With an example that trivial it's a matter of personal preference. I prefer the space of writing it out across the lines, I know some (such as yourself) prefer it all in one line. Still can't understand why:-)
Let's say we have three branches, though, and each branch contains, ooh, 10 statements, and they're not common between the branches. Not really worth splitting into three procedures, but gets nasty if we put that all in one line.
Hence my preference for splitting it: once anything gets large it's definitely better, when it's small it's about 50-50.
Which is still ridiculous, given that XP won't give you more than one desktop.
You show me a way to get 15 people using the same non-server XP PC at the same time, each doing whatever they want, and I'll acknowledge that each of those 15 could justifiably need an individual license.
While only one can use it simultaneously, though, the point becomes ridiculous. I mean, are they seriously suggesting that people will run a small bunch of XP boxes then VNC into them from Linux terminals, dancing round until they find a free XP box? And, even if they did, why is this philosophically different from shared computer labs / hotdesking / pool laptops?
Looks to me like he's saying that, with 6 PCAnywhere users on an OEM copy, you'd need 7 licenses because the OEM license wouldn't cover any PCAnywhere sessions.
I still think this sort of thing is ridiculous and should be publicised as an example of just why so many of us want MS ground up into dust, but that seems to be the reasoning.
It's well known that Intel have a standing legal strategy of sueing any competitor against whom they have a halfway plausible case. They figure that, even if they lose, they can afford to keep the battle long enough to bankrupt the competitor. Which is essentially what Microsoft have done here.
Over here (UK), I understand we have the concept of 'vexatious litigants'. Essentially, if someone brings too many baseless, harassment lawsuits then they're barred from bringing more. Which would seem an excellent idea with this sort of thing...
A side issue is EULAs and other, similar documents on media. _We_ know that they are almost exclusively unenfoceable and not worth the electrons they're displayed on our screen with. But how well known is that? I would love to see them declared to be baseless legal intimidation of users and restricted somehow.
I have to say I found the whole system of counting for the US rather strange, seriously watching it in action for the first time. Over here we still have the potential for electoral college-style problems due to our constituency system, FWIW. I know of at least one case (1951 IIRC) where the party with the most votes lost the election.
Over here, postal votes have to arrive on or before polling day, while a normal vote is made by making a large cross in a box on a piece of paper. No problem with hanging chads or unclear ballots, while candidates are listed alphabetically.
When it comes to counting, all the votes from a particular constituency are taken to a central location, sorted according to answer and counted manually. If the margin of victory when every vote has been counted is within a certain limit (can't remember it, sorry) the votes are recounted. Again and again, until they're certain. Elections have been won by as few as two votes. When all that is finished and everyone is satisfied the result is correct, it's announced. Nothing until then bar exit polls.
In a representative democracy, it seems to me that nothing is more important than making sure that the votes of the people are correctly and completely counted. Surely this form of system is simpler and safer?
OK, my knowledge of the details of US politics is limited and I don't know which states are still pushing.
But the suggestion (which appears accurate) seems to be that the DOJ, once under Bush Republican control, decided that big business was wonderful and that monopolies were just fine and dandy, no matter what.
So, do any of the remaining states have upcoming elections? Are state governments in any of these likely to change within the next year or two to ones who'd roll over and let Microsoft tickle their bellys? Or, for that matter, if those who like the current settlement could pull out, would a reverse change be likely in any?
I don't know enough about law to comment in detail - and I'm a Brit anyway.
But it seems very, very strange to have a law but ban the state from punishing anyone under it. Isn't this effectively saying 'if you steal something, we're only going to make you give it back'?
If that's the case then violating antitrust law is an extremely sensible business tactic. If you get caught the worst that happens is that you're back where (they think) you started. And this is just if you get caught...
Folks, this just isn't a deterrent. If someone is playing as nasty as Microsoft is, they should be slapped about, and hard. Or they have every incentive to try and do exactly the same thing again.
Oh, comment? If we're just trying to keep them from maintaining their OS monopoly illegally, force them to sell Windows at the same price to anyone and let the OEMs do what they want with it. The OEMs are responsible for support, after all.
Sorry, not concentrating, just remembered something.
First CD I bought (Deep Purple in Rock Anniversary Edition, back in '95) was just over £14, which was pretty well standard then. So standard prices seem to have gone up a little, too.
Seriously, as a music buyer (yes, shoot me if you want, can't remember the last music I bought from an even remotely recent band so I'm at least helping to swing the demographics against Britney Spears...) I can't routinely get CDs for less than £11-12 in the _sales_. Chart stuff tends to sit at £12-13, older albums at £15-16. So, I watch the sales like a hawk and buy the old stuff when it hits the price of the chart stuff...
If you have maths to back up unit price falling, I'd love to see it. IME the standard selling price has been pretty constant for the last 3-4 years (before that I didn't buy many CDs so can't comment) while the sale price (the point where they seem to sell most CDs, a decent percentage of UK record chains are on permanent sale) has gone _up_ by £2-3 in that period.
What a surprise, at this price point I buy less CDs... I'd strongly suspect that at £10 each I spend more on music than I do at £12 and the stuff I buy has already paid off its production so we're just looking at (physical) production and stocking fees, guys. UK record execs - you are losing out from the current prices.
(-1, Wrong. Troll or daft, the eternal question...)
Catalytic converters have been legally required on all petrol cars in the EU since '92 IIRC. In the UK, leaded petrol is now only available on the condition that it doesn't sell more than a certain (extremely low) percentage of the total market. Any car which requires it either has to be converted, run on LRP or accept that maybe 1 in 30 garages carry fuel they can use. Further, emissions regulations are tightening on a very regular basis for new cars - which are also taxed according to volume of CO2 emissions. Older cars are subject to emissions tests in their annual roadworthiness test (can't run a car without one) and if they fail, they're off. Finally, you can be pulled over and tested at random to establish that your emissions are within defined limits and fined if they're not, plus required to get the vehicle up to standard within the time or it's off the road. Tailpipe emissions are never pleasant, trust a cyclist, but they're rather better than they might be over here.
As for LPG, erm, no. Conversions are actually subsidised for many vehicles, not taxed more than anything else. I'm assuming you mean 20,000 km -well, that's around the breakeven point in one year IIRC. Conversions don't have to be done every year, sir.
Yes, we have tax at that sort of level on the petrol. Something has to pay for the road building and maintenance and for healthcare costs from vehicle accidents and pollution related illnesses. Personally I quite like the idea of mass transit such as buses and trains being subsidised by cars, considering that they're far less socially invasive and help reduce congestion, along with providing mobility to those who can't drive (can't afford / too young / disabled) which means they can be economically active, too, which seems A Good Thing.
1) When standards exist they show the need for regulation. If there's none, they can shout about it being so safe the government don't even bother to check.
2) That was exactly my point, though from a different side. Too large a prison population reduces the available labour pool and costs money. The prison officers are also a part of that labour pool and have to be paid... Business needs a pool of cheap labour, this reduces the size and ups the cost.
3) Yes, but it's far from easy and choices for funding are often arbitrary. Fact is, small businesses are the major economic driver so helping them get on their feet - even if it's just a good loan deal - is beneficial for the country as a whole.
4) Then refute them. Tourism and sheep, for example, is an entirely serious example and was a real worry when we had F&M disease last year.
OK, let's say we get hold of that. Which isn't impossible if this goes ahead.
Anyone want to check what compilers it compiles on? What's the bet you can find _something_ in the source base that causes VC++ to barf? Or some VB code?
Why oh why does this sort of thing get continually moderated up?
Regulation is, like it or not, extending punishing of theft and injury laws to companies. Regulating companies stops them from harming their workers, their neigbours, their customers because they can. It also stops them from doing violence to other companies - which, let's be honest, is exactly what MS is currently on trial for, using its strength to force other companies out of the market or their products onto customers at nasty terms.
You actually contradict yourself. To quote, "As long as a company can buy an advantage in the marketplace... there will be a place for lobbying, bribes, etc". How, exactly, are we stopping companies buying market advantage by removing regulation of them?
Subsidies are a harder argument, but here goes...
Remove subsidies of all kinds (I'm including Social Security benefits here, they seem analagous) and you cause problems. You know all about needing money to make money? Well, how do you get that first step without money from _somewhere_? Anyway, you create people who simply can't earn a living (and where this isn't necessarily a permanent condition), so they either die or live from crime. Think what happens in a recession here - the very poorest either die or cause a crimewave. A crimewave causes clear problems for society as a whole, and ends up with a number of them locked up. So, what do you end up with? A larger prison population (expensive to maintain) and a smaller labour force, which pushes up wages and makes it harder to get ourt of recession. Eventually, you end up with smaller economic capacity this way because you simply don't have the workers you need. Whereas if you give them the money / resources they need to see out the recession, they remain economically active throughout the problems (so help maintain economic capacity) and are available to work afterwards, so keeping costs down due to a large labour force. Oh, you've also likely lost the majority of the crime which is good on its own but also reduces your expensive-to-maintain prison population.
Or maybe health benefits. If the poorest can't get treatment then you have an increased potential for epidemic which can spread into the wider population. They're not likely to be particularly healthy to start with (worse diet & living conditions, can't afford better) so they're more susceptible, plus the poorer sections of society tend to live together, helping it spread quickly among them. Deny them medical treatment and ailments can run through them at ridiculous rates, then spread into the wider population. Also, deny them medical treatment and some will die, some will be disabled in some way and some will have to miss work. In each case you've removed someone from the available cheap labour pool, maybe others who now have to care for them too...
What about subsidising companies? Well, statistically speaking, I understand that the major driver for economic growth is small companies, not large. Except that they can't exist without seed capital from somewhere... Remove government subsidies and some won't survive, so lower economic growth as a whole.
Or another example, farm subsidies. The EU Common Agricultural Policy is a mess, I won't deny it. However... In the UK, we have many areas where sheep are farmed on open hillsides traditionally. These are only viable due to subsidies, because the animal densities are too low. Remove the subsidies and the sheep go. Remove the sheep, though, and the land quickly becomes covered in long grass and bracken. At which point it's considered less beautiful and is certainly less suitable for walking. You then have no farming income - and an area that only has tourism left, but can't any more attract people to look at the views and walk the hills because the environment has changed. You need the sheep as lawnmowers...
The current system is a long way from being perfect. Heck, I'm a LibDem (http://www.libdems.org.uk/) so I'm working to change it in many ways. But, strangely enough, many of the current aspects of government have been set up because they look like a good idea and retained because they prove that they are a good idea! I'd LOVE to see corporations stripped of legal personhood, too, for example, and see no reason for them to make any political donations. Heck, while we're thinking about corporate political influence, it seems daft that sitting legislators can hold directorships in companies, or that individual companies can own large chunks of the news media. Or that foreign-owned companies can own any. Who says that an Australian run media isn't spinning the news to favour Australian interests over local? As you can see here, we have clear examples of corporate political speech needing legal controls to benefit the people...
Posters in general and moderators in particular, _please_ think a little harder about this 'smaller government rules' (whoops, pun unintentional...) argument. It may sound good - and some of it may indeed be good - but look at the details and much of it is utter rubbish. Really.
OK, but if we have random service then we end up with a worse version of something discussed on K5 a while back. In British terms, the Civil Service then become a semi-benign dictatorship, with the jury duty style parliament becoming a rubber stamp.
Think about it - if there's no qualifications, experience or guarantee of competence heading up the legislature, ministries and so on then you end up with the careerists in those sections running them instead, with near-zero accountability. Far worse.
Another poster has already commented on the speed issue (this meaning that Win32 remains the gaming platform of choice, and giving people erroneous reasons to believe why), but y'know what? This really solidifies the standard. No point pushing for that nasty OpenGL just to get the cross-platform stuff, use D3D. Which MS can control and push around however they want, to the detriment of this.
I know that the ship has pretty much sailed on D3D as the standard, I know that cross-platform development at the moment essentially means making sure that the PC stuff can be ported to the X-Box. So I know my objections are essentially irrelevant, but it still makes me sad to see a development that can only help entrench a proprietary standard at the expense of an (apparently adequate and earlier, I'm not a 3D coder) open standard. This is a cool development and a useful development, but so much of what it signifies and what it has the power to create blows.
(Why oh why oh why did the computing world let themselves become enslaved to the morons from Redmond? Oh well, back to trying to pull down their mountain with a toothpick...)
Sorry, just noticed a dodgy bit of wording in the above post. Should've re-read it more carefully:-)
GCC, Linux, GNU Emacs and so on, are GPL licensed but may be used to write software which is not. However, their source may not. You may not use a component for one of them as a baseline for your development of another product unless that is also licensed under the GPL. If that component could be given GPL-style protections while the rest of the software remained locked down, it would seem better than if the entire software package was locked...
I have to say, I find the GPL illogical in some ways. You're highlighting some of this nicely.
Mr. Stallman, so the story goes, got annoyed that he couldn't fix a bug in a printer driver, and so developed the philosophy that, essentially, users of software developed under this philosophy could always get at the source to make the modification themselves, and then send them out to benefit users as a whole.
However, he made it so that software written under this philosophy could not, under any circumstances, be used in the development of software which did not also meet these rules. Now, his viewpoint was apparently that he wanted to use the software base developed under this philosophy as a tool to drag others into it.
This means, though, that if a developer is unwilling to subscribe to this philosophy (which is a legitimate opinion, even if it's one you personally disagree with) that their software is entirely outside these protections for the users. This means that, should a component of their software be parallel to a GPL component, they cannot, within their ruleset, replace it with the GPL'd component even if it's superior. Furthermore, source may not be available for bugfixing, nor any changes redistributable.
If the relevant component is licensed under the LGPL, though, the users may still benefit from GNU philosophy protections as the developer is free to include the component, while users are able and free to fix it as they feel necessary.
Making the component GPL is essentially being bloody-minded. It reduces the potential benefit to users as a whole from the software because it effectively bars a section of the software development community from using the component and their users from benefitting. I understand why people prefer GPL but, really, it does not provide the maximum benefit to the users community who the GPL is intended to help, and the LGPL does not significantly reduce the protection for the software.
Bottom line: each and every software developer is entirely free to license their software under whatever terms they wish and I have no desire to stop anyone. I strongly believe, though, that the choice of the GPL is frequently misguided, and that the LGPL comes significantly closer to achieving their professed objectives.
I know, but I've always been led to believe that the headline mailler and the recent stories bar on the right reflect the front page. I get stories I only see through them (or the occasional accidental AC login), despite not having turned authors or topics off.
1) It assumes that if a page hasn't finished downloading within a certain period then it's never going to. Browsing image catalogues becomes a pain because you have to do several refreshes to get them all (the early ones are pulled out of cache), while slashdot can _really_ confuse it. Simply, the story pages are so long that it almost never renders the end of the HTML. Even worse, because this is HTML and changing all the time, it's not cached. I can't see the end of the pages...
2) It gets _really_ confused if there's too many UI widgets on a page - say, when I've got mod points. It routinely smears them over the page, misplaces them or just gives up. A couple of times I've modded the wrong commend this way. Worse, though - I mentioned above that it doesn't always render the end of the page. Which is where the submit button is. So, when I have mod points, IE and slashdot simply fight. It's unviewable but I can't use the points to make it go away.
I don't like IE, simply as I find its interface clunky. But even if they cleaned up the interface and fixed the security problems, it's far from the perfect, fautless browser.
No, I've got Collapse Sections on, I don't exclude sections / authors yet I routinely only see stories on the old stuff bar on the right (which seems more forgiving) or in the daily headline mailler, which goes to my work address and so runs off a different account.
Considering that Taiwan is right next to a large nuclear power who wishes they didn't exist (and have suggested that they would help that come about before), isn't that a little unwise?
I mean, I suspect that China's leaders are bright enough not to pick this fight, but I can't see that continuing forever and the US wouldn't easily win a war with China...
It also surprises me a little that we're so reliant on a country that's seismically unstable for precision manufacturing. How long were the factories offline for last time they had an earthquake?
(Yes, I know the UK's almost certainly just as dependent, before that one gets brought up.)
I'm well aware that IQ isn't a pure measure of intelligence. Point me to a better one that is readily understood and I'll use it.
However you measure it, I would strongly suggest that the mean intelligence or the working class is lower than of the management class. Yes, there are certainly examples in each of individuals who are there through exceptional work (exceptionally good or bad) and so whose measurable intelligence is significantly at odds with that of their peers. However, I would continue to suggest that mean intelligence of the two groups is as I suggested above. If nothing else, the management class are paid more and generally have more comfortable conditions than the working classes. If a large percentage of the workers could do the work of the managers, this wouldn't be the case.
(Yes, this is idealised and yes, old boy networks certainly play a part in who can get jobs and so building in glass ceilings. They're not complete, though.)
Perhaps I should put this another way. Higher education tends to run in families and those who have completed higer education again have a lower mean birthrate. Would you suggest that those who have completed higher education do not have a higher mean intelligence level than those who have not? Again, there are clear exceptions in both direction, but they are just that - exceptions, not the norm.
I agree that if it works as it intuitively appears that it should, then we have an ominous problem. It appears inescapable that that would constitute genetic devolution. However, I would suggest (indeed, I _did_ suggest) that the evidence _I'm_ aware of does not support the hypothesis that we're devolving. Quite why we're not remains a mystery because it certainly appears that we should be, but hey, that's an interesting study for another day, a discussion that would go far too deep for Slashdot and one which would carry far too much potential for flamewars.
OK, let's reword this. Warning - there really isn't a PC way to say this, no matter how hard I try. I'm not being prejudiced here, REALLY, but the asbestos modem is out.
Defining success purely on the basis of bank balances is, indeed, daft. However, the poster was observing that those who are socially successful - the managers, the top people in their domains and so on - have fewer children, on average, than those who are less socially successful - the mediocre, those who do not stand out at all or those who only stand out by being worse at what they do than most others.
It is also noticeable that those who meet this criteria of social success have a higher mean IQ than those who do not. Anecdotally, I would observe that they also tend to have fewer congenital health problems.
To put it in purely scientific terms, the mean quality of the breeding stock amongst the socially successful is higher than amongst the socially unsuccessful, yet it is the unsuccessful who product more young.
The interesting question is what effect this has. The likely supposition would be that humanity as a whole would devolve because our current system was almost producting 'survival of the weakest'. However, I'm told that point scores on US military IQ tests have been consistently rising for some time. The distribution remains the same and the IQ scores don't change because they're generated fromt he distribution, but the raw scores on the graph are apparently rising...
All in all it's interesting, and the original poster certainly wasn't talking bunk, but I'm not sure what the end result is:-)
Slashdot Mirror
(Trolling with +1? Or just odd...)
:-)
Depends what you're doing, Tony.
With an example that trivial it's a matter of personal preference. I prefer the space of writing it out across the lines, I know some (such as yourself) prefer it all in one line. Still can't understand why
Let's say we have three branches, though, and each branch contains, ooh, 10 statements, and they're not common between the branches. Not really worth splitting into three procedures, but gets nasty if we put that all in one line.
Hence my preference for splitting it: once anything gets large it's definitely better, when it's small it's about 50-50.
Which is still ridiculous, given that XP won't give you more than one desktop.
You show me a way to get 15 people using the same non-server XP PC at the same time, each doing whatever they want, and I'll acknowledge that each of those 15 could justifiably need an individual license.
While only one can use it simultaneously, though, the point becomes ridiculous. I mean, are they seriously suggesting that people will run a small bunch of XP boxes then VNC into them from Linux terminals, dancing round until they find a free XP box? And, even if they did, why is this philosophically different from shared computer labs / hotdesking / pool laptops?
This is monopolist extortion, pure and simple.
Looks to me like he's saying that, with 6 PCAnywhere users on an OEM copy, you'd need 7 licenses because the OEM license wouldn't cover any PCAnywhere sessions.
I still think this sort of thing is ridiculous and should be publicised as an example of just why so many of us want MS ground up into dust, but that seems to be the reasoning.
This sort of thing bothers me.
It's well known that Intel have a standing legal strategy of sueing any competitor against whom they have a halfway plausible case. They figure that, even if they lose, they can afford to keep the battle long enough to bankrupt the competitor. Which is essentially what Microsoft have done here.
Over here (UK), I understand we have the concept of 'vexatious litigants'. Essentially, if someone brings too many baseless, harassment lawsuits then they're barred from bringing more. Which would seem an excellent idea with this sort of thing...
A side issue is EULAs and other, similar documents on media. _We_ know that they are almost exclusively unenfoceable and not worth the electrons they're displayed on our screen with. But how well known is that? I would love to see them declared to be baseless legal intimidation of users and restricted somehow.
I have to say I found the whole system of counting for the US rather strange, seriously watching it in action for the first time. Over here we still have the potential for electoral college-style problems due to our constituency system, FWIW. I know of at least one case (1951 IIRC) where the party with the most votes lost the election.
Over here, postal votes have to arrive on or before polling day, while a normal vote is made by making a large cross in a box on a piece of paper. No problem with hanging chads or unclear ballots, while candidates are listed alphabetically.
When it comes to counting, all the votes from a particular constituency are taken to a central location, sorted according to answer and counted manually. If the margin of victory when every vote has been counted is within a certain limit (can't remember it, sorry) the votes are recounted. Again and again, until they're certain. Elections have been won by as few as two votes. When all that is finished and everyone is satisfied the result is correct, it's announced. Nothing until then bar exit polls.
In a representative democracy, it seems to me that nothing is more important than making sure that the votes of the people are correctly and completely counted. Surely this form of system is simpler and safer?
OK, my knowledge of the details of US politics is limited and I don't know which states are still pushing.
But the suggestion (which appears accurate) seems to be that the DOJ, once under Bush Republican control, decided that big business was wonderful and that monopolies were just fine and dandy, no matter what.
So, do any of the remaining states have upcoming elections? Are state governments in any of these likely to change within the next year or two to ones who'd roll over and let Microsoft tickle their bellys? Or, for that matter, if those who like the current settlement could pull out, would a reverse change be likely in any?
I don't know enough about law to comment in detail - and I'm a Brit anyway.
But it seems very, very strange to have a law but ban the state from punishing anyone under it. Isn't this effectively saying 'if you steal something, we're only going to make you give it back'?
If that's the case then violating antitrust law is an extremely sensible business tactic. If you get caught the worst that happens is that you're back where (they think) you started. And this is just if you get caught...
Folks, this just isn't a deterrent. If someone is playing as nasty as Microsoft is, they should be slapped about, and hard. Or they have every incentive to try and do exactly the same thing again.
Oh, comment? If we're just trying to keep them from maintaining their OS monopoly illegally, force them to sell Windows at the same price to anyone and let the OEMs do what they want with it. The OEMs are responsible for support, after all.
If we're going to have one person, one vote, period, can I please be the one person with the one vote?
Go on, I'm a lovely guy and I _promise_ I'll be good...
(OK, yes, I've lifted this from Terry Pratchett...)
Polymorph, from series 3.
Sorry, not concentrating, just remembered something.
First CD I bought (Deep Purple in Rock Anniversary Edition, back in '95) was just over £14, which was pretty well standard then. So standard prices seem to have gone up a little, too.
Where you buyin' those £10 CDs from, boyo?
Seriously, as a music buyer (yes, shoot me if you want, can't remember the last music I bought from an even remotely recent band so I'm at least helping to swing the demographics against Britney Spears...) I can't routinely get CDs for less than £11-12 in the _sales_. Chart stuff tends to sit at £12-13, older albums at £15-16. So, I watch the sales like a hawk and buy the old stuff when it hits the price of the chart stuff...
If you have maths to back up unit price falling, I'd love to see it. IME the standard selling price has been pretty constant for the last 3-4 years (before that I didn't buy many CDs so can't comment) while the sale price (the point where they seem to sell most CDs, a decent percentage of UK record chains are on permanent sale) has gone _up_ by £2-3 in that period.
What a surprise, at this price point I buy less CDs... I'd strongly suspect that at £10 each I spend more on music than I do at £12 and the stuff I buy has already paid off its production so we're just looking at (physical) production and stocking fees, guys. UK record execs - you are losing out from the current prices.
(-1, Wrong. Troll or daft, the eternal question...)
Catalytic converters have been legally required on all petrol cars in the EU since '92 IIRC. In the UK, leaded petrol is now only available on the condition that it doesn't sell more than a certain (extremely low) percentage of the total market. Any car which requires it either has to be converted, run on LRP or accept that maybe 1 in 30 garages carry fuel they can use. Further, emissions regulations are tightening on a very regular basis for new cars - which are also taxed according to volume of CO2 emissions. Older cars are subject to emissions tests in their annual roadworthiness test (can't run a car without one) and if they fail, they're off. Finally, you can be pulled over and tested at random to establish that your emissions are within defined limits and fined if they're not, plus required to get the vehicle up to standard within the time or it's off the road. Tailpipe emissions are never pleasant, trust a cyclist, but they're rather better than they might be over here.
As for LPG, erm, no. Conversions are actually subsidised for many vehicles, not taxed more than anything else. I'm assuming you mean 20,000 km -well, that's around the breakeven point in one year IIRC. Conversions don't have to be done every year, sir.
Yes, we have tax at that sort of level on the petrol. Something has to pay for the road building and maintenance and for healthcare costs from vehicle accidents and pollution related illnesses. Personally I quite like the idea of mass transit such as buses and trains being subsidised by cars, considering that they're far less socially invasive and help reduce congestion, along with providing mobility to those who can't drive (can't afford / too young / disabled) which means they can be economically active, too, which seems A Good Thing.
All forced by the government.
(Troll or daft?)
1) When standards exist they show the need for regulation. If there's none, they can shout about it being so safe the government don't even bother to check.
2) That was exactly my point, though from a different side. Too large a prison population reduces the available labour pool and costs money. The prison officers are also a part of that labour pool and have to be paid... Business needs a pool of cheap labour, this reduces the size and ups the cost.
3) Yes, but it's far from easy and choices for funding are often arbitrary. Fact is, small businesses are the major economic driver so helping them get on their feet - even if it's just a good loan deal - is beneficial for the country as a whole.
4) Then refute them. Tourism and sheep, for example, is an entirely serious example and was a real worry when we had F&M disease last year.
(Malicious thought)
OK, let's say we get hold of that. Which isn't impossible if this goes ahead.
Anyone want to check what compilers it compiles on? What's the bet you can find _something_ in the source base that causes VC++ to barf? Or some VB code?
;-)
Why oh why does this sort of thing get continually moderated up?
... there will be a place for lobbying, bribes, etc". How, exactly, are we stopping companies buying market advantage by removing regulation of them?
Regulation is, like it or not, extending punishing of theft and injury laws to companies. Regulating companies stops them from harming their workers, their neigbours, their customers because they can. It also stops them from doing violence to other companies - which, let's be honest, is exactly what MS is currently on trial for, using its strength to force other companies out of the market or their products onto customers at nasty terms.
You actually contradict yourself. To quote, "As long as a company can buy an advantage in the marketplace
Subsidies are a harder argument, but here goes...
Remove subsidies of all kinds (I'm including Social Security benefits here, they seem analagous) and you cause problems. You know all about needing money to make money? Well, how do you get that first step without money from _somewhere_? Anyway, you create people who simply can't earn a living (and where this isn't necessarily a permanent condition), so they either die or live from crime. Think what happens in a recession here - the very poorest either die or cause a crimewave. A crimewave causes clear problems for society as a whole, and ends up with a number of them locked up. So, what do you end up with? A larger prison population (expensive to maintain) and a smaller labour force, which pushes up wages and makes it harder to get ourt of recession. Eventually, you end up with smaller economic capacity this way because you simply don't have the workers you need. Whereas if you give them the money / resources they need to see out the recession, they remain economically active throughout the problems (so help maintain economic capacity) and are available to work afterwards, so keeping costs down due to a large labour force. Oh, you've also likely lost the majority of the crime which is good on its own but also reduces your expensive-to-maintain prison population.
Or maybe health benefits. If the poorest can't get treatment then you have an increased potential for epidemic which can spread into the wider population. They're not likely to be particularly healthy to start with (worse diet & living conditions, can't afford better) so they're more susceptible, plus the poorer sections of society tend to live together, helping it spread quickly among them. Deny them medical treatment and ailments can run through them at ridiculous rates, then spread into the wider population. Also, deny them medical treatment and some will die, some will be disabled in some way and some will have to miss work. In each case you've removed someone from the available cheap labour pool, maybe others who now have to care for them too...
What about subsidising companies? Well, statistically speaking, I understand that the major driver for economic growth is small companies, not large. Except that they can't exist without seed capital from somewhere... Remove government subsidies and some won't survive, so lower economic growth as a whole.
Or another example, farm subsidies. The EU Common Agricultural Policy is a mess, I won't deny it. However... In the UK, we have many areas where sheep are farmed on open hillsides traditionally. These are only viable due to subsidies, because the animal densities are too low. Remove the subsidies and the sheep go. Remove the sheep, though, and the land quickly becomes covered in long grass and bracken. At which point it's considered less beautiful and is certainly less suitable for walking. You then have no farming income - and an area that only has tourism left, but can't any more attract people to look at the views and walk the hills because the environment has changed. You need the sheep as lawnmowers...
The current system is a long way from being perfect. Heck, I'm a LibDem (http://www.libdems.org.uk/) so I'm working to change it in many ways. But, strangely enough, many of the current aspects of government have been set up because they look like a good idea and retained because they prove that they are a good idea! I'd LOVE to see corporations stripped of legal personhood, too, for example, and see no reason for them to make any political donations. Heck, while we're thinking about corporate political influence, it seems daft that sitting legislators can hold directorships in companies, or that individual companies can own large chunks of the news media. Or that foreign-owned companies can own any. Who says that an Australian run media isn't spinning the news to favour Australian interests over local? As you can see here, we have clear examples of corporate political speech needing legal controls to benefit the people...
Posters in general and moderators in particular, _please_ think a little harder about this 'smaller government rules' (whoops, pun unintentional...) argument. It may sound good - and some of it may indeed be good - but look at the details and much of it is utter rubbish. Really.
OK, but if we have random service then we end up with a worse version of something discussed on K5 a while back. In British terms, the Civil Service then become a semi-benign dictatorship, with the jury duty style parliament becoming a rubber stamp.
Think about it - if there's no qualifications, experience or guarantee of competence heading up the legislature, ministries and so on then you end up with the careerists in those sections running them instead, with near-zero accountability. Far worse.
I disagree. Well, sort of :-)
Another poster has already commented on the speed issue (this meaning that Win32 remains the gaming platform of choice, and giving people erroneous reasons to believe why), but y'know what? This really solidifies the standard. No point pushing for that nasty OpenGL just to get the cross-platform stuff, use D3D. Which MS can control and push around however they want, to the detriment of this.
I know that the ship has pretty much sailed on D3D as the standard, I know that cross-platform development at the moment essentially means making sure that the PC stuff can be ported to the X-Box. So I know my objections are essentially irrelevant, but it still makes me sad to see a development that can only help entrench a proprietary standard at the expense of an (apparently adequate and earlier, I'm not a 3D coder) open standard. This is a cool development and a useful development, but so much of what it signifies and what it has the power to create blows.
(Why oh why oh why did the computing world let themselves become enslaved to the morons from Redmond? Oh well, back to trying to pull down their mountain with a toothpick...)
Sorry, just noticed a dodgy bit of wording in the above post. Should've re-read it more carefully :-)
GCC, Linux, GNU Emacs and so on, are GPL licensed but may be used to write software which is not. However, their source may not. You may not use a component for one of them as a baseline for your development of another product unless that is also licensed under the GPL. If that component could be given GPL-style protections while the rest of the software remained locked down, it would seem better than if the entire software package was locked...
I have to say, I find the GPL illogical in some ways. You're highlighting some of this nicely.
Mr. Stallman, so the story goes, got annoyed that he couldn't fix a bug in a printer driver, and so developed the philosophy that, essentially, users of software developed under this philosophy could always get at the source to make the modification themselves, and then send them out to benefit users as a whole.
However, he made it so that software written under this philosophy could not, under any circumstances, be used in the development of software which did not also meet these rules. Now, his viewpoint was apparently that he wanted to use the software base developed under this philosophy as a tool to drag others into it.
This means, though, that if a developer is unwilling to subscribe to this philosophy (which is a legitimate opinion, even if it's one you personally disagree with) that their software is entirely outside these protections for the users. This means that, should a component of their software be parallel to a GPL component, they cannot, within their ruleset, replace it with the GPL'd component even if it's superior. Furthermore, source may not be available for bugfixing, nor any changes redistributable.
If the relevant component is licensed under the LGPL, though, the users may still benefit from GNU philosophy protections as the developer is free to include the component, while users are able and free to fix it as they feel necessary.
Making the component GPL is essentially being bloody-minded. It reduces the potential benefit to users as a whole from the software because it effectively bars a section of the software development community from using the component and their users from benefitting. I understand why people prefer GPL but, really, it does not provide the maximum benefit to the users community who the GPL is intended to help, and the LGPL does not significantly reduce the protection for the software.
Bottom line: each and every software developer is entirely free to license their software under whatever terms they wish and I have no desire to stop anyone. I strongly believe, though, that the choice of the GPL is frequently misguided, and that the LGPL comes significantly closer to achieving their professed objectives.
I know, but I've always been led to believe that the headline mailler and the recent stories bar on the right reflect the front page. I get stories I only see through them (or the occasional accidental AC login), despite not having turned authors or topics off.
Curious.
(Troll? Maybe but a common opinion, so I'll bite)
Two problems that stuff up IE over here.
1) It assumes that if a page hasn't finished downloading within a certain period then it's never going to. Browsing image catalogues becomes a pain because you have to do several refreshes to get them all (the early ones are pulled out of cache), while slashdot can _really_ confuse it. Simply, the story pages are so long that it almost never renders the end of the HTML. Even worse, because this is HTML and changing all the time, it's not cached. I can't see the end of the pages...
2) It gets _really_ confused if there's too many UI widgets on a page - say, when I've got mod points. It routinely smears them over the page, misplaces them or just gives up. A couple of times I've modded the wrong commend this way. Worse, though - I mentioned above that it doesn't always render the end of the page. Which is where the submit button is. So, when I have mod points, IE and slashdot simply fight. It's unviewable but I can't use the points to make it go away.
I don't like IE, simply as I find its interface clunky. But even if they cleaned up the interface and fixed the security problems, it's far from the perfect, fautless browser.
No, I've got Collapse Sections on, I don't exclude sections / authors yet I routinely only see stories on the old stuff bar on the right (which seems more forgiving) or in the daily headline mailler, which goes to my work address and so runs off a different account.
Curious.
Considering that Taiwan is right next to a large nuclear power who wishes they didn't exist (and have suggested that they would help that come about before), isn't that a little unwise?
I mean, I suspect that China's leaders are bright enough not to pick this fight, but I can't see that continuing forever and the US wouldn't easily win a war with China...
It also surprises me a little that we're so reliant on a country that's seismically unstable for precision manufacturing. How long were the factories offline for last time they had an earthquake?
(Yes, I know the UK's almost certainly just as dependent, before that one gets brought up.)
I'm well aware that IQ isn't a pure measure of intelligence. Point me to a better one that is readily understood and I'll use it.
However you measure it, I would strongly suggest that the mean intelligence or the working class is lower than of the management class. Yes, there are certainly examples in each of individuals who are there through exceptional work (exceptionally good or bad) and so whose measurable intelligence is significantly at odds with that of their peers. However, I would continue to suggest that mean intelligence of the two groups is as I suggested above. If nothing else, the management class are paid more and generally have more comfortable conditions than the working classes. If a large percentage of the workers could do the work of the managers, this wouldn't be the case.
(Yes, this is idealised and yes, old boy networks certainly play a part in who can get jobs and so building in glass ceilings. They're not complete, though.)
Perhaps I should put this another way. Higher education tends to run in families and those who have completed higer education again have a lower mean birthrate. Would you suggest that those who have completed higher education do not have a higher mean intelligence level than those who have not? Again, there are clear exceptions in both direction, but they are just that - exceptions, not the norm.
I agree that if it works as it intuitively appears that it should, then we have an ominous problem. It appears inescapable that that would constitute genetic devolution. However, I would suggest (indeed, I _did_ suggest) that the evidence _I'm_ aware of does not support the hypothesis that we're devolving. Quite why we're not remains a mystery because it certainly appears that we should be, but hey, that's an interesting study for another day, a discussion that would go far too deep for Slashdot and one which would carry far too much potential for flamewars.
OK, let's reword this. Warning - there really isn't a PC way to say this, no matter how hard I try. I'm not being prejudiced here, REALLY, but the asbestos modem is out.
:-)
Defining success purely on the basis of bank balances is, indeed, daft. However, the poster was observing that those who are socially successful - the managers, the top people in their domains and so on - have fewer children, on average, than those who are less socially successful - the mediocre, those who do not stand out at all or those who only stand out by being worse at what they do than most others.
It is also noticeable that those who meet this criteria of social success have a higher mean IQ than those who do not. Anecdotally, I would observe that they also tend to have fewer congenital health problems.
To put it in purely scientific terms, the mean quality of the breeding stock amongst the socially successful is higher than amongst the socially unsuccessful, yet it is the unsuccessful who product more young.
The interesting question is what effect this has. The likely supposition would be that humanity as a whole would devolve because our current system was almost producting 'survival of the weakest'. However, I'm told that point scores on US military IQ tests have been consistently rising for some time. The distribution remains the same and the IQ scores don't change because they're generated fromt he distribution, but the raw scores on the graph are apparently rising...
All in all it's interesting, and the original poster certainly wasn't talking bunk, but I'm not sure what the end result is