Want a slim OS? Try NetBSD. with just the minimal sets (base.tgz, etc.tgz and kern.tgz), it brings a full Unix system with just 120 MB. It can be slimed down by making custom build without some bits (kerberos, PAM...)
I am obviously using the modern understanding of that slogan and that's what the modern understanding is:
And this is just not what I was talking about. In other words, you are unwilling or unable to consider my point. But I can try another way: what is a nation for you?
I think you miss something by interpreting french republic motto while looking at today's France political situation, while it has to be understood within the context of its inception. This makes you stretch a lot enlightenment thinking, which led to the motto, in order to serve your point. Class warefare is a valuable marxist concept, but by using it there, you use Marx to reinterpret Rousseau, while the former did not read the later, and kept power legitimacy in a blind spot just because of that.
Let me take another example: do you see class warefare there?
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. (Universal Declaration on Human Rights, article 1)
Do you now French Republic motto? Liberté, egalité, fraternité. It is the key to go beyond the opposition between individual freedom and collective oppression.
Liberté (freedom) is desirable. But complete freedom means one is allowed to hurt others, and it let a small number oppress the others, therefore it should be limited
Egalité (equality) among citizen is desirable. But as you noted, seeking complete equality is oppression, therefore it should be limted.
Fraternité was added to balance the apparently contradictory freedom and equality. This is where the general interest comes.
But I can admit you see no point in fraternité, and that you want a country to be just a free trade zone between individuals with a government to guarantee private property (Ummm, is private property enforcement by the government really free market?). This is the country and government without the nation, I can understand this is what you desire.
However we recently saw a new form of the general interest: there is a single ecosystem allowing human life, and therefore there is a general interest, and this is another reason to restrict your freedom.
There are too many points in your message, I will only reply on the most important one IMO
- why should something force somebody to do anything?
For the sake of the general interest. For instance, you are not allowed to dump your garbage wherever you want because this is an annoyance to other people. When free market means a nuisance for 99% of the population, then regulation is legitimate.
- IF a company can manage to do this in the free market then it is a GOOD thing. (...) Price of labour is not dictated by a company, it's a negotiation process between company and labourers.
Negotiation between companies and many workers is asymetrical, you know that very well. Minimum wage is a regulation on free market for rebalancing powers between companies and workers. This defends workers, but it also benefits the whole economy: each company has an incentive to reduce wages in order to lower costs and be competitive. But if workers are too poor, they do not consume anymore and the economy slows down, hurting all companies. Minimum wage is supposed (if high enough) to avoid that situation.
What do you think a business owner does with the return on his investment? The more substantial is the return, the less of it he consumes and the more of it he reinvests.
A company can reinvest its profits, but once it is given to shareholders, nothing forces the investor to reinvest within the same company
There is always a way to reduce costs
And most of the time this involves decreasing salaries or making employees working more to produce the same wealth. I suggest an alternative, which is to destroy shareholders profits. And I introduced you with the employees ownership that makes it possible. Some kind of marxism-enabled capitalism (or is it capitalism-ware marxism?)
A profit is also a buffer that allows a company to survive in the bad years
Put another way, managing a business to be profitable is an entirely different matter from managing the business to generate profits for certain stakeholders.
Which is exactly what I meant, minus the "profit" translation issue. Businesses have to be profitable, but management just to generate profit for shareholders will destroy the company.
- management should be just for profit, companies exist to generate profit, if they don't, they should be liquidated
A company can have a positive income, reinvest everything and make zero profit. There is no reason why it should be liquidated for such a situation. Of course shareholders would be unhappy — except if the shareholders are the company employees themselves, because they have already been paid through salaries.
Management for profit is a simple requirement for company survival--all it means is that you manage the enterprise such that the value that it is able to generate and capture as a result of its operations exceeds its share of the cost burden of its operations.
I realize english seems to use the same word "profit" for two things. Am I right here? This is a source of confusion.
Cash flow minus expenditures
Wealth given to shareholders
French has "bénéfices" vs "profits" to distinguish the two things. There is a big difference, which is investment. Management just for shareholder gains does not care about investment. In fact it does not care about company survival either: you can make money by selling all company assets and then go bankrupt. This is a quite popular approach theses days
Marx was a pretty good observer, but he was horribly wrong when it came to effecting change
I came to that exact same conclusion, that Marx gives us great concepts to understand the situation, but proposed bad solutions : Dictatorship of proletariat replaces oppression by another oppression. It cannot bring a legitimate power. And socialization of the means of production by the state means the state must organize everything, which pushes again toward oppression.
However, Marx still has many things to tell us. When people talk about the 1%, this is marxism reinvented
Does anyone else remember when HP was run by engineers?
I am not sure there is a company where transition from engineer lead to financial lead produced any benefit to the products. And bad products push companies in death spiral.
Management just for profit means destroying companies in the long term.
Obviously there is a bitcoin bubble. It is high time to start selling insurance packages against bitcoin crack. Then resell the insurance within complex financial products and wait for the world to collapse again.
People in France didn't want to fight Germany in WW2 because they didn't want to repeat the nightmare of WW1. It had little to do with "ism"s.
This feeling existed, but it does not explain everything. Germany was a rising military powerhouse, and Hitler plans for France were clearly explained in My Kampf, leaving no doubt to its intentions. French right wing governments refused to increase defense budgets. You have to wait 1936 when the left wing Front Populaire wins elections to see some military preparation against a possible war with Germany. And even a that time, many people in the industry and the army did not want to prepare for a fight against a fascist Germany that was a hope for them : it could help getting rid of the Front Populaire.
Of course there were french fascists, but the big difference with Germany and Italy is that they were a minority and were not capable of getting the power through elections. They had to wait (and for some of them help) a military defeat to create their fascist state.
You also have to consider a big difference between WW1 and WW2: fear of communism. While almost everyone in France was in a patriotic frenzy before WW1, there were a lot of people that did not want to fight Germany for WW2 because fascism was seen as a good protection against communism.
Germany, Italy, Spain had fascists regimes. France spared a fascist coup in 1934 just because different fascists leaders could not agree with each others. Some where hoping that a war defeat would bring to France what a coup missed to achieve.
Slashdot Mirror
This was getting interesting until I red: "Logins require a LinkedIn identity"
No, thanks.
How does that compare to SAML?
Want a slim OS? Try NetBSD. with just the minimal sets (base.tgz, etc.tgz and kern.tgz), it brings a full Unix system with just 120 MB. It can be slimed down by making custom build without some bits (kerberos, PAM...)
The US and South Korea could defeat North Korea over the next couple of weeks if necessary, but at what cost?
Well, not sure, but if NK really has the capacity to send missiles to USA west coast, even a single successful hit on a big city would be high price.
I am obviously using the modern understanding of that slogan and that's what the modern understanding is:
And this is just not what I was talking about. In other words, you are unwilling or unable to consider my point. But I can try another way: what is a nation for you?
This motto can be understood properly if translated from the Orwellian doublespeak into human language(...) Fraternité - class warfare
I think you miss something by interpreting french republic motto while looking at today's France political situation, while it has to be understood within the context of its inception. This makes you stretch a lot enlightenment thinking, which led to the motto, in order to serve your point. Class warefare is a valuable marxist concept, but by using it there, you use Marx to reinterpret Rousseau, while the former did not read the later, and kept power legitimacy in a blind spot just because of that.
Let me take another example: do you see class warefare there?
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. (Universal Declaration on Human Rights, article 1)
(1) Decide what you want the computer to do
(2) Acquire the right platform.
(2b) Extend and existing platform so that it fits
- there is only one message: individual freedom.
Your message is slavery by the collective.
Do you now French Republic motto? Liberté, egalité, fraternité. It is the key to go beyond the opposition between individual freedom and collective oppression.
But I can admit you see no point in fraternité, and that you want a country to be just a free trade zone between individuals with a government to guarantee private property (Ummm, is private property enforcement by the government really free market?). This is the country and government without the nation, I can understand this is what you desire.
However we recently saw a new form of the general interest: there is a single ecosystem allowing human life, and therefore there is a general interest, and this is another reason to restrict your freedom.
There are too many points in your message, I will only reply on the most important one IMO
- why should something force somebody to do anything?
For the sake of the general interest. For instance, you are not allowed to dump your garbage wherever you want because this is an annoyance to other people. When free market means a nuisance for 99% of the population, then regulation is legitimate.
- IF a company can manage to do this in the free market then it is a GOOD thing. (...) Price of labour is not dictated by a company, it's a negotiation process between company and labourers.
Negotiation between companies and many workers is asymetrical, you know that very well. Minimum wage is a regulation on free market for rebalancing powers between companies and workers. This defends workers, but it also benefits the whole economy: each company has an incentive to reduce wages in order to lower costs and be competitive. But if workers are too poor, they do not consume anymore and the economy slows down, hurting all companies. Minimum wage is supposed (if high enough) to avoid that situation.
What do you think a business owner does with the return on his investment? The more substantial is the return, the less of it he consumes and the more of it he reinvests.
A company can reinvest its profits, but once it is given to shareholders, nothing forces the investor to reinvest within the same company
There is always a way to reduce costs
And most of the time this involves decreasing salaries or making employees working more to produce the same wealth. I suggest an alternative, which is to destroy shareholders profits. And I introduced you with the employees ownership that makes it possible. Some kind of marxism-enabled capitalism (or is it capitalism-ware marxism?)
A profit is also a buffer that allows a company to survive in the bad years
No problem with that.
You missed my point. When employees are the only shareholders, making zero shareholder profit is fine, since they have already been paid by salaries.
Put another way, managing a business to be profitable is an entirely different matter from managing the business to generate profits for certain stakeholders.
Which is exactly what I meant, minus the "profit" translation issue. Businesses have to be profitable, but management just to generate profit for shareholders will destroy the company.
- management should be just for profit, companies exist to generate profit, if they don't, they should be liquidated
A company can have a positive income, reinvest everything and make zero profit. There is no reason why it should be liquidated for such a situation. Of course shareholders would be unhappy — except if the shareholders are the company employees themselves, because they have already been paid through salaries.
Management for profit is a simple requirement for company survival--all it means is that you manage the enterprise such that the value that it is able to generate and capture as a result of its operations exceeds its share of the cost burden of its operations.
I realize english seems to use the same word "profit" for two things. Am I right here? This is a source of confusion.
French has "bénéfices" vs "profits" to distinguish the two things. There is a big difference, which is investment. Management just for shareholder gains does not care about investment. In fact it does not care about company survival either: you can make money by selling all company assets and then go bankrupt. This is a quite popular approach theses days
Marx was a pretty good observer, but he was horribly wrong when it came to effecting change
I came to that exact same conclusion, that Marx gives us great concepts to understand the situation, but proposed bad solutions : Dictatorship of proletariat replaces oppression by another oppression. It cannot bring a legitimate power. And socialization of the means of production by the state means the state must organize everything, which pushes again toward oppression.
However, Marx still has many things to tell us. When people talk about the 1%, this is marxism reinvented
Does anyone else remember when HP was run by engineers?
I am not sure there is a company where transition from engineer lead to financial lead produced any benefit to the products. And bad products push companies in death spiral.
Management just for profit means destroying companies in the long term.
And also stealth submarines able to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. This is a key point in nuclear deterrence.
Cloud usage is irrelevant here. The thing could have been done quickly in-house with any CMS, provided knowledgeable people are available.
What would have been interesting is the HR side of the story: how did they choose among 100 applicant for an unusual position?
An interview question at Atari, from TFA: "What is the order of these numbers: 8, 5, 4, 9, 1, 7, 6, 3, 2?"
Any idea, anyone?
Fortunately, mobile devices are not water-proof yet, hence the shower remains a time when people mind is left to wandering.
Obviously there is a bitcoin bubble. It is high time to start selling insurance packages against bitcoin crack. Then resell the insurance within complex financial products and wait for the world to collapse again.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Sure.
People in France didn't want to fight Germany in WW2 because they didn't want to repeat the nightmare of WW1. It had little to do with "ism"s.
This feeling existed, but it does not explain everything. Germany was a rising military powerhouse, and Hitler plans for France were clearly explained in My Kampf, leaving no doubt to its intentions. French right wing governments refused to increase defense budgets. You have to wait 1936 when the left wing Front Populaire wins elections to see some military preparation against a possible war with Germany. And even a that time, many people in the industry and the army did not want to prepare for a fight against a fascist Germany that was a hope for them : it could help getting rid of the Front Populaire.
Of course there were french fascists, but the big difference with Germany and Italy is that they were a minority and were not capable of getting the power through elections. They had to wait (and for some of them help) a military defeat to create their fascist state.
1: Encrypt everything in software so the key nor a hash of it could never possibly be stored on the drive in unencrypted form.
But keep in mind that what is cryptographically secure today will be easy to crack in a few years
You also have to consider a big difference between WW1 and WW2: fear of communism. While almost everyone in France was in a patriotic frenzy before WW1, there were a lot of people that did not want to fight Germany for WW2 because fascism was seen as a good protection against communism.
Germany, Italy, Spain had fascists regimes. France spared a fascist coup in 1934 just because different fascists leaders could not agree with each others. Some where hoping that a war defeat would bring to France what a coup missed to achieve.