...is a very slow writer. You can expect his next book in another couple of years. His latest novel is "The Last Dancer"; it's been out for a while, though there seems to be a special edition of it due out this month.
To that list of writers, in the SF category, I'd have to add Neal Stephenson, one of my favorites.
Warrior insurance? I've never heard it phrased in such a way, but yeah, that's consistent with the libertarian principle. Just so long as the premiums aren't "voluntary" the way the IRS means it. If I'd rather rely on a shotgun to protect my assets, that's my choice.
But frankly, that's an ideal we may never reach; authoritarianism of all types is too firmly entrenched. So investors will, for now, have to look for benign _governments_ rather than the complete lack of one.
That was just plain hysterical. I just followed the link to your reference about libertarians being hypocrites...
Most of those people who diametrically oppose libertarianism cite studies and statistics that either deliberately mislead, or outright lie; but that link, that takes the cake.
> The theory, supposedly, is that a one-time tax on
> the transfer of property rights can pay, in
> perpetuity, for all defense costs
Oh, hell no.
The pure form of libertarian philosophy doesn't rely on the nation providing defense -- or taking taxes -- at all. If someone, or a group of someones, owns a chunk of property, they must provide for its defense all by themselves. While private companies specializing in providing that defense as a service might spring up, they wouldn't be government.
That is an ideal, of course, and it may never be reached; but while such things as income taxes might be used to pay for some defense, those taxes would need to be kept at a reasonable level. Too high, and capital will look for other places with less overhead.
As a matter of fact, Somalia, while still digging itself out of the ashes of the past conflicts, is experiencing an enormous influx of venture capital. Should the government they eventually settle on keep out of economic affairs, it could become quite a powerhouse.
A better example would be Hong Kong. With little taxation and regulation hanging over their heads, companies based in Hong Kong became the center of the entire Far East economy, and was still growing in influence when the 1997 deadline rolled by and China took over. Now that Beijing is failing to resist sticking its fingers into the pot of honey, things aren't looking quite so up.
We have people on one side, saying globalization is the only way for third-world countries to climb into the light of financial security is globalization and free trade.
We have people on the other side, saying large companies exploit the resoruces and workforces of small countries, all in the name of profit.
Guess what? They're both right.
One facet of lassez-faire economics is that "capital goes where it is respected and appreciated." If a country's government promises that investments won't be stolen or confiscated, and backs up those oaths, then investments will be made and industry will develop. If investors fear the loss of their capital (especially when other investors have had assets nationalized previously), they will invest in business elsewhere, and that country will not have the opportunity to build industry. Government-sponsored industry growth works about as well as government-sponsored projects anywhere -- poorly. It takes the watchful eye of someone risking his own assets to run a truly successful business.
*gasp* But then the big corporations move in, building factories, mining out the land, paying piss-poor wages, exploiting the country! The free market doesn't work! We can't let these things happen!
I don't deny these incidents happen. But the fact is, they don't happen because of the free market. Many large corporations are mercenary in protecting their interests, and happily exploit corruptible government officials to further their bottom lines. When soldiers move in to suppress labor actions, or land is confiscated to build factories, this isn't an action of lassez-faire economics but of government interference.
It is easy to heap blame on the companies involved in such activities, but that wouldn't be the proper target for eliminating the problem. If graft and greed are the rules of the game, a corporation that won't play can't compete with one who does. Without the cooperation of corrupt officials, and a governmental system able to carry out the deeds, this interference couldn't happen.
The libertarian solution would therefore be to open a free market in property and labor and keep it open, while limiting the scope of a country's government to a point where its resources could not be misused to exploit its citizens.
Let me add that this is opposed to the World Bank's solution, which is to simply throw cash at governments, while trying to impose rules that keep them from confiscating capital. This replaces voluntary investments, where capitalists would be making sure their assets were used in the most effective ways, with involuntary investments (of tax revenues, yours and mine no less) that the government has no personal interest in protecting. And then they wonder why their intervention flops.
And the answer is... You can't depend on it. You can't even depend on one camera being identical in specs to another. These devices are made for the consumer market and aren't meant for scientific use.
This doesn't mean you can't use them, though. What it does mean is that you'll need to select something you're pretty sure can handle what you want, and then devise procedures for calibrating the devices' output.
You basically have two choices with respect to adapting open-source software for your purposes:
(1) Take a good look at the credits and people behind an open-source project. Pick out those whom you think are the most involved. Send them RFPs.
(2) Hire programmers, or a consulting company, to modify the source for you. It is OPEN, after all. While people you hire may not be as knowledgable about that project as those who are actively involved in building it, if they're good, they should be able to parse the source and go from there. There is an added benefit in that, if you're only using the software in-house, you'd be able to keep some enhancements proprietary and have an edge over your competitors.
If you're talking about spawning an entirely new open-source project, then it's no different from starting any programming project -- except you'd release the source code, and have some channel where people can send bug reports and patch suggestions.
So will this new system be locking its software's users into X86 and SVGA hardware? One of the appeals of Linux is its ability to run on different platforms. And while I can think of worse things than forcing people to use X86, it seems to me that a new de-facto video standard, probably targeted at hardcore gamers, could break the system.
From what I'd heard reported in Wired Magazine and other places, this had already been accomplished, mere weeks after the 9/11 attack.
Legally, they may even have a leg to stand on; they can argue that people using email or browsing the web have no "expectation of privacy", and they'd be right. Any one of a score of ISPs or individuals could be monitoring your email or browsing habits right now, and most people shrug it off.
Further, if you rely on a court's ruling that people aren't allowed to spy on your messages or browser use, you're even more of a fool. Even if you aren't concerned about the police using the information and then simply never revealing it as evidence, what about nerfarious individuals monitoring you for purposes of identity theft or fraud?
There's only one real solution, and that's cryptography. Routine, casual public-key encryption on internet transactions. We have the megaflops to do it now; all we need are the protocols.
Re:What a great combination!
on
Coder or Architect?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actually, a software architect is to a software engineer as a building architect is to a building engineer. An engineer can design a building easily enough, but it won't necessarily look pretty. An architect specializes in studying entire solutions, applying known formulae to new projects (such as a split-level-ranch style home design for your lot). The architect will mostly use components and designs that are already available, but must be skilled enough in engineering to fill in the blanks and make sure everything will work properly together. This is analogous to what a software architect does, which is to supervise the overall design of the software, making sure it is both solid and appealing to the end user.
That's a great combination of fields, coder and architect! You can write CAD software for designing buildings, or figure out exactly how to run your UTP cables, or position the windows so you don't have reflections off your monitors...
When a seller disappears without sending merchandise out that's already been paid for, it's a terrible thing for the people who've lost money. If the seller took the money and ran, it's also illegal.
But please, folks, keep in mind this happened before eBay and it'll keep on happening.
Retailers go under all the time, and they often take customers' money with them. Sometimes the officers will cut and run with the cash, too. Other times they simply went bankrupt and couldn't deliver what they promised.
A retailer can usually make more money keeping things together for a few months than it can by stealing and running away, so logically there's no reason to oommit theft. Unfortunately humans aren't always logical.
If you'll be listening on your home stereo, I'd recommend using MP3 at 192kbps, Ogg at around 160kbps, or better. But if you're ripping primarily for your car or portable, lower bitrates will probably be acceptable, since in both cases there'll be enough ambient noise to wash out the fine details anyway. Of course, if you use your portable in a quiet room, or listen to the stereo in your parked car with the windows closed, you might again consider higher bitrates.
Internet, USA: The online community was stunned when it discovered their favorite lampoon magazine, The Onion, was starting to run actual news stories.
"I was reading this article, expecting a laugh, but the laugh never came!" sobbed one long-time Onion reader. "I depend on the Onion to distract me from facts, and what do they do!" After speaking with us she left for her lawyer's office intending to sue.
Other online news entities were similarly stunned. Matt Drudge refused to talk with us; Joe Farah of World Net Daily simply stated, "it's war!" CmdrTaco of Slashdot said that "it'll be nice to have someone who actually REPORTS the news."
"Removing the balls of solder between the chip's packaging and the microprocessor core"...
Well, sure, that'd give you lots more room for transistors... It'd also give you a lot more room for defects to creep in. This is functionally no different from expanding the die size to the point where the CPU size is the same. While it might be less expensive than cutting fewer chips per wafer, it does nothing to increase the reliability of the process.
I think this is more of a pricing advance, and you'll see this lowering the cost of existing processor layouts, since you can decrease the die size without affecting the CPU design. But CPU size increases will still result in lower yield.
I'm running my 22" monitors at 1600x1200, and it's PLENTY high enough resolution for me. At the resolution the IBMs are running, you'd either have to sit 6" away, or use a magnifying glass, or turn your default fonts way, way up. Linux apps may be able to handle that but lots of Windows progs don't work right with nonstandard font sizes. And my dual flat-screen Viewsonic 22" monitors cost 1/10 as much as that thing.
I've had a lot of luck with Maxtor's newer model drives. I have several of their 80-gig HDs, and none has crapped out on me yet. And the price is right; Maxtor 80 giggers can be had at CompUSA for $200.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice to hear from you, Mr. Moran. :-)
...is a very slow writer. You can expect his next book in another couple of years. His latest novel is "The Last Dancer"; it's been out for a while, though there seems to be a special edition of it due out this month.
To that list of writers, in the SF category, I'd have to add Neal Stephenson, one of my favorites.
Warrior insurance? I've never heard it phrased in such a way, but yeah, that's consistent with the libertarian principle. Just so long as the premiums aren't "voluntary" the way the IRS means it. If I'd rather rely on a shotgun to protect my assets, that's my choice.
But frankly, that's an ideal we may never reach; authoritarianism of all types is too firmly entrenched. So investors will, for now, have to look for benign _governments_ rather than the complete lack of one.
ROFL
That was just plain hysterical. I just followed the link to your reference about libertarians being hypocrites...
Most of those people who diametrically oppose libertarianism cite studies and statistics that either deliberately mislead, or outright lie; but that link, that takes the cake.
> The theory, supposedly, is that a one-time tax on
> the transfer of property rights can pay, in
> perpetuity, for all defense costs
Oh, hell no.
The pure form of libertarian philosophy doesn't rely on the nation providing defense -- or taking taxes -- at all. If someone, or a group of someones, owns a chunk of property, they must provide for its defense all by themselves. While private companies specializing in providing that defense as a service might spring up, they wouldn't be government.
That is an ideal, of course, and it may never be reached; but while such things as income taxes might be used to pay for some defense, those taxes would need to be kept at a reasonable level. Too high, and capital will look for other places with less overhead.
As a matter of fact, Somalia, while still digging itself out of the ashes of the past conflicts, is experiencing an enormous influx of venture capital. Should the government they eventually settle on keep out of economic affairs, it could become quite a powerhouse.
A better example would be Hong Kong. With little taxation and regulation hanging over their heads, companies based in Hong Kong became the center of the entire Far East economy, and was still growing in influence when the 1997 deadline rolled by and China took over. Now that Beijing is failing to resist sticking its fingers into the pot of honey, things aren't looking quite so up.
Again, by reducing the scope of government. Reducing taxes and duties (preferably to zero) and eliminating regulations limiting growth of business.
A DVD movie is a stream of bits that is processed by hardware and converted into something humans use.
A software title is a stream of bits that is processed by hardware and converted into something humans use.
Content is basically another form of software.
Not to say that I approve of adding more restrictions, just because you can call it software... I don't approve of any restrictions, period.
But it's important to realize that bits are bits, and no matter what sort of content those bits make up, they're essentially alike.
We have people on one side, saying globalization is the only way for third-world countries to climb into the light of financial security is globalization and free trade.
We have people on the other side, saying large companies exploit the resoruces and workforces of small countries, all in the name of profit.
Guess what? They're both right.
One facet of lassez-faire economics is that "capital goes where it is respected and appreciated." If a country's government promises that investments won't be stolen or confiscated, and backs up those oaths, then investments will be made and industry will develop. If investors fear the loss of their capital (especially when other investors have had assets nationalized previously), they will invest in business elsewhere, and that country will not have the opportunity to build industry. Government-sponsored industry growth works about as well as government-sponsored projects anywhere -- poorly. It takes the watchful eye of someone risking his own assets to run a truly successful business.
*gasp* But then the big corporations move in, building factories, mining out the land, paying piss-poor wages, exploiting the country! The free market doesn't work! We can't let these things happen!
I don't deny these incidents happen. But the fact is, they don't happen because of the free market. Many large corporations are mercenary in protecting their interests, and happily exploit corruptible government officials to further their bottom lines. When soldiers move in to suppress labor actions, or land is confiscated to build factories, this isn't an action of lassez-faire economics but of government interference.
It is easy to heap blame on the companies involved in such activities, but that wouldn't be the proper target for eliminating the problem. If graft and greed are the rules of the game, a corporation that won't play can't compete with one who does. Without the cooperation of corrupt officials, and a governmental system able to carry out the deeds, this interference couldn't happen.
The libertarian solution would therefore be to open a free market in property and labor and keep it open, while limiting the scope of a country's government to a point where its resources could not be misused to exploit its citizens.
Let me add that this is opposed to the World Bank's solution, which is to simply throw cash at governments, while trying to impose rules that keep them from confiscating capital. This replaces voluntary investments, where capitalists would be making sure their assets were used in the most effective ways, with involuntary investments (of tax revenues, yours and mine no less) that the government has no personal interest in protecting. And then they wonder why their intervention flops.
And the answer is... You can't depend on it. You can't even depend on one camera being identical in specs to another. These devices are made for the consumer market and aren't meant for scientific use.
This doesn't mean you can't use them, though. What it does mean is that you'll need to select something you're pretty sure can handle what you want, and then devise procedures for calibrating the devices' output.
Do you work for that new "Homeland Security" agency??
You basically have two choices with respect to adapting open-source software for your purposes:
(1) Take a good look at the credits and people behind an open-source project. Pick out those whom you think are the most involved. Send them RFPs.
(2) Hire programmers, or a consulting company, to modify the source for you. It is OPEN, after all. While people you hire may not be as knowledgable about that project as those who are actively involved in building it, if they're good, they should be able to parse the source and go from there. There is an added benefit in that, if you're only using the software in-house, you'd be able to keep some enhancements proprietary and have an edge over your competitors.
If you're talking about spawning an entirely new open-source project, then it's no different from starting any programming project -- except you'd release the source code, and have some channel where people can send bug reports and patch suggestions.
So will this new system be locking its software's users into X86 and SVGA hardware? One of the appeals of Linux is its ability to run on different platforms. And while I can think of worse things than forcing people to use X86, it seems to me that a new de-facto video standard, probably targeted at hardcore gamers, could break the system.
From what I'd heard reported in Wired Magazine and other places, this had already been accomplished, mere weeks after the 9/11 attack.
Legally, they may even have a leg to stand on; they can argue that people using email or browsing the web have no "expectation of privacy", and they'd be right. Any one of a score of ISPs or individuals could be monitoring your email or browsing habits right now, and most people shrug it off.
Further, if you rely on a court's ruling that people aren't allowed to spy on your messages or browser use, you're even more of a fool. Even if you aren't concerned about the police using the information and then simply never revealing it as evidence, what about nerfarious individuals monitoring you for purposes of identity theft or fraud?
There's only one real solution, and that's cryptography. Routine, casual public-key encryption on internet transactions. We have the megaflops to do it now; all we need are the protocols.
Actually, a software architect is to a software engineer as a building architect is to a building engineer. An engineer can design a building easily enough, but it won't necessarily look pretty. An architect specializes in studying entire solutions, applying known formulae to new projects (such as a split-level-ranch style home design for your lot). The architect will mostly use components and designs that are already available, but must be skilled enough in engineering to fill in the blanks and make sure everything will work properly together. This is analogous to what a software architect does, which is to supervise the overall design of the software, making sure it is both solid and appealing to the end user.
That's a great combination of fields, coder and architect! You can write CAD software for designing buildings, or figure out exactly how to run your UTP cables, or position the windows so you don't have reflections off your monitors...
Huh?
A *SOFTWARE* architect?
Oh. Never mind.
testing please ignore.
:-)
This post shouldn't work due to a bug. If it is actually posted, please ignore it.
Here's a less expensive solution.
It can't do everything (it irks me that I can't log onto my 2K box through it), but it also doesn't limit you to a few feet away.
When a seller disappears without sending merchandise out that's already been paid for, it's a terrible thing for the people who've lost money. If the seller took the money and ran, it's also illegal.
But please, folks, keep in mind this happened before eBay and it'll keep on happening.
Retailers go under all the time, and they often take customers' money with them. Sometimes the officers will cut and run with the cash, too. Other times they simply went bankrupt and couldn't deliver what they promised.
A retailer can usually make more money keeping things together for a few months than it can by stealing and running away, so logically there's no reason to oommit theft. Unfortunately humans aren't always logical.
If you'll be listening on your home stereo, I'd recommend using MP3 at 192kbps, Ogg at around 160kbps, or better. But if you're ripping primarily for your car or portable, lower bitrates will probably be acceptable, since in both cases there'll be enough ambient noise to wash out the fine details anyway. Of course, if you use your portable in a quiet room, or listen to the stereo in your parked car with the windows closed, you might again consider higher bitrates.
Internet, USA: The online community was stunned when it discovered their favorite lampoon magazine, The Onion, was starting to run actual news stories.
"I was reading this article, expecting a laugh, but the laugh never came!" sobbed one long-time Onion reader. "I depend on the Onion to distract me from facts, and what do they do!" After speaking with us she left for her lawyer's office intending to sue.
Other online news entities were similarly stunned. Matt Drudge refused to talk with us; Joe Farah of World Net Daily simply stated, "it's war!" CmdrTaco of Slashdot said that "it'll be nice to have someone who actually REPORTS the news."
"Removing the balls of solder between the chip's packaging and the microprocessor core"...
Well, sure, that'd give you lots more room for transistors... It'd also give you a lot more room for defects to creep in. This is functionally no different from expanding the die size to the point where the CPU size is the same. While it might be less expensive than cutting fewer chips per wafer, it does nothing to increase the reliability of the process.
I think this is more of a pricing advance, and you'll see this lowering the cost of existing processor layouts, since you can decrease the die size without affecting the CPU design. But CPU size increases will still result in lower yield.
I'm running my 22" monitors at 1600x1200, and it's PLENTY high enough resolution for me. At the resolution the IBMs are running, you'd either have to sit 6" away, or use a magnifying glass, or turn your default fonts way, way up. Linux apps may be able to handle that but lots of Windows progs don't work right with nonstandard font sizes. And my dual flat-screen Viewsonic 22" monitors cost 1/10 as much as that thing.
I've had a lot of luck with Maxtor's newer model drives. I have several of their 80-gig HDs, and none has crapped out on me yet. And the price is right; Maxtor 80 giggers can be had at CompUSA for $200.
> owning that old Pentium 4 2GHZ computer
> will be illegal
Nope. Read the proposal. They're grandfathered in.