this market is now too important to be (man)handled by the monopolist that created it.
Yes the EU would, and they have (not for OS's but for pharmaceuticals and chemical industries). The French would however cry foul and murder. Hmm, much like the Americans are doing now.
MS is smart and its plan is good. Many simple minds here at slashdot would see problems with making any of steps (a) to (c) illegal, while at the same time would cry murder when they can't view any content without licensing from MS. Every step is seemingly innocent, the end result is simply that MS has another monopoly: on playing and distributing audio and video no less.
The EU does see the plan and simply decided to stop MS at (a), while at the same time making it more difficult to implement (c) by mandating that MS opens up his protocols. It has never been about the player, always about the codecs: the player simply carries the payload.
And what about those that actually were not taken on the battlefield, but where later handed in for a bounty reward?
And what about the constant threat (coming back on topic) of people being labelled 'terrorist' and being sent of to Gitmo? Wasn't 'illegal combatant' this one time thing, or is anybody that might do you harm by definition an 'illegal combatant' and can US law be side-stepped so easily?
There are lot of stories with the people in Gitmo, and I'm pretty sure quite a number of them should be in prison. It is however utterly disappointing that the most powerful nation in the world, with one of the strongest democratic and legal traditions cannot actually deal with a small bunch of people that allegedly intend to do it harm. Try them, find out the story behind each and every one of them. Sentence the guilty, and let the innocent go. It's really not that hard.
If you want a Gulag, you now have one. Deal with it, but don't try to defend it as something just, right or even necessary. It's not, it's a weak form of revenge from what is apparently a weak nation.
Should there be doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a "competent tribunal" and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war. After such "competent tribunals" have determined their status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants do retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".[3] This latter Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as "protected persons."[4]
Bottom line: if they're not POW, they're civilians. They might however not be 'protected persons', yet still they are civilians with certain rights.
Being held prisoner in a bake-oven in Cuba with a potential 'trial by tribunal' on the other side of eternity, without even having access to a lawyer might be considered 'humane and fair' by some, this is not universally agreed upon outside of the US.
Hopefully the net effect of the EU action is that, indeed, the Microsoft-only protocols and interop information will become freely available, something that will have a positive effect on the US market as well.
So quit complaining that he big bad EU is taking away the MS toys and get yourselves an administration that actively helps in creating a free market instead of working towards a new aristocracy of untouchables.
It wasn't about WMP, it was about formats. Forcing MS to open up its formats as a punishment doesn't sound too ridiculous to me.
Nice ideas, but it fails to address the critical issue: why do we need software patents at all? What is currently wrong with software development that needs to be fixed by patenting software? I fail to see that one of the most vibrant and quickly developing fields of industry around has an inherent flaw in it that needs fixing by granting monopolies left and right?
(beware of the space)
My guess is that if the word 'dupe' appears more than 10 times, you can fairly reliably mark it as a dupe. Maybe write a firefox slashdot 'dupe' counter that shows the number of times some (above -1) comment calls dupe.