I don't recall whether photo on DL is optional in IN these days or it's just at the arguing stage. We have people around here who have religious objections to being photographed, who need government-issued ID for various purposes. Now that's probably in conflict with the new national standards. The fun never stops....
One little moving violation and you get pulled over. You have no license: suspicious. Run plates, check story. Things don't match up: suspicious. Check FBI notices. NOW things match up: VERY suspicious and the Feds come to talk with the locals and look you over. You will not be on your way anytime soon.
One U-turn and the mission is blown. Yeah, there is reason for the bad guys to worry about driving without a license.
Notice also that, while a well-heeled organization can afford expensive low-volume equipment, they are a lot more visible in a customer list of 2,000 than one of 20,000,000. Also look for efforts to coordinate laws among nations restricting or licensing the use of such specialized gear. People faking high-tech ID are going to have a lot more trouble hiding than they did when all you needed was an inkjet and a laminator, which are sold to just anyone and can be found everywhere.
Or it could be that they didn't want to hold up a big bill over some tiny rider that they could rescind later if it's important enough. That's why riders are created: to sneak through on the coattails of something more desirable.
Anyway, after years of handwringing over the creation of a national ID card, we effectively have one, so we're going to get experimental evidence to test all claims. This should be interesting.
Exactly. It's time, perhaps past time, to take steps whose consequences are well understood, and also to make prudent experiments in order to extend our understanding. But we *don't* fully understand the machine we're poking at. Making big changes without understanding could produce a future in which we've caused a lot of suffering and yet ended up with a situation different from, but no better than, the current projections. It could even be worse.
Take another look at the original posting. "Chaotic system." That means outputs >> inputs. Little errors can be amplified enormously.
The loop delay is also enormous, on the scale of decades or centuries. Go read Clarke's "A Meeting with Medusa" if you don't know what that means. In a nutshell: if we screw up, we'll go on screwing up for a long long time before we know.
We're talking, in essence, about terraforming our own planet while we continue living on it. Does that frighten you? It does me. Not enough to say "no", but enough to make me cautious.
Remember that we're the same species that made this mess. We've never cleaned up such a mess before. You think we're going to do the Right Thing immediately and always? I don't.
I sometimes wonder if anyone is looking into the possibility that the US government was convinced Saddam had WMDs because Saddam was working hard to make it look like he did, thinking that that would make the US shy.
The cost of collectiong the evidence. The cost of hiring lawyers to determine that they should collect the evidence. The cost of a server system. The cost of an AIX license. The cost of Genuine IBM installation and setup of said system and AIX. The cost of software engineers to set up, populate, and test a CMVC instance.
I recall seeing automobile coil springs made from concrete years ago (as a demonstration, not a production item). Was that in the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago (where they also have a whole roomful of things most people would never dream of doing with glass)?
Maybe it was these guys, and it took them 30 years to get it right? I should RTFM...okay, I did, and there's no mention of the spring I saw, so I dunno.
I'll grant that 30 years of research probably makes a significant difference in the result.
Funny, I never saw a toaster with gigs of removable storage, a 19" display, FireWire, and a state space of quadrillions of points. I think that the computer is, *of necessity*, a leeetle more complex than a toaster, and always will be. It's long past time for people who wish it weren't to get over it and join the rest of us in the real world.
Turn it around if you prefer: I never saw a word processor whose only preference was Light...Dark.
Einstein had it right: as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Y'know, some of us would consider that getting others to do the management and executive jobs for us, so that we can go on making enough money doing work we actually like, is the highest form of success.
And leadership doesn't always come from the top. Some of us "well-treated slaves" are leading in the aspects which matter most to us. When your boss relies on your recommendation, or even just changes his mind based on your input, you're a leader.
It takes two sets of qualities to be a successful founder with staying power. You need to be a person who generates great ideas and is able to follow them through to implementation -- that gives you a product or service which will grow your company. You also need to understand your business *as a business* so that you don't stupid away all the resources you need to support the development of great ideas.
The combination is rare in single individuals. The more usual approach is to bring one set of qualities or the other and hire what you don't have. But the business guys and the idea guys have got to respect each other and work together to preserve and grow the business they have. When either type comes to see the other as nonessential, the company is about to embark on a painful evolution which many similarly-managed companies have not survived.
Sometimes? I would say that it's essential at all times. Any number of companies have spiralled down toward mediocrity, and some much further, when the business folks overpowered the people who had the ideas that produced all the money.
If there's enough energy available, we can assemble something resembling current liquid fuels from whatever is handy. I'd rather have batteries or H2 but we don't *have* to give up liquid hydrocarbons if that's the most practical bridge to the future, so long as we have some way of collecting or liberating enough energy to run the process.
It might be inefficient, but nobody ever cared much about the efficiency of a wood fire when he was wet and cold.
I'd say that those are two different kinds of success. Much of the strife in this world seems to be generated by contact among people who believe that only one (either one) of these is success, and the other just wasted motion.
Go for whichever one contributes most to your motivation to get out of bed in the morning, but please remember that others are motivated by different things.
Well, then, since the recording industry is now part of the government, just wait until the next economic downturn when they find out that "their" tax has been reallocated to more pressing needs.:-}
Indeed, some of us will wind up owning a camphone, not because we wanted the camera or imagine ourselves ever using it, but because it's becoming difficult to find a phone that doesn't have one.
Well, really, would a U.S. company have enough collective expertise to know what's good in French or German libraries? The job should be done by he who is best able to do it.
"why must everything a competition, war, altercation?"
Because survival is more compelling than progress? Everything does not *have* to be a competition, but competition is much more likely to motivate most people than is economies of scale or division of labor, so it often comes to the fore.
It might be better to focus on efficient vs. inefficient competition. Competition by destroying the other guy leaves us with less, in the end, than competition by improving the world more than the other guy. Baseball is better when team A wins by playing better than team B, than when A wins by poisoning team B.
Political disasters can come from within the company as well as without. Today the motto is "don't be evil", but if, ten years from now, a changed management team decides, "this isn't making enough money -- scratch it and use the storage to expand the mail quotas", what would stop them? Don't trust one company to take care of you forever, no matter how nice they are today.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't recall whether photo on DL is optional in IN these days or it's just at the arguing stage. We have people around here who have religious objections to being photographed, who need government-issued ID for various purposes. Now that's probably in conflict with the new national standards. The fun never stops....
One little moving violation and you get pulled over. You have no license: suspicious. Run plates, check story. Things don't match up: suspicious. Check FBI notices. NOW things match up: VERY suspicious and the Feds come to talk with the locals and look you over. You will not be on your way anytime soon.
One U-turn and the mission is blown. Yeah, there is reason for the bad guys to worry about driving without a license.
Notice also that, while a well-heeled organization can afford expensive low-volume equipment, they are a lot more visible in a customer list of 2,000 than one of 20,000,000. Also look for efforts to coordinate laws among nations restricting or licensing the use of such specialized gear. People faking high-tech ID are going to have a lot more trouble hiding than they did when all you needed was an inkjet and a laminator, which are sold to just anyone and can be found everywhere.
Or it could be that they didn't want to hold up a big bill over some tiny rider that they could rescind later if it's important enough. That's why riders are created: to sneak through on the coattails of something more desirable.
Anyway, after years of handwringing over the creation of a national ID card, we effectively have one, so we're going to get experimental evidence to test all claims. This should be interesting.
Exactly. It's time, perhaps past time, to take steps whose consequences are well understood, and also to make prudent experiments in order to extend our understanding. But we *don't* fully understand the machine we're poking at. Making big changes without understanding could produce a future in which we've caused a lot of suffering and yet ended up with a situation different from, but no better than, the current projections. It could even be worse.
Take another look at the original posting. "Chaotic system." That means outputs >> inputs. Little errors can be amplified enormously.
The loop delay is also enormous, on the scale of decades or centuries. Go read Clarke's "A Meeting with Medusa" if you don't know what that means. In a nutshell: if we screw up, we'll go on screwing up for a long long time before we know.
We're talking, in essence, about terraforming our own planet while we continue living on it. Does that frighten you? It does me. Not enough to say "no", but enough to make me cautious.
Remember that we're the same species that made this mess. We've never cleaned up such a mess before. You think we're going to do the Right Thing immediately and always? I don't.
I sometimes wonder if anyone is looking into the possibility that the US government was convinced Saddam had WMDs because Saddam was working hard to make it look like he did, thinking that that would make the US shy.
Canopy hadn't given up its interest at the time SCO filed suit.
The cost of collectiong the evidence. The cost of hiring lawyers to determine that they should collect the evidence. The cost of a server system. The cost of an AIX license. The cost of Genuine IBM installation and setup of said system and AIX. The cost of software engineers to set up, populate, and test a CMVC instance.
"Oh, this'll run into money!" -- Gopher
If they do seek damages, I could see IBM offering to settle for 100% of whatever is left of SCO.
I recall seeing automobile coil springs made from concrete years ago (as a demonstration, not a production item). Was that in the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago (where they also have a whole roomful of things most people would never dream of doing with glass)?
Maybe it was these guys, and it took them 30 years to get it right? I should RTFM...okay, I did, and there's no mention of the spring I saw, so I dunno.
I'll grant that 30 years of research probably makes a significant difference in the result.
Funny, I never saw a toaster with gigs of removable storage, a 19" display, FireWire, and a state space of quadrillions of points. I think that the computer is, *of necessity*, a leeetle more complex than a toaster, and always will be. It's long past time for people who wish it weren't to get over it and join the rest of us in the real world.
Turn it around if you prefer: I never saw a word processor whose only preference was Light...Dark.
Einstein had it right: as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Y'know, some of us would consider that getting others to do the management and executive jobs for us, so that we can go on making enough money doing work we actually like, is the highest form of success.
And leadership doesn't always come from the top. Some of us "well-treated slaves" are leading in the aspects which matter most to us. When your boss relies on your recommendation, or even just changes his mind based on your input, you're a leader.
It takes two sets of qualities to be a successful founder with staying power. You need to be a person who generates great ideas and is able to follow them through to implementation -- that gives you a product or service which will grow your company. You also need to understand your business *as a business* so that you don't stupid away all the resources you need to support the development of great ideas.
The combination is rare in single individuals. The more usual approach is to bring one set of qualities or the other and hire what you don't have. But the business guys and the idea guys have got to respect each other and work together to preserve and grow the business they have. When either type comes to see the other as nonessential, the company is about to embark on a painful evolution which many similarly-managed companies have not survived.
Sometimes? I would say that it's essential at all times. Any number of companies have spiralled down toward mediocrity, and some much further, when the business folks overpowered the people who had the ideas that produced all the money.
If there's enough energy available, we can assemble something resembling current liquid fuels from whatever is handy. I'd rather have batteries or H2 but we don't *have* to give up liquid hydrocarbons if that's the most practical bridge to the future, so long as we have some way of collecting or liberating enough energy to run the process.
It might be inefficient, but nobody ever cared much about the efficiency of a wood fire when he was wet and cold.
Not to mention about a bazillion bearings which still crave oil.
I'd say that those are two different kinds of success. Much of the strife in this world seems to be generated by contact among people who believe that only one (either one) of these is success, and the other just wasted motion.
Go for whichever one contributes most to your motivation to get out of bed in the morning, but please remember that others are motivated by different things.
"Also with a high price like that (for a 60GB) how many sales are they going to lose(ipod or similar devices)?"
Oh, that's the whole idea. If nobody buys iPods anymore, problem solved (from the labels' point of view).
Well, then, since the recording industry is now part of the government, just wait until the next economic downturn when they find out that "their" tax has been reallocated to more pressing needs. :-}
Indeed, some of us will wind up owning a camphone, not because we wanted the camera or imagine ourselves ever using it, but because it's becoming difficult to find a phone that doesn't have one.
A legislature which can say "no" to the king has, however, quite a lot to do with democracy.
Go look at the Magna Carta. Be sure to check the date. The Brits definitely have seniority over us in this matter.
Well, really, would a U.S. company have enough collective expertise to know what's good in French or German libraries? The job should be done by he who is best able to do it.
"why must everything a competition, war, altercation?"
Because survival is more compelling than progress? Everything does not *have* to be a competition, but competition is much more likely to motivate most people than is economies of scale or division of labor, so it often comes to the fore.
It might be better to focus on efficient vs. inefficient competition. Competition by destroying the other guy leaves us with less, in the end, than competition by improving the world more than the other guy. Baseball is better when team A wins by playing better than team B, than when A wins by poisoning team B.
Political disasters can come from within the company as well as without. Today the motto is "don't be evil", but if, ten years from now, a changed management team decides, "this isn't making enough money -- scratch it and use the storage to expand the mail quotas", what would stop them? Don't trust one company to take care of you forever, no matter how nice they are today.