Yeah, the only problem is getting everyone to agree on what "performance" actually means. Free health care for everyone? pro/anti this or that political hot button issue? A tv in every household? Ask 200 people what's most important to them and you'll get 200 different answers.
Actually its not so hard. What you are describing is loyalty to a platform and such loyalty also makes you irrelevant, your vote is safe for one side and unobtainable to the other. I think that needs to be put on hold for the short term, until politicians get the message as to who they work for, until they consider the interests of the voters above all other interests. What I am suggesting is that performance is entirely defined by working for the public good. Legitimate, well reasoned and rational differences on a topic should not disqualify a candidate for one's support. If both candidates are working for the public good - rather than self interest, party interest or special interests - then one having a plan you prefer is fine. But we have to first get the politicians to a state where they believe that no amount of money and TV ads will save their butts if they do not put the voter's interests first. They have to relearn that the true currency of politics is votes. That is a prerequisite for true reform.
On a related note. For those in a leadership positions, president, speaker of the house, president pro tempore of the senate, senate and house party leaders, etc - they need to go if they are unable to lead and move issues forward too. They often cry the other party is obstructionist but in truth they have a hand in that obstructionism to some degree. Demonization of the other side, exclusion of the other side (essentially poisoning the well for a piece of legislation), etc. The fact remains that as leaders it is their job to avoid and overcome such things. The current leadership seems more concerned with serving political bases and special interests, all deserve to be replaced, just like those in non-leadership positions that are simply being obstructionist. Repeat as necessary until they relearn who they work for.
I agree its an uphill battle. However I think it is a matter of having conversations like this one outside of traditional media channels. Facebook, twitter, etc have shown such communications can be successful even in an environment of state controlled media.
"It would be sending a message to politicians: perform or be thrown out. No consideration for party, no consideration for platform, no consideration for being a nice guy, etc. Pure performance."
Nope. Whoever wins, there'll be some 'obvious' reason concocted.
No. If the voters vote for presidents, senators, representatives, governors, state legislatures, etc based upon only whether they believe these people are acting in the public interest(*) then it won't matter what story they try to spin. Besides, the politicians will still know why they are losing and that is the key element of this approach. Getting the politicians to fear the voters once again. To stop having 2/3rds of voters volunteering to be irrelevant by being loyal.
(*) FWIW, I am not suggesting voting out politicians merely for disagreeing with you. If they have an honest rational belief that a different path serves the public good that is not an instant disqualifier. Its just the ones that are bought and paid for by some special interest that I want to see gone.
Actually my opinion is meant to apply to all politicians, not just the President. The problem is we need a phase where all politicians who are not truly serving the public's interest are thrown out. They need to be reminded of who is really in charge, the voters. Votes are the true currency of politics and it is still one person one vote.
If someone is serving their church rather than the public they should be thrown out. To say the GOP is anti science sounds like a political talking point from the Dems. There are people of faith who also believe in science. Various Christian churches believe that scientific observation and discoveries are not in conflict with religion. If I remember correctly the scientific process was established by scientists who were not only usually men of faith but sometimes actually members of the clergy. The problem is one of perception, the crazy ones are the ones who get all the media attention. Its just a part of the system for manipulating voters, to scare you into being a good little loyal party member despite your disappointments in the party. Honestly, I heard it all before. Ronald Reagan was going to turn the United States into a theocracy. Bill Clinton was going to turn the United States into a socialist state. Its just BS to keep the base loyal.
Nope, its a short term price to achieve change. The price is greater to continue the status quo that leads to a majority of voters being irrelevant due to their loyalty.
The true currency of politics is votes, not money. Money is just a tool to influence voters *while* voters are in an apathetic mood. No amount of money spent on TV commercials can change the mind of a voter who is committed. The problem is not money, it is getting voters to realize their folly of volunteering to be irrelevant by being loyal rather than demanding performance.
And voting for Romney with the expectation that he wouldn't be any better, i.e. worse, would be what?
It would be sending a message to politicians: perform or be thrown out. No consideration for party, no consideration for platform, no consideration for being a nice guy, etc. Pure performance.
Politicians will not change their behavior until they fear for their jobs. As long as voters are loyal to political parties, platforms, etc things will not change. Politicians need to feel that there is no base they can rely upon.
Also consider that if you are loyal to a party or platform you are essentially irrelevant. One side can count on your vote and the other side can do nothing to get your vote. Both can ignore you (in their actions, they will probably say the right thing in speeches) with no real negative consequences.
You know...after over 3 years, the "blame Bush" for everything is getting a little old.
"That's exactly right. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress. But there's still going to be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
Barack Obama
Feb 2, 2009
NBC Interview
... a unified architecture could make it easier to build in a common backdoor for spying...
I doubt its over surveillance, such a backdoor will be found. The real motivation is most likely economic, simply not wanting to buy an expensive part from the west. It may even become a part they could export. Do consumers really care, or even know, what CPU is inside some electronic appliance/device?
From the GP's post it is pretty clear the books are not the same. Physically disintegrating, poor glue/binding, poor printing, poor ink, poor paper, etc.
... overpriced for the same material you can get elsewhere...
Yes and no. While there is overpricing in the US there is also underpricing in some foreign markets. Basically US buyers get to pay for most of the R&D and some overseas buyers get to free ride to a degree. Textbook, medicine, etc can certainly be less expensive than typically seen in the US but we can not get close to some of those overseas prices or it won't be profitable to develop this stuff in the first place.
... patriotism to a degree that would alarm us today was pretty much the norm. Germany overdid it, but the rest of the western world wasn't all that much behind. Look at UK or US propaganda films from the early war years.
A very silly comparison. You should not be looking at wartime films. You should be looking at pre-war films. That will provide a more realistic contrast between Germany and the US/UK in that timeframe.
But, over here in Europe, everyone got the idea of the nation pretty much bombed out of them. Some by the Axis, some by the Allies, a few especially lucky ones first by the one and then by the other. Afterwards, we sat down and said "ok, that was fucked up. Let's not do that again, ok?" - and the idea of the European Union was born.
While we don't have a european identity, yet, and identify as german, french, british, etc. that spirit of Europe is there.
Not really, at least with the Europeans I have spoken with at international studies type events on the continent. There is still quite a bit of nationalism and tribalism. For example Bavarians will sometimes barely consider themselves German let alone some sort of pan-European. What you really have is a modern reincarnation of the old Roman system of hostages. Today you exchange portions of your economy, rather than noble born children, in order to maintain the peace.
... almost nobody in Europe would so much as contemplate the idea of bombing another European country.
Really? Did you miss the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? Or does Yugoslavia not count as "real" Europe?
But this strong concept of national identity has remained in the US.
That's another quite silly comment. The US doesn't have a national identity in the way that many European regions have. In the US the national identity is an ever evolving "melting pot" where we take bits and pieces from other cultures around the world. Our national identity changes with each major wave of immigration.
I believe the Battle of the Atlantic saw the UK's food supply get critical, only weeks IIRC. Had any sort of invasion occurred and disrupted things even a small amount there would have been widespread starvation. If you can deprive an army of food it doesn't matter so much how many bullets they still have.
... strongest navy in the world...
Largely useless when the home ports are occupied or rendered inoperable.
... strongest air force...
Historian generally agree that Germany had the stronger air force. The UK was able to use their smaller air force much more effectively due to radar and code breaking, even so the possibility of defeat was looming. Many historians agree that Germany's irrational decision to bomb civilians in London rather than continue bombing RAF airfields and aircraft manufacturing plants was key to the RAF's survival.
The UK would have been extremly unlikely to fall
I am not saying the UK would have fallen, but I am saying that "extremely unlikely" seems to be contrary to the historical record. "Unlikely" may even be a bit too much. You might say the UK has not fallen because there are partisans in the hills but the Germans may have had their parade in London. When one digs deep in the historical record, even ultimate victory in the war was far closer than most people realize. Even Russian victory in the east was a very close thing. The Germans were very close to preventing that massive Russian wave that swept its way to Berlin from ever getting started. If the UK did get invaded and the US diverted some supplies and arms to the UK, away from Russia, things may have gone terribly different.
Look, yes, we were a little late to WWI and WWII, and we're sorry for that. Hell, maybe if we had been there at the beginning, those two conflicts wouldn't have gotten all blown out of proportion like they did. But see, we've strived real hard to be first to every other war since then. And none of them have escalated into a "world war", have they? By my reckoning, we've successfully prevented something like 7 or 8 world wars since then. Where's our recognition for that, huh? It's a thankless job, I tell ya.
I realize you are joking but there is actually some truth in what you say. After WW2 that generation was of the opinion that little dictators should be squashed before they had the chance to become big regional problems. That generation looked back to the early days of Germany violating the treaty ending WW1, when Britain and France considered intervening militarily, but decided not to because they expected to lose 5,000 men. That generation realized what a tragic mistake it was not to intervene.
That is why that generation was fine with the 1991 gulf war against Iraq. That generation was of the opinion that if they intervened and kept various dictators from becoming larger regional power, and they were wrong 99 out of 100 times, it would still be worth it for the 1 in 100 that would go on to create a major regional war... maybe even a world war.
I believe you're thinking of WWI. Your argument, while still flawed and simplistic, might have held more weight there. But "WWII" didn't truly become a *world war* until the late 1930s.
WWII became a world war in 1939. USA joined late 1941, > 24 months later. That's pretty fucking late to the party
You really need to read a little more history. You are confusing war on paper with war on a battlefield. The *British* coined the phrase "The Phoney War" for the period up to mid 1940. France and Britain declared war when Poland was invaded in the fall of 1939 but did not engage in any major military efforts. Then Germany invaded France in mid 1940 and the real fighting began in the west.
... don't try to wave away the fact that the only wars the US didn't engage with eagerness were the ones that mattered most in the past century.
Initially it looked like WW2 would not occur. The British and French had appeased Germany on Czechoslovakia. They abandoned Poland despite treaties and promises to defend her. In that Phoney War period it looked like Britain and France were going to appease Germany on Poland just like they did on Czechoslovakia. France and Britain were lined up and in a position to invade Germany along the French border but they apparently were not doing anything more than minor skirmishes, apparently just bluffing. It was not until the German invasion of France that people in America thought this war was going to be real.
They pay more and use less? What a shocker! Who would have thought?
You are correct. Apple customer are probably not using as much bandwidth. They are probably less likely to watch YouTube videos of kids in squirrel costumes dancing.
It's just a social activism site using gamers as it's engine. Nothing more.
Really, nothing more? Look what an activism organization composed of people who shoot real guns can accomplish, the National Rifle Association. Now consider an activism organization composed of the more numerous people who shoot digital guns in video games. If you can get the digital shooters to show up on election day and vote in a manner supporting their cause quite a bit could be accomplished.
The real currency of politics is voters, not dollars. Like petitions, dollars are just a tool to influence voters. The real power, the real influence, is with the people who show up on election day. They are the *only* people that politicians listen to. As proven by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), etc. Getting gamers to realize this is a good thing.
Are there better engineers out there in fossland? Sure, there are plenty (Linus Torvalds, for example, Cox, the Apache guys and many, many more.). But some of them can be a PR asset to FOSS's interests and some of them cant. Eric is one of our elders just because he has been here for a long, long while and has been consistent in his ideas and very effective in implementing them. Cant have it all at the same time. But the fact that he isnt working on O(1) schedullers is not argument enough to say he isnt a voice to be heard in the areas where he speaks (youve never seen him complaining about linux's driver engineering the way you see for example linus torvalds whining about which desktop environment is better - which imho is a bit out of his direct engineering influence-). Guy is an asset. Few have done as much as he has (and those that have, are usually opposed to him and themselves, which is funny and good because we engineers are reasonable people).
I don't see where we are disagreeing. What you write is consistent with the idea that as an engineer he does not stand out but as a marketing and sales guy he does stand out.
... The government wanted research that it finances to be available to the public. Your tax money pays for research, therefore you should have access to that research - makes sense, right?... if your taxes pay for research, then you get access to it, no exceptions...
I like to think about possible unintended consequences, consider also applying these ideals to government sponsored source code...
Doesn't the GPL violate the spirit of such open access? It denies some taxpayers the ability to use government funded source code, namely those who would use the taxpayer funded code in a non-GPL project. Shouldn't government funded source code be accessible to both the GPL and BSD communities? Why does a researcher being paid by taxpayers get to decide which taxpayer communities get access? Just to be clear, of course anyone developing their code at their own expense has every right to make the code GPL only. However if someone else is paying the bill that other person gets to make the call.
So if legislation can force government funded research to be made available without restriction then the same could be required of government funded source code.
That aint the catb, its the software list you requested.
I requested no list. I already knew of some of the higher profile projects. Other posts mentioned other lower profile things. The list looks pretty much like most other engineer's home/side projects over a multiple decade period of time.
You have once again strengthened my point. His engineering work does not really stand out compared to others.
I mean, my friend, you are just tongueincheeking a guy you know nothing about. At least educate yourself a bit more before going into mindless critic mode.
Bad guess on your part. I read the Cathedral and the Bazaar when it first came out. ESR and his opinions are neither new nor unknown to me.
By the way, you do realize that you are further strengthening the comparison to Steve Jobs by offering an evangelical document describing the correct/better way to do things?
Besides having contributed to many project, you are talking about a guy that branded "open source", went out and sold it succesfully.
Then using your argument perhaps he should be referred to as the finest marketing and sales guy of the open source movement. The "Steve Jobs" of open source, not the "Steve Wozniak" of open source. Jobs did some engineering work in the early days too, however that is not where he stood out. Perhaps you are onto something with this marketing and sales argument.
I agree that there is no magic bullet and that standardized tests seem to be a magic bullet like solution.
However, perhaps teachers could stop protecting their own deadwood and the underlying problem would be lessened. Your unions seem to be corrupt and politicized self serving organizations that only give lip service to students. Your unions seem to be the partners of administration, not the teachers, and in concert with administration milk the system for financial and political gain. Teachers need to reform their unions, change their union leadership. Unions used to represent the interests of the members and also be the guardians of the craft, ensuring proper training and high standards of work by its members. Apprentices that failed to learn the craft properly were ejected, members who did not perform to high quality standard were ejected.
Power should be paired with responsibility, modern unions seem to have lost this balance. Perhaps if teachers and their unions were perceived to be the guardians of their craft then there will be no motivation for these silly standardized test based solution. These silly solutions are a direct result of your union's failure to self police.
No. Bitching about teachers is just fine, they are sometimes *part* of the problem. Either directly through their performance or through their union whose leadership they choose.
You are correct about parents sometimes being part of the problem, that students are also sometimes part of the problem and that administrators are sometimes part of the problem. The teachers are blameless meme is just as false as the victimization meme. Teachers could support transforming their union from an organization that is a corrupt and politicized self serving machine into an organization that is the guardian of their craft, like the unions of old that not only looked after their members interests but policed their members by ensuring training and quality standard and ejecting those whose could not perform to the high standard of the union.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is we need a phase where all politicians who are not truly serving the public's interest are thrown out.
Please define "truly serving the public's interest" in a way that the public agrees on for the whole range of issues that politicians deal with.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2891157&cid=40202673
Yeah, the only problem is getting everyone to agree on what "performance" actually means. Free health care for everyone? pro/anti this or that political hot button issue? A tv in every household? Ask 200 people what's most important to them and you'll get 200 different answers.
Actually its not so hard. What you are describing is loyalty to a platform and such loyalty also makes you irrelevant, your vote is safe for one side and unobtainable to the other. I think that needs to be put on hold for the short term, until politicians get the message as to who they work for, until they consider the interests of the voters above all other interests. What I am suggesting is that performance is entirely defined by working for the public good. Legitimate, well reasoned and rational differences on a topic should not disqualify a candidate for one's support. If both candidates are working for the public good - rather than self interest, party interest or special interests - then one having a plan you prefer is fine. But we have to first get the politicians to a state where they believe that no amount of money and TV ads will save their butts if they do not put the voter's interests first. They have to relearn that the true currency of politics is votes. That is a prerequisite for true reform.
On a related note. For those in a leadership positions, president, speaker of the house, president pro tempore of the senate, senate and house party leaders, etc - they need to go if they are unable to lead and move issues forward too. They often cry the other party is obstructionist but in truth they have a hand in that obstructionism to some degree. Demonization of the other side, exclusion of the other side (essentially poisoning the well for a piece of legislation), etc. The fact remains that as leaders it is their job to avoid and overcome such things. The current leadership seems more concerned with serving political bases and special interests, all deserve to be replaced, just like those in non-leadership positions that are simply being obstructionist. Repeat as necessary until they relearn who they work for.
I agree its an uphill battle. However I think it is a matter of having conversations like this one outside of traditional media channels. Facebook, twitter, etc have shown such communications can be successful even in an environment of state controlled media.
"It would be sending a message to politicians: perform or be thrown out. No consideration for party, no consideration for platform, no consideration for being a nice guy, etc. Pure performance."
Nope. Whoever wins, there'll be some 'obvious' reason concocted.
No. If the voters vote for presidents, senators, representatives, governors, state legislatures, etc based upon only whether they believe these people are acting in the public interest(*) then it won't matter what story they try to spin. Besides, the politicians will still know why they are losing and that is the key element of this approach. Getting the politicians to fear the voters once again. To stop having 2/3rds of voters volunteering to be irrelevant by being loyal.
(*) FWIW, I am not suggesting voting out politicians merely for disagreeing with you. If they have an honest rational belief that a different path serves the public good that is not an instant disqualifier. Its just the ones that are bought and paid for by some special interest that I want to see gone.
Actually my opinion is meant to apply to all politicians, not just the President. The problem is we need a phase where all politicians who are not truly serving the public's interest are thrown out. They need to be reminded of who is really in charge, the voters. Votes are the true currency of politics and it is still one person one vote.
If someone is serving their church rather than the public they should be thrown out. To say the GOP is anti science sounds like a political talking point from the Dems. There are people of faith who also believe in science. Various Christian churches believe that scientific observation and discoveries are not in conflict with religion. If I remember correctly the scientific process was established by scientists who were not only usually men of faith but sometimes actually members of the clergy. The problem is one of perception, the crazy ones are the ones who get all the media attention. Its just a part of the system for manipulating voters, to scare you into being a good little loyal party member despite your disappointments in the party. Honestly, I heard it all before. Ronald Reagan was going to turn the United States into a theocracy. Bill Clinton was going to turn the United States into a socialist state. Its just BS to keep the base loyal.
Cut your nose off out of spite?
Nope, its a short term price to achieve change. The price is greater to continue the status quo that leads to a majority of voters being irrelevant due to their loyalty.
The true currency of politics is votes, not money. Money is just a tool to influence voters *while* voters are in an apathetic mood. No amount of money spent on TV commercials can change the mind of a voter who is committed. The problem is not money, it is getting voters to realize their folly of volunteering to be irrelevant by being loyal rather than demanding performance.
And voting for Romney with the expectation that he wouldn't be any better, i.e. worse, would be what?
It would be sending a message to politicians: perform or be thrown out. No consideration for party, no consideration for platform, no consideration for being a nice guy, etc. Pure performance.
Politicians will not change their behavior until they fear for their jobs. As long as voters are loyal to political parties, platforms, etc things will not change. Politicians need to feel that there is no base they can rely upon.
Also consider that if you are loyal to a party or platform you are essentially irrelevant. One side can count on your vote and the other side can do nothing to get your vote. Both can ignore you (in their actions, they will probably say the right thing in speeches) with no real negative consequences.
You know...after over 3 years, the "blame Bush" for everything is getting a little old.
"That's exactly right. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress. But there's still going to be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
Barack Obama
Feb 2, 2009
NBC Interview
... a unified architecture could make it easier to build in a common backdoor for spying ...
I doubt its over surveillance, such a backdoor will be found. The real motivation is most likely economic, simply not wanting to buy an expensive part from the west. It may even become a part they could export. Do consumers really care, or even know, what CPU is inside some electronic appliance/device?
... The books are the same ...
From the GP's post it is pretty clear the books are not the same. Physically disintegrating, poor glue/binding, poor printing, poor ink, poor paper, etc.
... overpriced for the same material you can get elsewhere ...
Yes and no. While there is overpricing in the US there is also underpricing in some foreign markets. Basically US buyers get to pay for most of the R&D and some overseas buyers get to free ride to a degree. Textbook, medicine, etc can certainly be less expensive than typically seen in the US but we can not get close to some of those overseas prices or it won't be profitable to develop this stuff in the first place.
... patriotism to a degree that would alarm us today was pretty much the norm. Germany overdid it, but the rest of the western world wasn't all that much behind. Look at UK or US propaganda films from the early war years.
A very silly comparison. You should not be looking at wartime films. You should be looking at pre-war films. That will provide a more realistic contrast between Germany and the US/UK in that timeframe.
But, over here in Europe, everyone got the idea of the nation pretty much bombed out of them. Some by the Axis, some by the Allies, a few especially lucky ones first by the one and then by the other. Afterwards, we sat down and said "ok, that was fucked up. Let's not do that again, ok?" - and the idea of the European Union was born. While we don't have a european identity, yet, and identify as german, french, british, etc. that spirit of Europe is there.
Not really, at least with the Europeans I have spoken with at international studies type events on the continent. There is still quite a bit of nationalism and tribalism. For example Bavarians will sometimes barely consider themselves German let alone some sort of pan-European. What you really have is a modern reincarnation of the old Roman system of hostages. Today you exchange portions of your economy, rather than noble born children, in order to maintain the peace.
... almost nobody in Europe would so much as contemplate the idea of bombing another European country.
Really? Did you miss the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia? Or does Yugoslavia not count as "real" Europe?
But this strong concept of national identity has remained in the US.
That's another quite silly comment. The US doesn't have a national identity in the way that many European regions have. In the US the national identity is an ever evolving "melting pot" where we take bits and pieces from other cultures around the world. Our national identity changes with each major wave of immigration.
I believe the Battle of the Atlantic saw the UK's food supply get critical, only weeks IIRC. Had any sort of invasion occurred and disrupted things even a small amount there would have been widespread starvation. If you can deprive an army of food it doesn't matter so much how many bullets they still have.
... strongest navy in the world ...
Largely useless when the home ports are occupied or rendered inoperable.
... strongest air force ...
Historian generally agree that Germany had the stronger air force. The UK was able to use their smaller air force much more effectively due to radar and code breaking, even so the possibility of defeat was looming. Many historians agree that Germany's irrational decision to bomb civilians in London rather than continue bombing RAF airfields and aircraft manufacturing plants was key to the RAF's survival.
The UK would have been extremly unlikely to fall
I am not saying the UK would have fallen, but I am saying that "extremely unlikely" seems to be contrary to the historical record. "Unlikely" may even be a bit too much. You might say the UK has not fallen because there are partisans in the hills but the Germans may have had their parade in London. When one digs deep in the historical record, even ultimate victory in the war was far closer than most people realize. Even Russian victory in the east was a very close thing. The Germans were very close to preventing that massive Russian wave that swept its way to Berlin from ever getting started. If the UK did get invaded and the US diverted some supplies and arms to the UK, away from Russia, things may have gone terribly different.
Look, yes, we were a little late to WWI and WWII, and we're sorry for that. Hell, maybe if we had been there at the beginning, those two conflicts wouldn't have gotten all blown out of proportion like they did. But see, we've strived real hard to be first to every other war since then. And none of them have escalated into a "world war", have they? By my reckoning, we've successfully prevented something like 7 or 8 world wars since then. Where's our recognition for that, huh? It's a thankless job, I tell ya.
I realize you are joking but there is actually some truth in what you say. After WW2 that generation was of the opinion that little dictators should be squashed before they had the chance to become big regional problems. That generation looked back to the early days of Germany violating the treaty ending WW1, when Britain and France considered intervening militarily, but decided not to because they expected to lose 5,000 men. That generation realized what a tragic mistake it was not to intervene.
... maybe even a world war.
That is why that generation was fine with the 1991 gulf war against Iraq. That generation was of the opinion that if they intervened and kept various dictators from becoming larger regional power, and they were wrong 99 out of 100 times, it would still be worth it for the 1 in 100 that would go on to create a major regional war
I believe you're thinking of WWI. Your argument, while still flawed and simplistic, might have held more weight there. But "WWII" didn't truly become a *world war* until the late 1930s.
WWII became a world war in 1939. USA joined late 1941, > 24 months later. That's pretty fucking late to the party
You really need to read a little more history. You are confusing war on paper with war on a battlefield. The *British* coined the phrase "The Phoney War" for the period up to mid 1940. France and Britain declared war when Poland was invaded in the fall of 1939 but did not engage in any major military efforts. Then Germany invaded France in mid 1940 and the real fighting began in the west.
... don't try to wave away the fact that the only wars the US didn't engage with eagerness were the ones that mattered most in the past century.
Initially it looked like WW2 would not occur. The British and French had appeased Germany on Czechoslovakia. They abandoned Poland despite treaties and promises to defend her. In that Phoney War period it looked like Britain and France were going to appease Germany on Poland just like they did on Czechoslovakia. France and Britain were lined up and in a position to invade Germany along the French border but they apparently were not doing anything more than minor skirmishes, apparently just bluffing. It was not until the German invasion of France that people in America thought this war was going to be real.
In the future, whats to stop China from controlling everyone's infrastructure if we rely on them to manufacture everything?
The fact they don't want to kill their host.
Wrong analogy. Replace "host" with "goose that laid the golden egg". The goose is expendable and/or replaceable.
They pay more and use less? What a shocker! Who would have thought?
You are correct. Apple customer are probably not using as much bandwidth. They are probably less likely to watch YouTube videos of kids in squirrel costumes dancing.
It's just a social activism site using gamers as it's engine. Nothing more.
Really, nothing more? Look what an activism organization composed of people who shoot real guns can accomplish, the National Rifle Association. Now consider an activism organization composed of the more numerous people who shoot digital guns in video games. If you can get the digital shooters to show up on election day and vote in a manner supporting their cause quite a bit could be accomplished.
The real currency of politics is voters, not dollars. Like petitions, dollars are just a tool to influence voters. The real power, the real influence, is with the people who show up on election day. They are the *only* people that politicians listen to. As proven by the National Rifle Association (NRA), the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), etc. Getting gamers to realize this is a good thing.
Are there better engineers out there in fossland? Sure, there are plenty (Linus Torvalds, for example, Cox, the Apache guys and many, many more.). But some of them can be a PR asset to FOSS's interests and some of them cant. Eric is one of our elders just because he has been here for a long, long while and has been consistent in his ideas and very effective in implementing them. Cant have it all at the same time. But the fact that he isnt working on O(1) schedullers is not argument enough to say he isnt a voice to be heard in the areas where he speaks (youve never seen him complaining about linux's driver engineering the way you see for example linus torvalds whining about which desktop environment is better - which imho is a bit out of his direct engineering influence-). Guy is an asset. Few have done as much as he has (and those that have, are usually opposed to him and themselves, which is funny and good because we engineers are reasonable people).
I don't see where we are disagreeing. What you write is consistent with the idea that as an engineer he does not stand out but as a marketing and sales guy he does stand out.
... The government wanted research that it finances to be available to the public. Your tax money pays for research, therefore you should have access to that research - makes sense, right? ... if your taxes pay for research, then you get access to it, no exceptions ...
I like to think about possible unintended consequences, consider also applying these ideals to government sponsored source code ...
Doesn't the GPL violate the spirit of such open access? It denies some taxpayers the ability to use government funded source code, namely those who would use the taxpayer funded code in a non-GPL project. Shouldn't government funded source code be accessible to both the GPL and BSD communities? Why does a researcher being paid by taxpayers get to decide which taxpayer communities get access? Just to be clear, of course anyone developing their code at their own expense has every right to make the code GPL only. However if someone else is paying the bill that other person gets to make the call.
So if legislation can force government funded research to be made available without restriction then the same could be required of government funded source code.
That aint the catb, its the software list you requested.
I requested no list. I already knew of some of the higher profile projects. Other posts mentioned other lower profile things. The list looks pretty much like most other engineer's home/side projects over a multiple decade period of time.
You have once again strengthened my point. His engineering work does not really stand out compared to others.
I mean, my friend, you are just tongueincheeking a guy you know nothing about. At least educate yourself a bit more before going into mindless critic mode.
Bad guess on your part. I read the Cathedral and the Bazaar when it first came out. ESR and his opinions are neither new nor unknown to me.
By the way, you do realize that you are further strengthening the comparison to Steve Jobs by offering an evangelical document describing the correct/better way to do things?
Besides having contributed to many project, you are talking about a guy that branded "open source", went out and sold it succesfully.
Then using your argument perhaps he should be referred to as the finest marketing and sales guy of the open source movement. The "Steve Jobs" of open source, not the "Steve Wozniak" of open source. Jobs did some engineering work in the early days too, however that is not where he stood out. Perhaps you are onto something with this marketing and sales argument.
I agree that there is no magic bullet and that standardized tests seem to be a magic bullet like solution.
However, perhaps teachers could stop protecting their own deadwood and the underlying problem would be lessened. Your unions seem to be corrupt and politicized self serving organizations that only give lip service to students. Your unions seem to be the partners of administration, not the teachers, and in concert with administration milk the system for financial and political gain. Teachers need to reform their unions, change their union leadership. Unions used to represent the interests of the members and also be the guardians of the craft, ensuring proper training and high standards of work by its members. Apprentices that failed to learn the craft properly were ejected, members who did not perform to high quality standard were ejected.
Power should be paired with responsibility, modern unions seem to have lost this balance. Perhaps if teachers and their unions were perceived to be the guardians of their craft then there will be no motivation for these silly standardized test based solution. These silly solutions are a direct result of your union's failure to self police.
No. Bitching about teachers is just fine, they are sometimes *part* of the problem. Either directly through their performance or through their union whose leadership they choose.
You are correct about parents sometimes being part of the problem, that students are also sometimes part of the problem and that administrators are sometimes part of the problem. The teachers are blameless meme is just as false as the victimization meme. Teachers could support transforming their union from an organization that is a corrupt and politicized self serving machine into an organization that is the guardian of their craft, like the unions of old that not only looked after their members interests but policed their members by ensuring training and quality standard and ejecting those whose could not perform to the high standard of the union.