Everyone hates LinuxOne enough as it is.... if it went and dominated the Chinese market can you imagine the stories that would get posted on Slashdot?
And I'm only partly joking...
I don't have any problem with the Chinese - I'm one of the few people (it seems to me) who wouldn't mind if the Chinese govenment had declared Linux to be their official Operating System. I don't like LinuxOne much, though.
That reminds me... time to go and keep the Anti-LinuxOne-IPO stuff going on all the stock boards I can find.
(d) in response to the MPA and DVD CCA?s anti-piracy efforts, including cease and desist letters, defendants Vogt, Blank, and Doe defendants 4, 9, 23 and 37 provide a ?Note to the lawyers and other scum ? It was the DVD consortium that f***up, ?[;]?
So-called "free sex" carries many consequences outside of the immediate act, whether mutually consented to or not. Or does, for example, a wife not have the right to divorce an unfaithful husband?
Of course they do - although agian, that depends on the culture. I'll make a moral judgement here, and say it is right that a wife can divorce an unfaithful husband.
What has that got to do with pornography?
More to the point, I would much prefer to hear your views on this:
I have travelled through several countries with different customs, and, from what I have observed, it is the countries with the most restrictive sexual laws that treat women as objects. If you have any doubts about that, visit both Sweden and Saudi Arabia.
In case you don't know, in Sweden nudity and sex scenes are carried on Television, during the day. In Saudi Arabia no porn is allowed at all.
Sweden leads the world in sexual equality, while in Saudi Arabia women can't vote - and are treated pretty badly.
Now if porn is harmful, why are women better off in Sweden than in Saudia Arabia? (I do realize that better off is a moral judgement, too. I know the arguement of Iranians and the Taliban in Afganistan that keeping women out of the work force and forcing them to keep to their dress code protects them. I don't agree with it - do you?)
While some of us are not totally opposed to that idea, I would love to hear who's system of law (if any) you would propose to use. (Don't even think about suggesting that joke the US Law is.)
I have always had one small problem with semi-anarchist arguements like yours. You say:
"Some laws are undoubtebly necessary to prevent complete anarchy, such as the provisions against murder, theft, and the like, but I don't think preventing minors from viewing pornography falls in this category of laws."
How do we choose which laws we need? Do we just vote or something on it? That's probably not a great idea - scare campaigns are easy to run, and, again, like you said:
[snip]"the majority agrees with it. This, of course, does not make it a good, moral, or ethical law. The majority approved of slavery in the United States, and Hitler was a pretty popular guy in his country."
Does everyone get to choose which laws they follow? The problems with that should be obvious.
I've been thinking a lot over the last couple of years about the "Internet boom" in stock prices - wondering when it will end, etc.
I have a bit of a theory that Internet companies like Amazon.com (not talking about VA Linux) will become the norm in the next few years, and people will expect Price/Earnings ratios of a few hundred (or whatever Amazon's is) instead of the tens we see for non internet companies at the moment.
I think that the advantage of the Internet is that it allows very low margin businesses to survive by relying on a large volume of transactions. This leads to very low profits, but domination of the market, which is growing - and will be for quite a while when we take the global market into account.
Take Amazon.com (I have no idea if the figures are right, but follow the example & correct the figures, if you don't mind) - say they sell their books at 5% above cost. Now probably 4.8% of that goes on costs - leaving 0.2% profit. Now because they are so big, and sell so many books, that adds up to a reasonable amount.
While the barriers to entry are low on the Internet, there is now the whole "Amazon mindshare factor" which need to be combatted - with money. The only companies that really have enough money to take Amazon on are the already established companies (except in specilized areas).
Now, obviously, Amazon is overvalued in comparison to establised (non-book) companies. But should the value of the establised (non.com) comapanies go up, or should Amazons go down?
Well, the Internet does allow non -.com companies to cut costs in the same way as Amazon has. When they do this, they might have to cut profits - which reduces the P/E ratio. Now if the company is making very low profits, but is dominating the industry, perhaps it is a good long term bet - those profits allow it to stay ahead of the competition, which has to cut its own margins and profits to even try and compete.
If all companies, in all sectors of the market begin to drift towards this low profit, high volume model, perhaps we will see a correction in the compatitive value of each company and sector of the market.
I know this low-profit, high-margin idea isn't going to popular with those fans of the high-profit, small "one man" company thing, but I don't see it being a long term proposition, except in emerging sectors of the market.
I'd love to hear what someone who knew what they were talking about thought about this - although I guess no one really does.
I bet that the moderator won't post their reasons, sadly. The same thing happened to me a couple of days ago, and I did what you did, and my question to the moderator got marked Off Topic which, while I guess was true was a little annoying considering the number of "Grit" posts still with a Score of 1 and 0!
Someone (I'm assuming it was the same person) disagreed with my views enough to burn 2 moderation points on it! I should be flattered, I guess.
It's a perfect example of why moderation should not be anonymous.
SOAP (and XML-RPC) is cross platform, and is implemented in many languages. It's simple, and runs over HTTP.
It doesn't have a standard service discovery mechanism, though.
It's a pity that just because Microsoft was involved in the RFC's most people on Slashdot are going to hate it.
If MS really does use SOAP for the new verion of DCOM/COM+, then it could be a great for for Linux client software to "leverage existing investments in legecy Windows software" (Tell that to your manager.. they will love it!)
I appreiciated it when someone moderated me up. I would have felt bad if my post had gone above a 4, but a 2 (which I always post at) or 3 was about right, I thought.
Maybe I should have left out the "This is not a Troll" thing, but it isn't. I do believe what I said, and I thought my post made sense. I wasn't Karma Whoring, and I didn't missspell too much.
Once it had got to a three, why did you moderate it down? I don't care about the Karma - I've got Karma to burn, but I am concerned that you just attempted to hide an alternative viewpoint to your own.
Please post your reasoning. (In case you don't realise, you can log out from your account, and then post as an AC)
A lot of people here seem to be suggesting that this report would classify them as mentally ill becuase they like to be on their own, rather than socialize.
I don't think this report is talking about that. I'll post the bit that seems to be most appropriate. Make your own conclusions, but to me, this is very different from the computer geek type of person who is so forthright about their opinions on Slashdot. (From http://www.nih.gov/mhsgrpt/chap ter4/sec2.html#types)
Social Phobia Social phobia, also known as social anxiety disorder, describes people with marked and persistent anxiety in social situations, including performances and public speaking (Ballenger et al., 1998). The critical element of the fearfulness is the possibility of embarrassment or ridicule. Like specific phobias, the fear is recognized by adults as excessive or unreasonable, but the dreaded social situation is avoided or is tolerated with great discomfort. Many people with social phobia are preoccupied with concerns that others will see their anxiety symptoms (i.e., trembling, sweating, or blushing); or notice their halting or rapid speech; or judge them to be weak, stupid, or "crazy." Fears of fainting, losing control of bowel or bladder function, or having one's mind going blank are also not uncommon. Social phobias generally are associated with significant anticipatory anxiety for days or weeks before the dreaded event, which in turn may further handicap performance and heighten embarrassment.
The 1-year prevalence of social phobia ranges from 2 to 7 percent (Table 4-1), although the lower figure probably better captures the number of people who experience significant impairment and distress. Social phobia is more common in women (Wells et al., 1994). Social phobia typically begins in childhood or adolescence and, for many, it is associated with the traits of shyness and social inhibition (Kagan et al., 1988). A public humiliation, severe embarrassment, or other stressful experience may provoke an intensification of difficulties (Barlow, 1988). Once the disorder is established, complete remissions are uncommon without treatment. More commonly, the severity of symptoms and impairments tends to fluctuate in relation to vocational demands and the stability of social relationships. Preliminary data suggest social phobia to be familial (Rush et al., 1998).
Take depression, for instance. Clinical depression is the flu of mental illnesses. It is easily treated by counselling and, if nessesarry, drugs. It kills a lot of people, though.
Why is that different to someone who is (say) going blind? They no longer see the world they way other people do. Things they used to be able to do easily they can no longer do. Some forms of blindness can be treated - but counselling is always needed.
What's the difference? Is it just the stigma attached to having something wrong with your head?
I know a girl who is increadibly smart, funny, pretty and wonderful. She stopped breathing at birth, and nearly died. If they hadn't got oxygen to her she would have been severly brain damaged. As it is, she occasionally has short (1-2 second) blackouts where she "loses time".
Is omething like that a mental illness or a physical illness.
Yes, there are differneces, but no more between mental illnesses and physical ones that different physical ones.
Sure people (teachers, media etc) treat people who are different as mentally ill.
That is not what this report is talking about.
So as not to bore everyone, the only thing in this report that remotely relates to
Someone who prefers to be a loner or not socially active. Someone who prefers computers to physical sports. Someone who'd rather read a book than go freeze at a football game. People with ideas and ideals that aren't "mainstream".
is the problem of social phobia which is something very different to the typical loner/computer geek person.
Did you actualy read the report? (or even the Slashdot story for that matter?)
It's not talking about drugging people. It's calling for more properly trained people to, as you say, work though it
If our culture is experiencing such a signifcant display of mental illness, I think there's something fundamentally wrong. What can you expect from a nation whose citizens' ambitions are mostly to get stock options and be a celebrity?
Given this, and given that it is not possible to treat the cause in all those already effected, what is wrong with at least attempting to treat the symptoms?
Remember how the goverments of the world got together and eliminated smallpox? That wasn't bad, was it?
You know that some physical diseases (eg Cholera (sp?) ) can only be defeated by combatting the symptoms (in Cholera's case, dehydration). If some mental illness can be treated the same, I would think that would be a good thing.
Here in Australia (and, I believe in Britain) the government is cutting funding to public mental health facilities.
They are turning what should be places of long term care for the very sick into short term hotel rooms for people after major mental trama. The people are then pushed back into the community as soon as they are deemed to be able to "cope on their own"
Of course, many can't and end up on the streets. Others, as you mentioned kill themselves, and in the worse case kill others.
Australia's worse mass-murder was commited by someone who had spent time in a mental insitution. He was then allowed to buy guns - because there was no system to check up on him.
It was this tragedy that ended up meaning Australians had to give up their semi-automatic weapons.
I would love to hear how someone would propose to get around this one without "tagged, drugged and relased under surveillance". Sure - don't relase him is the obvious answer, but he had been well enough to live normally for a number of years before he relapsed and killed 30+ people.
It's way too easy to say "Keep the government out of it" or something. I want to hear a solution, not political bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone hates LinuxOne enough as it is.... if it went and dominated the Chinese market can you imagine the stories that would get posted on Slashdot?
And I'm only partly joking...
I don't have any problem with the Chinese - I'm one of the few people (it seems to me) who wouldn't mind if the Chinese govenment had declared Linux to be their official Operating System. I don't like LinuxOne much, though.
That reminds me... time to go and keep the Anti-LinuxOne-IPO stuff going on all the stock boards I can find.
I suspect the DeCSS hearing. See yesterday's (? - timezones muck me around) story.
And that, my friends is exactly what I'm talking about.
Hmmm... a Xerox STAR (is that what it was called?) theme.. now there is an idea. If only I knew what it looked like.
Okay, an object oriented library is nice, but easier to use for MFC programmers?!?!?! I hope the QT people don't see you saying that!
So that's okay, right?
What are you, some kind of lawyer?
Only send nice, well reasoned letters, of course:
DVD Copy Control Association
225 B Cochrane Circle
Morgan Hill CA 95037
EMAIL: john.hoy@lmicp.com
From: http://www.dvdcca.org/contact.html
You never know... if you look you might even find a copy of the source code there, too..... VBG.... I do like the "Page Title", though!
Perhaps they should summon themselves?
Give this idea a couple of points.
Flyers, T-Shirts - hell, hire an airplane to write the code in the sky with smoke.
from the summons:
If you're not, there's always a bed here in if you need to flee the country.
Of course, here is Australia, so it's probably not the best place to come, but the offers there, anyway.
Of course they do - although agian, that depends on the culture. I'll make a moral judgement here, and say it is right that a wife can divorce an unfaithful husband.
What has that got to do with pornography?
More to the point, I would much prefer to hear your views on this:
In case you don't know, in Sweden nudity and sex scenes are carried on Television, during the day. In Saudi Arabia no porn is allowed at all.
Sweden leads the world in sexual equality, while in Saudi Arabia women can't vote - and are treated pretty badly.
Now if porn is harmful, why are women better off in Sweden than in Saudia Arabia? (I do realize that better off is a moral judgement, too. I know the arguement of Iranians and the Taliban in Afganistan that keeping women out of the work force and forcing them to keep to their dress code protects them. I don't agree with it - do you?)
You seem to be promoting a one-world-law.
While some of us are not totally opposed to that idea, I would love to hear who's system of law (if any) you would propose to use. (Don't even think about suggesting that joke the US Law is.)
I have always had one small problem with semi-anarchist arguements like yours. You say:
How do we choose which laws we need? Do we just vote or something on it? That's probably not a great idea - scare campaigns are easy to run, and, again, like you said:
Does everyone get to choose which laws they follow? The problems with that should be obvious.probably means it took him longer to get than normal.
That's not a bad idea!
If everyone who has a spare couple of $hundred (more is better of course) did this, it would send a pretty good message, too.
You should put a link to this up on a couple stock boards, too.. that would scare the DayTraders off.
I'm interested in this for various reasons.
I've seen one on Apache/Perl/Mod_Perl on BSD and Linux, and the performance on each. I'd love to see more.
I've been thinking a lot over the last couple of years about the "Internet boom" in stock prices - wondering when it will end, etc.
I have a bit of a theory that Internet companies like Amazon.com (not talking about VA Linux) will become the norm in the next few years, and people will expect Price/Earnings ratios of a few hundred (or whatever Amazon's is) instead of the tens we see for non internet companies at the moment.
I think that the advantage of the Internet is that it allows very low margin businesses to survive by relying on a large volume of transactions. This leads to very low profits, but domination of the market, which is growing - and will be for quite a while when we take the global market into account.
Take Amazon.com (I have no idea if the figures are right, but follow the example & correct the figures, if you don't mind) - say they sell their books at 5% above cost. Now probably 4.8% of that goes on costs - leaving 0.2% profit. Now because they are so big, and sell so many books, that adds up to a reasonable amount.
While the barriers to entry are low on the Internet, there is now the whole "Amazon mindshare factor" which need to be combatted - with money. The only companies that really have enough money to take Amazon on are the already established companies (except in specilized areas).
Now, obviously, Amazon is overvalued in comparison to establised (non-book) companies. But should the value of the establised (non .com) comapanies go up, or should Amazons go down?
Well, the Internet does allow non - .com companies to cut costs in the same way as Amazon has. When they do this, they might have to cut profits - which reduces the P/E ratio. Now if the company is making very low profits, but is dominating the industry, perhaps it is a good long term bet - those profits allow it to stay ahead of the competition, which has to cut its own margins and profits to even try and compete.
If all companies, in all sectors of the market begin to drift towards this low profit, high volume model, perhaps we will see a correction in the compatitive value of each company and sector of the market.
I know this low-profit, high-margin idea isn't going to popular with those fans of the high-profit, small "one man" company thing, but I don't see it being a long term proposition, except in emerging sectors of the market.
I'd love to hear what someone who knew what they were talking about thought about this - although I guess no one really does.
Don't you just hate that?
Looks like you got moderated back up, though.
I bet that the moderator won't post their reasons, sadly. The same thing happened to me a couple of days ago, and I did what you did, and my question to the moderator got marked Off Topic which, while I guess was true was a little annoying considering the number of "Grit" posts still with a Score of 1 and 0!
Someone (I'm assuming it was the same person) disagreed with my views enough to burn 2 moderation points on it! I should be flattered, I guess.
It's a perfect example of why moderation should not be anonymous.
I agree with your post, BTW.
SOAP (and XML-RPC) is cross platform, and is implemented in many languages. It's simple, and runs over HTTP.
It doesn't have a standard service discovery mechanism, though.
It's a pity that just because Microsoft was involved in the RFC's most people on Slashdot are going to hate it.
If MS really does use SOAP for the new verion of DCOM/COM+, then it could be a great for for Linux client software to "leverage existing investments in legecy Windows software" (Tell that to your manager.. they will love it!)
I appreiciated it when someone moderated me up. I would have felt bad if my post had gone above a 4, but a 2 (which I always post at) or 3 was about right, I thought.
Maybe I should have left out the "This is not a Troll" thing, but it isn't. I do believe what I said, and I thought my post made sense. I wasn't Karma Whoring, and I didn't missspell too much.
Once it had got to a three, why did you moderate it down? I don't care about the Karma - I've got Karma to burn, but I am concerned that you just attempted to hide an alternative viewpoint to your own.
Please post your reasoning. (In case you don't realise, you can log out from your account, and then post as an AC)
A lot of people here seem to be suggesting that this report would classify them as mentally ill becuase they like to be on their own, rather than socialize.
I don't think this report is talking about that. I'll post the bit that seems to be most appropriate. Make your own conclusions, but to me, this is very different from the computer geek type of person who is so forthright about their opinions on Slashdot. (From http://www.nih.gov/mhsgrpt/chap ter4/sec2.html#types)
Social Phobia
Social phobia, also known as social anxiety disorder, describes people with marked and persistent anxiety in social situations, including performances and public speaking (Ballenger et al., 1998). The critical element of the fearfulness is the possibility of embarrassment or ridicule. Like specific phobias, the fear is recognized by adults as excessive or unreasonable, but the dreaded social situation is avoided or is tolerated with great discomfort. Many people with social phobia are preoccupied with concerns that others will see their anxiety symptoms (i.e., trembling, sweating, or blushing); or notice their halting or rapid speech; or judge them to be weak, stupid, or "crazy." Fears of fainting, losing control of bowel or bladder function, or having one's mind going blank are also not uncommon. Social phobias generally are associated with significant anticipatory anxiety for days or weeks before the dreaded event, which in turn may further handicap performance and heighten embarrassment.
The 1-year prevalence of social phobia ranges from 2 to 7 percent (Table 4-1), although the lower figure probably better captures the number of people who experience significant impairment and distress. Social phobia is more common in women (Wells et al., 1994). Social phobia typically begins in childhood or adolescence and, for many, it is associated with the traits of shyness and social inhibition (Kagan et al., 1988). A public humiliation, severe embarrassment, or other stressful experience may provoke an intensification of difficulties (Barlow, 1988). Once the disorder is established, complete remissions are uncommon without treatment. More commonly, the severity of symptoms and impairments tends to fluctuate in relation to vocational demands and the stability of social relationships. Preliminary data suggest social phobia to be familial (Rush et al., 1998).
Mental illness covers a whole raft of things.
Take depression, for instance. Clinical depression is the flu of mental illnesses. It is easily treated by counselling and, if nessesarry, drugs. It kills a lot of people, though.
Why is that different to someone who is (say) going blind? They no longer see the world they way other people do. Things they used to be able to do easily they can no longer do. Some forms of blindness can be treated - but counselling is always needed.
What's the difference? Is it just the stigma attached to having something wrong with your head?
I know a girl who is increadibly smart, funny, pretty and wonderful. She stopped breathing at birth, and nearly died. If they hadn't got oxygen to her she would have been severly brain damaged. As it is, she occasionally has short (1-2 second) blackouts where she "loses time".
Is omething like that a mental illness or a physical illness.
Yes, there are differneces, but no more between mental illnesses and physical ones that different physical ones.
Sure people (teachers, media etc) treat people who are different as mentally ill.
That is not what this report is talking about.
So as not to bore everyone, the only thing in this report that remotely relates to
is the problem of social phobia which is something very different to the typical loner/computer geek person.Did you actualy read the report? (or even the Slashdot story for that matter?)
It's not talking about drugging people. It's calling for more properly trained people to, as you say, work though it
Like you said, the report is saying we need to:
Sometimes that's not as easy as you'd think.
Banning divorce of something?
I agree that:
Given this, and given that it is not possible to treat the cause in all those already effected, what is wrong with at least attempting to treat the symptoms?
Remember how the goverments of the world got together and eliminated smallpox? That wasn't bad, was it?
You know that some physical diseases (eg Cholera (sp?) ) can only be defeated by combatting the symptoms (in Cholera's case, dehydration). If some mental illness can be treated the same, I would think that would be a good thing.
Here in Australia (and, I believe in Britain) the government is cutting funding to public mental health facilities.
They are turning what should be places of long term care for the very sick into short term hotel rooms for people after major mental trama. The people are then pushed back into the community as soon as they are deemed to be able to "cope on their own"
Of course, many can't and end up on the streets. Others, as you mentioned kill themselves, and in the worse case kill others.
Australia's worse mass-murder was commited by someone who had spent time in a mental insitution. He was then allowed to buy guns - because there was no system to check up on him.
It was this tragedy that ended up meaning Australians had to give up their semi-automatic weapons.
I would love to hear how someone would propose to get around this one without "tagged, drugged and relased under surveillance". Sure - don't relase him is the obvious answer, but he had been well enough to live normally for a number of years before he relapsed and killed 30+ people.
It's way too easy to say "Keep the government out of it" or something. I want to hear a solution, not political bullshit.