Quite the contrary. Getting people to download all their warez from an internal Usenet server costs NOTHING compared to huge peering bills that comes from P2P usage. For an ISP, internal traffic is negligible. Your bittorrent client however happily connects to the other side of the world, and moves data a lot more inefficiently through the net...
Aha, but if you are downloading via P2P, you are potentionally a source of that same content such that you are now providing it to your local ISP community.
Whereas usenet downloads it regardless of whether or not it is wanted or in demand.
Actually a large scale P2P network would be far more efficient than usenet as it's demand based not supply based.
Usenet takes a fair amount of bandwidth, disk space and such to operate for an ISP. Especially since most of the traffic is binaries.
So when the police said "Hey, we found some child porn on your servers" the ISPs were more than happy to jump up and say "Ok, ok, we'll shut them down!"
To the customers they report "We have had to reluctantly shut down our servers because the government made us do it."
But internally they're like "Thank God! We finally had an excuse to shut that horrendous waste of resources down."
It's sort of like how an company uses "budet cuts" as an excuse to get rid of all the people they actually wanted to fire, but were too lazy to go through all the paperwork.
The/. forum comes close with it's freak and friend filtering. But then it's got this big ugly "reply to this" button.
I've been trying to think of how I might write a web 2.0 forum that is easy to use and yet still contains what made usenet nice. The problem I have with most web forums is just that they're near impossible to keep track of what's new to read. So I find they tend to just have a bunch of AOL smiley icons, and stupid fark pictures and not much real content.
I'm not in favor of this (nor do I think yours is a bad idea), but the logical end to your suggestion is this: Why not just do away with the concept of 'representation' and just let every individual vote on every law?
Seems to me my position is the middle ground.:-)
I agree with the representative democracy instead of direct democracy. What I don't agree with is having congressional districts representing a million people, solely because Congress set an arbitrary number of congress critters back some 90 years ago. I say let it grow.
And the great thing is, the more congress critters we have the fewer unelected staffers we need, and the less power any one individual critter can have.
What, exactly, is wrong with a successful government sharing some of the wealth with its people? It's definitely not "welfare," and depending on how much you make, your taxes can easily outstrip whatever it is that you receive from the permanent fund.
How is it not welfare? Are people doing anything to earn that money? Where'd the money come from? Growing it on trees, or was it from a taxes? How is this not welfare?
And if you've got $40 billion in the bank, why do you need my tax dollars to build massive bridges and such?
Maybe a real economist could plug through the numbers and predict if your proposed projects would help the economy (even than they'd be guessing). However, claiming it's a fact that public works projects help the economy is definitely not true.
Just because you can write bad code using Java doesn't mean you can't write good code.
Yeah, public works projects which serve no purpose don't help. The Japanese proved this in the 1990s. But public works projects which have long term benefits do help greatly.
Another interesting thing. I was in England back in 2004 on a software project which was the result of a govt mandate to change reporting systems. It was interesting how this mandate caused companies to increase their project spending, and in so doing they sunk money into the economy. There is certainly a case to be made that this is good. However, there is also a case to be made that too much of that takes capital away from worthwhile projects into shitholes.
I've read in recent years that Germany is facing this problem in that they have too much money in savings and not enough of it being spent. So they're trying to encourage some spending and reinvestment. But it's clear that in America we have had too much spending and not enough savings.
Everything has to be balanced, and just as it's not right to claim that public works projects always boost the economy, it's also not right to claim wealth distribution is always bad. Henry Ford showed that by paying his workers more, he created demand for his own product. Yet many would call that wealth redistribution, because he paid them more than market rate.
As i said, the movie is complicated. It's primarily about escalating violence, the Joker coming to being because of Batman, etc. When one looks at the various actions taken by Batman, it's obvious that the whole thing is a learning experience for him. He relies on emotion at times, and the result is not as he would like.
Anyone thinking Batman has a simplistic right-wing message is naive or hasn't seen the movie. The message is pretty complicated, and there's been a lot of discussion about this in blogs this week.
The decline in US dollar value is responsible for a good chunk of the increase. Demand is responsible for the other big chunk. When you have a limited resource, and you can't produce it any faster, the price curve is highly determined by demand.
That's not to say our foreign policy isn't being motivated to destabilize the market and drive up profits. Given some of the bizarre behavior we've seen, that is an explanation.
I honestly don't mind the prefixing if we're talking objects on a page. Like txtEmail which refers to the textbox containing the email address. But I don't need a variable called strEmail to contain the email I'm going to do something with.
After reading that Spolsky article I can definately see using a usEmail as the variable name to indicate it's unsafe and came from user input though.
As far as the business objects are concerned, I'm not talking about genuine business objects. I'm talking about apps where all the business logic is really in the presentation layer, and they create a BO layer which does nothing other than redirect to the data layer. Generally the datalayer returns a dataset, and this BO layer just passes the dataset back up to the page which then manipulates it and does something with it. It serves little purpose, but it's all over the place.
By using an MVP pattern, you break this stupidity. Your view then is nothing but a series of events and properties that are nothing more than wrappers around the view objects(text boxes, labels, etc), and the Presenter layer has the business logic that either has handlers for those events, and sets the properties on the view as appropriate. What's nice about this pattern is you can build a mock view which allows you to test your business layer with unit tests. Extend this concept further by creating a mock data layer which has an in memory database, and you are in unit test heaven. That actually reduces the pain of maintenance 10 years down the road.
As a.NET consultant now, I systematically refuse to take jobs where VB.NET is the main setting, simply because the odds (notice I'm not talking about certainty) of having to work on a totally horrible codebase ported from VB6 with a mess mashup of hugarian notation and other things that totally ignore the.NET guidelines is simply too high. (Still too high for my taste in the C# world, but I manage...somehow...)
Amen! Although to be fair, Hungarian notation started out as a C++ thing, not VB.
The thing I hate most is the DNA style of building apps. Creating these layers of business objects that do no business other than acting as an abstraction layer to the data layer and all the business stuff up at the presentation layer. This was right out of some Microsoft textbook in the late 1990s, and the pattern still exists.
Disenchanted with Vista? Why not convert Windows Server 2008 into the lean, efficient, reliable 'power user' OS that Windows should be?,/blockquote>
I got a chuckle out of that. Windows Server 2008 has Vista's hardware requirements. Ok, it doesn't have the graphics stuff, but you do know you can turn that off on Vista, right?
But memory and disk usage are nearly identical...
I run Vista 64-bit at home, along with a Windows 2008 64-bit server experimenting with hyper-V. I think both are great, but I'd not waste my time trying to use server as my desktop. Not worth it when Vista works so well.
In short, some groups of intelligent people think that the tax rate is higher than the optimal value, and other intelligent people think it's lower than it should be. It's not inherently idiotic to imagine how tax cuts could in fact increase revenue.
No, but it is inherently idiotic to claim lower taxes increase revenues when all evidence points to the contrary.
Using inflation gains to support your argument is intellectually dishonest unless you also aknowledge similar growth with the old tax rate.
What really happened is that Democrats completely lost their nerve after Viet Nam. Instead of looking at the war, and saying that they made some mistakes in its execution, and in fact, had actually started to turn things around once Westmoreland was replaced by Abrams, they have instead enshrined an ethic that lacks any sort of faith in the very government to do anything other than redistribute wealth.
I don't understand. Why is making a good argument, and trying to convince people to support freedom so bad? Why do you feel this need to stick a gun in peoples faces and force them to obey your will?
That is what you are saying, if you remove all your flowerly language and get to the point, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
HA! Take a look at my uid. :-)
I'm not saying /. people view it as a religion... just most developers.
The impact of that would be negligible.
Most developers view open source as a means to an end, not a religion.
Then they have a legitimate claim to calling themselves Templars.
Aha, but if you are downloading via P2P, you are potentionally a source of that same content such that you are now providing it to your local ISP community.
Whereas usenet downloads it regardless of whether or not it is wanted or in demand.
Actually a large scale P2P network would be far more efficient than usenet as it's demand based not supply based.
Usenet takes a fair amount of bandwidth, disk space and such to operate for an ISP. Especially since most of the traffic is binaries.
So when the police said "Hey, we found some child porn on your servers" the ISPs were more than happy to jump up and say "Ok, ok, we'll shut them down!"
To the customers they report "We have had to reluctantly shut down our servers because the government made us do it."
But internally they're like "Thank God! We finally had an excuse to shut that horrendous waste of resources down."
It's sort of like how an company uses "budet cuts" as an excuse to get rid of all the people they actually wanted to fire, but were too lazy to go through all the paperwork.
The /. forum comes close with it's freak and friend filtering. But then it's got this big ugly "reply to this" button.
I've been trying to think of how I might write a web 2.0 forum that is easy to use and yet still contains what made usenet nice. The problem I have with most web forums is just that they're near impossible to keep track of what's new to read. So I find they tend to just have a bunch of AOL smiley icons, and stupid fark pictures and not much real content.
You feel you are being punished if you don't receive welfare when you don't need it?
No wonder Alaskan politicians feel like they are entitled to bribes.
Seems to me my position is the middle ground. :-)
I agree with the representative democracy instead of direct democracy. What I don't agree with is having congressional districts representing a million people, solely because Congress set an arbitrary number of congress critters back some 90 years ago. I say let it grow.
And the great thing is, the more congress critters we have the fewer unelected staffers we need, and the less power any one individual critter can have.
How is it not welfare? Are people doing anything to earn that money? Where'd the money come from? Growing it on trees, or was it from a taxes? How is this not welfare?
And if you've got $40 billion in the bank, why do you need my tax dollars to build massive bridges and such?
Why do people keep babbling on about term limits? All that'd accomplish is to put even more power in the hands of the unelected staffers.
How about we reduce their power by going back to one representative for every 50,000 people instead of one for every 600,000 like we have now?
Won't help much with the Senate, but the Senate was setup by design to protect the smaller populated states.
I thought you were going to say "pro welfare", as the Alaskan govt actually pays people to live there. :-)
Hardly the same thing, and as has been pointed out repeatedly the deals they got on their mortgages were on par with market rates.
Or the same way John Mccain did after Keating Five.
Didn't Rostenkowski go to prison?
Just because you can write bad code using Java doesn't mean you can't write good code.
Yeah, public works projects which serve no purpose don't help. The Japanese proved this in the 1990s. But public works projects which have long term benefits do help greatly.
Another interesting thing. I was in England back in 2004 on a software project which was the result of a govt mandate to change reporting systems. It was interesting how this mandate caused companies to increase their project spending, and in so doing they sunk money into the economy. There is certainly a case to be made that this is good. However, there is also a case to be made that too much of that takes capital away from worthwhile projects into shitholes.
I've read in recent years that Germany is facing this problem in that they have too much money in savings and not enough of it being spent. So they're trying to encourage some spending and reinvestment. But it's clear that in America we have had too much spending and not enough savings.
Everything has to be balanced, and just as it's not right to claim that public works projects always boost the economy, it's also not right to claim wealth distribution is always bad. Henry Ford showed that by paying his workers more, he created demand for his own product. Yet many would call that wealth redistribution, because he paid them more than market rate.
The problem I have with the people who work their way up, is they cannot troubleshoot issues. They don't understand why things work the way they do.
I didn't used to put a lot of faith into my ComSci degree until later on in my career when I realized that I knew more than many of my colleagues.
Most of the /. crowd isn't really into free software, they just hate Microsoft. So it's funny watching the responses to this.
It also has a number of left-wing themes.
As i said, the movie is complicated. It's primarily about escalating violence, the Joker coming to being because of Batman, etc. When one looks at the various actions taken by Batman, it's obvious that the whole thing is a learning experience for him. He relies on emotion at times, and the result is not as he would like.
Anyone thinking Batman has a simplistic right-wing message is naive or hasn't seen the movie. The message is pretty complicated, and there's been a lot of discussion about this in blogs this week.
One of the better analysis, and some discussion which references the comic books:
http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/07/the-dark-night.html
I don't see any evidence for your analysis.
The decline in US dollar value is responsible for a good chunk of the increase. Demand is responsible for the other big chunk. When you have a limited resource, and you can't produce it any faster, the price curve is highly determined by demand.
That's not to say our foreign policy isn't being motivated to destabilize the market and drive up profits. Given some of the bizarre behavior we've seen, that is an explanation.
I honestly don't mind the prefixing if we're talking objects on a page. Like txtEmail which refers to the textbox containing the email address. But I don't need a variable called strEmail to contain the email I'm going to do something with.
After reading that Spolsky article I can definately see using a usEmail as the variable name to indicate it's unsafe and came from user input though.
As far as the business objects are concerned, I'm not talking about genuine business objects. I'm talking about apps where all the business logic is really in the presentation layer, and they create a BO layer which does nothing other than redirect to the data layer. Generally the datalayer returns a dataset, and this BO layer just passes the dataset back up to the page which then manipulates it and does something with it. It serves little purpose, but it's all over the place.
By using an MVP pattern, you break this stupidity. Your view then is nothing but a series of events and properties that are nothing more than wrappers around the view objects(text boxes, labels, etc), and the Presenter layer has the business logic that either has handlers for those events, and sets the properties on the view as appropriate. What's nice about this pattern is you can build a mock view which allows you to test your business layer with unit tests. Extend this concept further by creating a mock data layer which has an in memory database, and you are in unit test heaven. That actually reduces the pain of maintenance 10 years down the road.
Amen! Although to be fair, Hungarian notation started out as a C++ thing, not VB.
The thing I hate most is the DNA style of building apps. Creating these layers of business objects that do no business other than acting as an abstraction layer to the data layer and all the business stuff up at the presentation layer. This was right out of some Microsoft textbook in the late 1990s, and the pattern still exists.
No, but it is inherently idiotic to claim lower taxes increase revenues when all evidence points to the contrary.
Using inflation gains to support your argument is intellectually dishonest unless you also aknowledge similar growth with the old tax rate.
I don't understand. Why is making a good argument, and trying to convince people to support freedom so bad? Why do you feel this need to stick a gun in peoples faces and force them to obey your will?
That is what you are saying, if you remove all your flowerly language and get to the point, isn't it?
The surge wasn't about winning, it was about trying to reduce violence until after the elections.
Then it's someone elses problem.