> How many of those would have been solved > without the program? I'd like to see a > head-to-head, although I assume most > police forces don't have the manpower to > devote 2 seperate teams to the same > crimes.
I don't think an increase in the proportion of crimes solved is neccesarily the goal. The goal is to solve crimes more quickly. After all, this is just a more sophisticated version of the pegboard shown on every cop show.
Faster solutions to serial murder and rape cases mean fewer victims, which is a good thing. They also mean that the same detectives can solve more crimes in a year, even if the rate of closed cases stays the same. So this software makes a city safer, and makes its police more efficiant; even if the proportion ofr crimes solved remains the same.
You'd be suprised. Low ranking Officers tend to die more frequently then enlisted because officers are expected to lead by example. High ranking officers tend to be fired when problems happen, so have the same incentive to do well as anyone in the Private Sector.
"Airbus is NOT an example of government effeciency. The only reason they have a chance is because Boeing killed the competition here and got fat and lazy."
Note that Boeing gets plenty of pork itself, in particular the contracts its Military Division gets are sweet deals.
"Huh? Please explain."
US Government pays R+D, then auctions off the rights to market the drug to drug companies. IIRC the only costs to the company is FDA approval and marketing. Somehow they manage to lose money anyway, but that's not really the government's fault.
"Yes, but gov's are worse. For example, if Intel wants to can an employee for downsizing or incompetance, very little will stand in the way. However, in the gov it would be a major deal."
Damn Unions.
"Yes, but navigating around obstacles and smhoozing consumes most their resources. They become political animals instead of productivity animals."
That's true of any large organization. People can't know everybody very well. A slick presentation for the 10-20 minutes they see you helps a career immeasureabely. This is also true in a corporate world where the bottom line is hard to find -- how does a flashy website help Intel, for example? Or just about anything else Intel does, for that matter? R&D is obvously neccesary, as are fabs, but what about the rest of the company? Many of these positions are obviously neccesary for any modern technology company, but as they are impossible to quantify a guy who schmoozes effectively has a major career advantage over a guy who can't.
"I have heard some horror stories about military computing and culture in general. The military only has to out-compete other bumbling militaries."
Of course, the price of failure is death. That would tend to motivate me a hell of a lot more then the potential for losing some boring job.
Note that few military's are truely bumbling, as I said you bumble in a military organization and people die. Just look at those certifiable idiots who killed 4 Canadian troops in Afghanistan; even if the beat the whole "Manslaughter" thing they're probably going to feel intense guilt every day for the rest of their lives.
"I will agree that gov has its place. But keeping pace with technology is not something that historically it has been good at. I have not been given any decent examples yet."
Airbus. Soviet Military technology was consistantly where the Soviets wanted it to be relative to the West. Prescription drugs are almost all government funded, then the rights are sold to private companies. Anything space related. Airbus. When a private company is out-competed by government it bears repeating. BAe.
"They are very different. For one, there is much less of a hierarchy in the decision-making process. Second, if you want to add a certain feature, you don't have to fill out a million forms and have a million meetings, you JUST DO IT. If others like it, it stays, otherwise it fades. In gov agencies, such would be called "insubordination"."
That's true of any large organization -- you think Billy G lets his engineers just do shit?
Not even government has to be this way. Even in the military, with its million of employees, numerous forms, SOPs, paperwork, etc. Commanders tend to prefer people who get stuff done to folks who wait for the paperwork to go through.
"By developing their own CPU and operating system through official government sanction, it gives the government a way to effectively spy on Internet users because the government knows how everything works and will very likely use this knowledge to attempt such control."
[sarcasm] I always new Reno was a Communist. That bitch, by pushing for open APIs in Windows she attempted to allow the PRC ultimate control over its people's computer use. Thank god John Ashcroft realized that obscurity=freedom; and that Microsoft's profit margins were analogous to democracy. [/sarcasm]
The basic point is that the Chinese know how Windows works because MS told them. It knows how an Intel processor works because Intel publishes standards. They know TCP/IP, and every other standard their people use. If they want to install spy programs they can do it without a Chinese CPU.
The fact that they now fab their own chips won't change that. Oh my god, now they'll be able to ask their people why they used a RISC Arcitecture. Instead of, say, looking high and low for Intel press releases on the advantages of CISC -- and maybe even having to call an Intel PR person.
"Finland: A files suit against B. A is richer than B, and drowns them in legal fees so they'll settle/lose/whatever. B loses and pays A + B's legal expenses. "
For one thing I doubt the strategy of drowning people in legal fees works in Finland -- US Courts are known for enforcing the letter of the law. A lengthy, expensive, legalistic argument over the interpretation of the 4th word of Section IIX, Subsection II, Clause 3, of a contract won't fly in most other systems because it won't matter. The Courts will try to figure out the spirit of the agreement rather then the letter.
Long legalistic arguments are what tend to make US Litigation so damned expensive. After all you need a team of lawyers (at $300 per hour per lawyer) to even understand what the other side is saying in such an argument.
The only other method to force someone to pay his lawyer is to constantly make motions. Even under US Law, making motions for motions sake is frowned upon. Because American Courts tend to focus on the letter of the law they tend to look at motions individually -- if there's a sensible reason for a motion to have been made they'll tend to let it slide. In other countrys the Courts would typically say "Fuck you" much more quickly.
Also, if you settle you haven't technically lost. Therefore you wouldn't be made responsible for legal fees.
Werdna wrote:
"Where a losing side pays a winner's expenses, it makes it difficult for poor folk to get competent counsel when they are plaintiffs. The contingency fee, with all its serious problems, is in fact, the only way many people of even moderate means can get justice. Without the contingency fee, only rich folks tend to be able to be plaintiffs"
You could implement a contingency fee with this system. Just add it to the penalty -- ie: a 33% Contingency raises a $1 million judgement to $1,333,333.
"Therein lies the essence of the problem. If nobody cares what the words on the degree are, then why bother getting one, because, in essense, what you are saying, is that it simply doesn't mean anything."
Having a degree means a lot. It means that you are willing to work, it means that you can follow complex instructions from obtuse Profesors, and it means that you have basic anlytical skills.
Having a degree is important; people with degrees have proven they can perform many tasks their employers ask of them. The specific type of degree is only important for technical degrees.
"Yes, but how many market traders are astrophysicists? "People don't really care about the words on the degree" ??? With your argument, I might as well have gotten a degree in philosophy to become an engineer. It's all the same thing, right? We all can think the same, right? Preposterous..."
Within liberal arts nobody cares about the words. ie: a degree that says "Philosophy" is as good as a degree that says "History", "Political Science", "Sociology" "African-American studies", "American Culture", or whatever.
For technical jobs you ussually need a specific degree. ie: Computer programmers need Comp Sci or CE. Chip designers need EE. Same goes for Math, Science, and Engineering degrees. Sometimes even in these fields you don't need a specific degree -- a good programmer can get work even if his degree is in Botany.
Do a few classes a term. The rule of thumb is 2 hours coursework for every hour in class. So figure out how much time you want to spend a week, and do those many hours/3 until you graduate.
Focus on courses you really care about -- I'm much happier now that I've left CE for political Sciene and History. I'd do this stuff anyway, now I get credit for it. You should realize that one Liberal Arts degree is as good as another, if your passion is something that is technically useless (Philosophy, Art history) you should major in that. You'll do well, and nobody really cares what the words on the degree are.
You may be able to save time by taking courses you already know -- if your business ws web design you might want to take a course on PERL. If you already know it you'll do well without effort; and if you don't you'll be doing training you should do anyway.
In short, you should focus on the shit you'd do even if you weren't in school. I read about politics for fun, so I do PoliSci. I don't do CompSci because I've never gotten around to reading any of my dozen or so programming books. You should also manage your time wisely -- but you have a business so tyou know about that.
"No, but that's why Windows is so popular. Unlike using the Mac, where there's typically NOBODY in your city using a Mac except you, Windows users are so abundant that there's a ready supply of pirated software. "
Most CFOs don't think that way because they know a good proportion of people buy most of their programs...
"The software cost of using Windows is effectively ZERO. They pay NOTHING. I know people who have 200 CD's of burned stuff and Gigs of unburned stuff on their hard drives. Hasn't slowed the Windows juggernaut any, and most of the Win32 software vendors are doing okay. "
Same with knowledgeable Mac folks. Hotline is good.
"No, it's not fear of piracy that holds companies back. The real reason (same with OS X) is that 3% of the market ain't worth supporting, especially on the unfamiliar terrain of a new OS! "
The post I was responding to was about how gret it was that LINUX was going to get the commercial programs that are only Win/Mac now. Stuff like Dreamweaver, Photoshop, video editing software, legal DVD codecs, etc.
Not likely. First, LINUX is free. What CFO is going to approve spending any cash on people who love free software? He may be wrong, but he'll assume you-all'll buy one copy and pirate it 300,000 times. Second 95% of the LINUX market is x86 hardware. x86 hardware that came with Windows. x86 hardware that can already run his program. Why port? No new sales. Third, LINUX is used mostly by people who don't buy software unless they really want it. Macusers paid a $300+ Apple Tax. Who's more likely to buy a software package, somebody who cheers when a free product clones a commercial product, or people who are willing to pay a premium for hardware? Anyone who uses GIMP stand up. You try to run Adobe out of business, and then you complain that Adobe doesn't like you enough to port Photoshop. Come on now.
You all might get games, but that's doubtful. Your hardwre is typically too old and crappy to run them; and you could just use WINE/re-boot anyway. You give software companies no new revenue.
"2. US suburbs tend to have a lot of sprawl - individual properties are quite large and so the number of houses per square mile is few."
As many Canadians have pointed; most Canada is even worse and most of it has broadband for aabout $30 a month. Even if you were 100% right you'd still have this problem: much of the US does nopt live in outer suburtbs with low population densities. For example, 20% of Michigan lives in a single county, that's geographically smaller then a typical county. For some reason 2 million people, concentrated in a single county, are unable to decent service.
"Many other countries tend to have very clustered population centers. This is why both public transit and broadband work much better in Europe."
Scotland has a lower population density (66) then the US (70). They manage decent broadband and public trtansportation.
"30 percent of your population lives in a relatively tiny area around Vancouver and Toronto."
Note that he specified he was from Alberta. Small town Alberta is more boondocky then Wyoming.
Also note that the same could be said of the US. Most states have 40-50% of their populations concentrrated in one or two cities -- in MI, for example, the "Metro Detroit Area" consists of over 40% of the population; but only covers 3 of our 83 counties. Then there's smaller metro areas like Grand Haven and Port Huron. You can say the same about the nation as a whole.
If a huge chunk of a large market is can be hooked up to broadband so easily, why isn't it happening? Even Canada's boonies get hooked up, why isn't it happening in major cities?
Language is always debateble. The basic point stands even if they are two seperate languages: If two different labnguages are mutually intelligible a device used for translating one works on the other, and is therefore more useful to the US Army then a device for translating French.
Here's the other side: http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~spkraus1/catalyst/ languag e/serbocroat/ http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lang uage.asp?code=S RC
They have some excellant points, most importantly that people who speak one language frequently can't understand each other; so if Serbs and Croatians can it doesn't make much sense to call them seperate languages. For example, English speakers can't understand each other much of the time -- I just watched Gosford Park with someone who's wasn't into shit like Monty Python, the only non-American accent he understood was the American with a fake Scottish accent -- so it makes little sense to claim that Serbian and Croatian are completely different languages.
Especially since Croat is the language spoken in Bosnia and Serbia (it's ussually called "Serbo-Croat").
That means this'll let our troops be better understood in Kosovo, and the Bosnian mission. Most other places the Army has longstanding relationships so they don't need a computer translator.
Basically the Army doesn't need a Chinese translator and they're paying the bills...
>The DEA, can, as far as I know, use
> informants if they so choose. Corporations
> make wonderfull informants as they rarely
> have a sence of morality attached to them.
> Were the DEA forcing Amtrack to give these
> passanger lists over, that would be a
> Constitutional question (unreasonable
> search etc) but paying them is something
> else entirely.
Amtrak is another Government agency so there may be a constitutional issue there. I don't know if the DEA can use all government records to locate suspects, if they can then this is fine. Otherwise, I would guess the courts may have a problem with using billing information that would not seem incriminating to search a bag. Who would think that paying cash would make you subject to a government search?
Amtrak are a government agency. They were created in the '60s (or so - somewhereback there) when passenger service ceased to be profitable, unfortuneately it was needed in many areas (particularly New England) so Uncle Sam stepped in and operates Amtrak with the help of local railroads. I dubt that companies would do this - if it came out that Greyhound was spying on it's customers most of them would use cars. Amtrak has a relatively captive audience, and are ussually able to get whatever they need to make up a budget shortfall because at budget-time Congress has so many other issues that a bankrupt rail service is priority #876. The fact that the GOP controls Congress makes cooperation with the Feds a great budget move. The GOP, for all it's claims of being more "pro-freedom" then the Democrats, has traditionally been more in favor of privacy violationsas long as they nail a few criminals.
Even if we all stopped riding Amtrak today, nothing short of massive protests will make them stop. Taking a revenue hit will actually help them:
"Well Congressmen, revenue is down because we started turning all passengers with outstanding warrents over to the cops and the ACLU is raising hell..."
>This reminds me of a little lesson from US
> history. Andrew Jackson wanted to move an
> American Indian tribe (the Cherokees) from
> Georgia. The Indians appealed, and the
> Supreme Court said that the federal
> government couldn't deport the Indians.
> Jackson told the court, "oh yeah, try to stop
> me" and the Indians were forced to walk.
> Their forced trip is now known as the "Trail of
> Tears."
Know all about it, but there are important differences in this case. First Jackson was much bolder then the UK is. They aren't going to ignore their own courts when they're in the middle of yelling at Zimbabwe for ignoring it's courts. We know this because they have not penalized the royal family of Sealand for capturing the citizens of their allies, the British told said allies they couldn't help because of their Court decision, or shooting at the Navy.
>Until there is a public outcry or the courts get
>guns and cops of their own, the federal
>branch (or in the case of a parlimentary
>system like England, the legislative branch)
>can do what it wants, more or less.
In the UK's case, this would seem to be follow the rule of law and do whatever the courts tell them. They tried to arrest these guys for shooting at the royal navy, the courts said they couldn't do it, and Parlament hasn't had the Chutzpah to go agianst their own courts since '68 so further action will probabably not happen.
>Probably not, since action would be a
> internal matter, it would be handled by the
> Police, not the military.
If ithey do that they have two problems, first Sealand is armed and standard UK police are not (this would probably be handled by the Coast Guard and I don't know if they are armed). Second, it would be illegal to do so under UK law. Their courts have ruled UK law does not apply to Sealand, and since the Cops can only enforce UK law...
>That sounds like nonsense to me. For one
>thing: when has it stopped the US before?
Never, but other countries like to follow international law and the US is not going to bother blowing up Sealand. We're to busy blowing up Iraq.
> Secondly, it assumes that third parties
> actually recognise Sealand.
The most important third party (UK courts) do. If the UK take Sealand they have a huge legal problem in that their courts will rule that they are there illegally and order them out.
> Let's face it, if Britain decided to use force,
> do you seriously think anyone is going to
> give a damn?
The Prince of Sealand will, and he has won cases involving the soveriegnty of Sealand before.
>In FACT, it's really all the Frenchies fault - we
> vowed to give Vietnam back to the
>Vietnameese for their assistance during
>World War II, and never did - why? Because
> the French asserted it was theirs and they'd
> do what they damn well pleased with it.
That was Roosevelt's idea, but Truman didn't dislike Colonialism as much as FDR did. He ended up paying for 80% of the French war effort, to avoid the GOP charging he lost Vietnam. The French wanted to pull out after a few years of fighting, and the only way to stop them was pay them off.
>The "Australians, the English" were not there,
> the French were there for a while because it
> was one of their former colonies,
46-54 the French fought the Vietminh, Pethat Lao, etc. During Vietnam the US dragged our SEATO allies into Vietnam, including Korea, Australia and New Zealand although none had many troops compared to the US or South Vietnam. The British assisted the French in reoccupying Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) and did some interesting things to stop the Vietminh - which included fighting and arming Japanese POWs to fight.
Slashdot Mirror
> How many of those would have been solved
> without the program? I'd like to see a
> head-to-head, although I assume most
> police forces don't have the manpower to
> devote 2 seperate teams to the same
> crimes.
I don't think an increase in the proportion of crimes solved is neccesarily the goal. The goal is to solve crimes more quickly. After all, this is just a more sophisticated version of the pegboard shown on every cop show.
Faster solutions to serial murder and rape cases mean fewer victims, which is a good thing. They also mean that the same detectives can solve more crimes in a year, even if the rate of closed cases stays the same. So this software makes a city safer, and makes its police more efficiant; even if the proportion ofr crimes solved remains the same.
"Only for the grunts. "
You'd be suprised. Low ranking Officers tend to die more frequently then enlisted because officers are expected to lead by example. High ranking officers tend to be fired when problems happen, so have the same incentive to do well as anyone in the Private Sector.
"Airbus is NOT an example of government effeciency. The only reason they have a chance is because Boeing killed the competition here and got fat and lazy."
Note that Boeing gets plenty of pork itself, in particular the contracts its Military Division gets are sweet deals.
"Huh? Please explain."
US Government pays R+D, then auctions off the rights to market the drug to drug companies. IIRC the only costs to the company is FDA approval and marketing. Somehow they manage to lose money anyway, but that's not really the government's fault.
"Yes, but gov's are worse. For example, if Intel wants to can an employee for downsizing or incompetance, very little will stand in the way. However, in the gov it would be a major deal."
Damn Unions.
"Yes, but navigating around obstacles and smhoozing consumes most their resources. They become political animals instead of productivity animals."
That's true of any large organization. People can't know everybody very well. A slick presentation for the 10-20 minutes they see you helps a career immeasureabely.
This is also true in a corporate world where the bottom line is hard to find -- how does a flashy website help Intel, for example? Or just about anything else Intel does, for that matter? R&D is obvously neccesary, as are fabs, but what about the rest of the company? Many of these positions are obviously neccesary for any modern technology company, but as they are impossible to quantify a guy who schmoozes effectively has a major career advantage over a guy who can't.
"I have heard some horror stories about military computing and culture in general. The military only has to out-compete other bumbling militaries."
Of course, the price of failure is death. That would tend to motivate me a hell of a lot more then the potential for losing some boring job.
Note that few military's are truely bumbling, as I said you bumble in a military organization and people die.
Just look at those certifiable idiots who killed 4 Canadian troops in Afghanistan; even if the beat the whole "Manslaughter" thing they're probably going to feel intense guilt every day for the rest of their lives.
"I will agree that gov has its place. But keeping pace with technology is not something that historically it has been good at. I have not been given any decent examples yet."
Airbus.
Soviet Military technology was consistantly where the Soviets wanted it to be relative to the West.
Prescription drugs are almost all government funded, then the rights are sold to private companies.
Anything space related.
Airbus. When a private company is out-competed by government it bears repeating.
BAe.
"They are very different. For one, there is much less of a hierarchy in the decision-making process. Second, if you want to add a certain feature, you don't have to fill out a million forms and have a million meetings, you JUST DO IT. If others like it, it stays, otherwise it fades. In gov agencies, such would be called "insubordination"."
That's true of any large organization -- you think Billy G lets his engineers just do shit?
Not even government has to be this way. Even in the military, with its million of employees, numerous forms, SOPs, paperwork, etc. Commanders tend to prefer people who get stuff done to folks who wait for the paperwork to go through.
"By developing their own CPU and operating system through official government sanction, it gives the government a way to effectively spy on Internet users because the government knows how everything works and will very likely use this knowledge to attempt such control."
[sarcasm]
I always new Reno was a Communist. That bitch, by pushing for open APIs in Windows she attempted to allow the PRC ultimate control over its people's computer use. Thank god John Ashcroft realized that obscurity=freedom; and that Microsoft's profit margins were analogous to democracy.
[/sarcasm]
The basic point is that the Chinese know how Windows works because MS told them. It knows how an Intel processor works because Intel publishes standards. They know TCP/IP, and every other standard their people use. If they want to install spy programs they can do it without a Chinese CPU.
The fact that they now fab their own chips won't change that. Oh my god, now they'll be able to ask their people why they used a RISC Arcitecture. Instead of, say, looking high and low for Intel press releases on the advantages of CISC -- and maybe even having to call an Intel PR person.
Skadet wrote:
"Finland: A files suit against B. A is richer than B, and drowns them in legal fees so they'll settle/lose/whatever. B loses and pays A + B's legal expenses. "
For one thing I doubt the strategy of drowning people in legal fees works in Finland -- US Courts are known for enforcing the letter of the law. A lengthy, expensive, legalistic argument over the interpretation of the 4th word of Section IIX, Subsection II, Clause 3, of a contract won't fly in most other systems because it won't matter. The Courts will try to figure out the spirit of the agreement rather then the letter.
Long legalistic arguments are what tend to make US Litigation so damned expensive. After all you need a team of lawyers (at $300 per hour per lawyer) to even understand what the other side is saying in such an argument.
The only other method to force someone to pay his lawyer is to constantly make motions. Even under US Law, making motions for motions sake is frowned upon. Because American Courts tend to focus on the letter of the law they tend to look at motions individually -- if there's a sensible reason for a motion to have been made they'll tend to let it slide. In other countrys the Courts would typically say "Fuck you" much more quickly.
Also, if you settle you haven't technically lost. Therefore you wouldn't be made responsible for legal fees.
Werdna wrote:
"Where a losing side pays a winner's expenses, it makes it difficult for poor folk to get competent counsel when they are plaintiffs. The contingency fee, with all its serious problems, is in fact, the only way many people of even moderate means can get justice. Without the contingency fee, only rich folks tend to be able to be plaintiffs"
You could implement a contingency fee with this system. Just add it to the penalty -- ie: a 33% Contingency raises a $1 million judgement to $1,333,333.
"Therein lies the essence of the problem. If nobody cares what the words on the degree are, then why bother getting one, because, in essense, what you are saying, is that it simply doesn't mean anything."
Having a degree means a lot. It means that you are willing to work, it means that you can follow complex instructions from obtuse Profesors, and it means that you have basic anlytical skills.
Having a degree is important; people with degrees have proven they can perform many tasks their employers ask of them. The specific type of degree is only important for technical degrees.
"Yes, but how many market traders are astrophysicists? "People don't really care about the words on the degree" ??? With your argument, I might as well have gotten a degree in philosophy to become an engineer. It's all the same thing, right? We all can think the same, right? Preposterous..."
Within liberal arts nobody cares about the words. ie: a degree that says "Philosophy" is as good as a degree that says "History", "Political Science", "Sociology" "African-American studies", "American Culture", or whatever.
For technical jobs you ussually need a specific degree. ie: Computer programmers need Comp Sci or CE. Chip designers need EE. Same goes for Math, Science, and Engineering degrees.
Sometimes even in these fields you don't need a specific degree -- a good programmer can get work even if his degree is in Botany.
Do a few classes a term.
The rule of thumb is 2 hours coursework for every hour in class. So figure out how much time you want to spend a week, and do those many hours/3 until you graduate.
Focus on courses you really care about -- I'm much happier now that I've left CE for political Sciene and History. I'd do this stuff anyway, now I get credit for it.
You should realize that one Liberal Arts degree is as good as another, if your passion is something that is technically useless (Philosophy, Art history) you should major in that. You'll do well, and nobody really cares what the words on the degree are.
You may be able to save time by taking courses you already know -- if your business ws web design you might want to take a course on PERL. If you already know it you'll do well without effort; and if you don't you'll be doing training you should do anyway.
In short, you should focus on the shit you'd do even if you weren't in school. I read about politics for fun, so I do PoliSci. I don't do CompSci because I've never gotten around to reading any of my dozen or so programming books. You should also manage your time wisely -- but you have a business so tyou know about that.
"No, but that's why Windows is so popular. Unlike using the Mac, where there's typically NOBODY in your city using a Mac except you, Windows users are so abundant that there's a ready supply of pirated software. "
Most CFOs don't think that way because they know a good proportion of people buy most of their programs...
"The software cost of using Windows is effectively ZERO. They pay NOTHING. I know people who have 200 CD's of burned stuff and Gigs of unburned stuff on their hard drives. Hasn't slowed the Windows juggernaut any, and most of the Win32 software vendors are doing okay. "
Same with knowledgeable Mac folks. Hotline is good.
"No, it's not fear of piracy that holds companies back. The real reason (same with OS X) is that 3% of the market ain't worth supporting, especially on the unfamiliar terrain of a new OS! "
The post I was responding to was about how gret it was that LINUX was going to get the commercial programs that are only Win/Mac now. Stuff like Dreamweaver, Photoshop, video editing software, legal DVD codecs, etc.
Not likely.
First, LINUX is free. What CFO is going to approve spending any cash on people who love free software? He may be wrong, but he'll assume you-all'll buy one copy and pirate it 300,000 times.
Second 95% of the LINUX market is x86 hardware. x86 hardware that came with Windows. x86 hardware that can already run his program. Why port? No new sales.
Third, LINUX is used mostly by people who don't buy software unless they really want it. Macusers paid a $300+ Apple Tax. Who's more likely to buy a software package, somebody who cheers when a free product clones a commercial product, or people who are willing to pay a premium for hardware?
Anyone who uses GIMP stand up. You try to run Adobe out of business, and then you complain that Adobe doesn't like you enough to port Photoshop. Come on now.
You all might get games, but that's doubtful. Your hardwre is typically too old and crappy to run them; and you could just use WINE/re-boot anyway. You give software companies no new revenue.
"2. US suburbs tend to have a lot of sprawl - individual properties are quite large and so the number of houses per square mile is few."
As many Canadians have pointed; most Canada is even worse and most of it has broadband for aabout $30 a month. Even if you were 100% right you'd still have this problem: much of the US does nopt live in outer suburtbs with low population densities. For example, 20% of Michigan lives in a single county, that's geographically smaller then a typical county. For some reason 2 million people, concentrated in a single county, are unable to decent service.
"Many other countries tend to have very clustered population centers. This is why both public transit and broadband work much better in Europe."
Scotland has a lower population density (66) then the US (70). They manage decent broadband and public trtansportation.
"30 percent of your population lives in a relatively tiny area around Vancouver and Toronto."
Note that he specified he was from Alberta. Small town Alberta is more boondocky then Wyoming.
Also note that the same could be said of the US. Most states have 40-50% of their populations concentrrated in one or two cities -- in MI, for example, the "Metro Detroit Area" consists of over 40% of the population; but only covers 3 of our 83 counties. Then there's smaller metro areas like Grand Haven and Port Huron. You can say the same about the nation as a whole.
If a huge chunk of a large market is can be hooked up to broadband so easily, why isn't it happening? Even Canada's boonies get hooked up, why isn't it happening in major cities?
I nominate this post for most blatent troll. It takes talent to insult Catholics, Gays, and Macusers in a single post.
Language is always debateble. The basic point stands even if they are two seperate languages: If two different labnguages are mutually intelligible a device used for translating one works on the other, and is therefore more useful to the US Army then a device for translating French.
/ languag e/serbocroat/g uage.asp?code=S RC
Here's the other side:
http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~spkraus1/catalyst
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lan
They have some excellant points, most importantly that people who speak one language frequently can't understand each other; so if Serbs and Croatians can it doesn't make much sense to call them seperate languages.
For example, English speakers can't understand each other much of the time -- I just watched Gosford Park with someone who's wasn't into shit like Monty Python, the only non-American accent he understood was the American with a fake Scottish accent -- so it makes little sense to claim that Serbian and Croatian are completely different languages.
Especially since Croat is the language spoken in Bosnia and Serbia (it's ussually called "Serbo-Croat").
That means this'll let our troops be better understood in Kosovo, and the Bosnian mission. Most other places the Army has longstanding relationships so they don't need a computer translator.
Basically the Army doesn't need a Chinese translator and they're paying the bills...
>The DEA, can, as far as I know, use
> informants if they so choose. Corporations
> make wonderfull informants as they rarely
> have a sence of morality attached to them.
> Were the DEA forcing Amtrack to give these
> passanger lists over, that would be a
> Constitutional question (unreasonable
> search etc) but paying them is something
> else entirely.
Amtrak is another Government agency so there may be a constitutional issue there. I don't know if the DEA can use all government records to locate suspects, if they can then this is fine. Otherwise, I would guess the courts may have a problem with using billing information that would not seem incriminating to search a bag. Who would think that paying cash would make you subject to a government search?
Nick
Amtrak are a government agency. They were created in the '60s (or so - somewhereback there) when passenger service ceased to be profitable, unfortuneately it was needed in many areas (particularly New England) so Uncle Sam stepped in and operates Amtrak with the help of local railroads. I dubt that companies would do this - if it came out that Greyhound was spying on it's customers most of them would use cars. Amtrak has a relatively captive audience, and are ussually able to get whatever they need to make up a budget shortfall because at budget-time Congress has so many other issues that a bankrupt rail service is priority #876. The fact that the GOP controls Congress makes cooperation with the Feds a great budget move. The GOP, for all it's claims of being more "pro-freedom" then the Democrats, has traditionally been more in favor of privacy violationsas long as they nail a few criminals.
Even if we all stopped riding Amtrak today, nothing short of massive protests will make them stop. Taking a revenue hit will actually help them:
"Well Congressmen, revenue is down because we started turning all passengers with outstanding warrents over to the cops and the ACLU is raising hell..."
Nick
>This reminds me of a little lesson from US
> history. Andrew Jackson wanted to move an
> American Indian tribe (the Cherokees) from
> Georgia. The Indians appealed, and the
> Supreme Court said that the federal
> government couldn't deport the Indians.
> Jackson told the court, "oh yeah, try to stop
> me" and the Indians were forced to walk.
> Their forced trip is now known as the "Trail of
> Tears."
Know all about it, but there are important differences in this case. First Jackson was much bolder then the UK is. They aren't going to ignore their own courts when they're in the middle of yelling at Zimbabwe for ignoring it's courts. We know this because they have not penalized the royal family of Sealand for capturing the citizens of their allies, the British told said allies they couldn't help because of their Court decision, or shooting at the Navy.
>Until there is a public outcry or the courts get
>guns and cops of their own, the federal
>branch (or in the case of a parlimentary
>system like England, the legislative branch)
>can do what it wants, more or less.
In the UK's case, this would seem to be follow the rule of law and do whatever the courts tell them. They tried to arrest these guys for shooting at the royal navy, the courts said they couldn't do it, and Parlament hasn't had the Chutzpah to go agianst their own courts since '68 so further action will probabably not happen.
Nick
>Probably not, since action would be a
> internal matter, it would be handled by the
> Police, not the military.
If ithey do that they have two problems, first Sealand is armed and standard UK police are not (this would probably be handled by the Coast Guard and I don't know if they are armed). Second, it would be illegal to do so under UK law. Their courts have ruled UK law does not apply to Sealand, and since the Cops can only enforce UK law...
Nick
>That sounds like nonsense to me. For one
>thing: when has it stopped the US before?
Never, but other countries like to follow international law and the US is not going to bother blowing up Sealand. We're to busy blowing up Iraq.
> Secondly, it assumes that third parties
> actually recognise Sealand.
The most important third party (UK courts) do. If the UK take Sealand they have a huge legal problem in that their courts will rule that they are there illegally and order them out.
> Let's face it, if Britain decided to use force,
> do you seriously think anyone is going to
> give a damn?
The Prince of Sealand will, and he has won cases involving the soveriegnty of Sealand before.
Nick
>Hardly since any actions would be carried
>out under UK law, by the UK Courts & Police.
They've tried, but UK courts have ruled that UK law does not apply as Sealand is not in the UK.
Nick
>In FACT, it's really all the Frenchies fault - we
> vowed to give Vietnam back to the
>Vietnameese for their assistance during
>World War II, and never did - why? Because
> the French asserted it was theirs and they'd
> do what they damn well pleased with it.
That was Roosevelt's idea, but Truman didn't dislike Colonialism as much as FDR did. He ended up paying for 80% of the French war effort, to avoid the GOP charging he lost Vietnam. The French wanted to pull out after a few years of fighting, and the only way to stop them was pay them off.
Nick
>The "Australians, the English" were not there,
> the French were there for a while because it
> was one of their former colonies,
46-54 the French fought the Vietminh, Pethat Lao, etc. During Vietnam the US dragged our SEATO allies into Vietnam, including Korea, Australia and New Zealand although none had many troops compared to the US or South Vietnam. The British assisted the French in reoccupying Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) and did some interesting things to stop the Vietminh - which included fighting and arming Japanese POWs to fight.
Nick