What makes you think that it needs revived? Packup some boxes. Change the name. Hell, even move it to a different department if you want, and you have plausable deniablity for a project's "cancelation."
Well, as a Bush supporter, I see it as the opposite. Democrats, or more accurately, the left wing, have convinced their followers that opposing America is somehow patriotic. What makes you think that Bush supports America? Because he says so? Given his views towards the consitituion especially towards judicial oversight, and the rule of law, I'd say those words don't carry a lot of weight.
They say America was formed through descent. That is not true. America was founded on revolution, not protests. Besides the difference that the angry mob starts killing agents of the government in a revolution, while a protest remains bloodless, what's the difference?
But yeah. Fuck those pussies at the Boston Tea Party. Fuck those pussies at the Boston "Masacare." They got what they had coming for hating our country.
The interesting thing is, that my experience with the Greatest Generation with regards to the Iraq War would be one of extreme suspect. They've seen real war -- a war of national survival, and they've seen the actions and heard the arguments from this adminstration and their backers and they're disturbed by it.
Make no mistake that there is a war on, but you're right to say that the country is not "at war." A country can not be on a war footing when only 1% (if that) of the population is fighting and when there's no sacrifice on the homefront.
FTA: One onlooker told the protesters they should support their country. Another passer-by snapped back at him: "That's exactly what she's doing."
That might be the most embiggening thing about the entire episode... that people (who are not just typing it on their blog) are starting to realize that. We can only hope.
Your flawed because your have the mistaken belief that government subsides are an investment to create a profit through ensuring scarcity instead of promoting the development of useful technologies for the public good. In this case improve air quality and reduce overall greenhouse emissions.
Now this is what happened:
1. California subsidizes development of pzevs. 2. California passes a law requiring that all new vehicles sold in California by a certain date are pzevs as per California emission laws. 3. The market now requires automanufactures sell pzevs in California if they wish to sell any vehicles in California, thus ensuring California receives thhe majority of thhe initial pzevs produced.
Now I ask you, how does increasing the total supply of pzevs in order to satisify not only the California market and the larger non-Californian market affect the availability of pzevs in California, and more importantly degrade improvement of Californian airquality? Keeping in mind that California is the largest market in the United States, so mass production of pzevs will inevitably reduce costs.
Now I'll tell you what's going on here. The American auto manufacturers don't want to spend the money to develop and produce new technologies. Instead they are focused on single quarter results, and thus mortgage future profits for short term profits. So they loby for artificial barrers to be enacted through federal legislation in an attempt to maintain the status quo.
We saw this trick with GM and EV-1. You couldn't buy the car outright. You could only lease it. When the lease was up, GM required that every leassee return car for destruction. The majority of the EV-1 owners wanted keep the car. They wanted to purchase the car. GM wouldn't let them? Why? The EV-1 was never intended to be success. It was intended from the outset to be window dressing to say, "we care," and then be a failure so they could say, "look, we tried. it didn't work, now let's get back to the status quo." This isn't to say that GM is run by Snidely Whiplash twirrling his mustache saying "ha! ha! ha!" If by some miracle the EV-1 worked, great, but they certainly weren't going to go out of their way to make it one.
Meanwhile the Japanese manufactuers are leading the way in the development of new green vehicles.
Now what industry was it again where the American companies refused to develop new products, and the Japanese produced new produucts that the market actually wanted to purchase? It was back in the 70s. There's that major city that's never recovered since then. I don't remember. It starts with a D. It's not Des Moines, but something like that, De-something. I don't know which industry it was, but I'm sure it wasn't the American auto industry though. No one would be stupid enough to allow the same thing to happen twice in less than a generation.
States can't tax out of state sales, since the cars aren't made in california. That's interstate commerce, and is exressely the sole-domain of the federal government.
The US Department of Justice and five States have declared themselves satisfied with the antitrust enforcement efforts taken against Microsoft despite a further seven States maintaining they have had 'little or no discernible impact in the marketplace.
No discernible impact on the market place. So why aren't they satisfied? Wasn't that the point?
The point was apparently completely missed by you.
The line wasn't "the rich are richer," as you implied but rather "get richer" as in "increase wealth relative to the rest of society." It is well known that of the destabilizing influence large economic gaps have on societies. The creation of a permanent underclass is not conductive to democracies, nor productive economies. For instance, it's well known that the wealthy have better access to the legal system through being able to afford more and better lawyers, while the poor often have no access to legal council in civil settings, and inadequate council in criminal settings.
It's relative wealth, not absolute wealth that matters to the fabric of a society. Attempting to place emphasis on absolute wealth, while ignoring the very real effects of large relative wealth disparity is a well known trick of the wealthy to attempt distract the majority poor into supporting that are not in their economic self-interest.
That statement carries the absurd assumption that some people don't want democracy. EVERYONE wants democracy, apart from the small group of people who currently have control, of course. But the majority of the population will ALWAYS support democracy AND self-determination. World history is full of dictatorships that rose to power with popular support. And I'm not even talking about bait-and-switch dictatorships (ala communism). To say a majority always wants democracy is absurd. People always want security. They always want a food and shelter. They always want "respect," whatever that means to them. That democracy isn't on the list.
The loser here are news sites that do run wire service stories as they will no longer be getting free traffic from Gnews. This might encourage them to be more original.
Wire services exist because it is impossible for every news outlet to cover every story. Hell, given the buisness situation in the newspaper industry, even the major papers are drawing down their national and international coverage and relying more on wire services. I'm specifically thinking the LA Times' recent hyperlocal direction.
The idea that somehow that newspapers sites were getting reliable significant "free traffic" from google news is absurd. gnews's site selection algorithm is essentially random. We've all seen examples where gnews would highlight some white supremacist news site. (Yes, Google has since blacklisted that site from gnews.) It's no secret who the top sites featured on gnews are, its the old standbys. In all actuality, having gnews highllight some small newspaper could actually cause more problems for the paper, when their site is inevitably slashdotted, or gnewsed as the case may be.
Still, it's a bit like the ridiculous argument that some day we won't be able to read CD-ROMs, because the technology will have advanced so far, the hardware will no longer exist. Well, yes, maybe.
Well there's no maybe about it. This problem already exists. Do you know where you can find a an 8 inch floppy disk drive? I don't. The only one I've ever seen was in Matthew Broderick's room in Wargames.
Well let's be clear about what type of problem this really is. Is the problem of effectively losing archival data an actual problem or just soething we perceive as a problem do to a pack-rat mentality? Humanity has lost data from the very beginning. Either Crug forgot it, or it died with him, or if it was recorded, it was lost or destroyed. Does it matter? Not really. The important stuff has pretty much remained accessable through oput the ages. Undoubtedly, some important stuff has been lost, or at least we would consider it important if we knew it existed, but all in all we've done okay, since the vast majority of data stored is records that's lose their value after a year.
Right now I'm thinking of this story I heard recently about these old records that were found preserved in a vault from some early Chinese imperial dynasty. What was so imporant that the Chinese Empire felt compeled to preserve for all time?
Tax Records. Tax Records! Honestly, it was rooms filled with with stacks and stacks of paper that read things like, "The boat belonging to Qin Xiaofu is hereby permitted to access to the Han river for the duration of the season."
Interesting? Sure. It shows that bureacracies are timeless, and ads a poignant reminder of the old adage, "the only thing that's constant is death and taxes," but is it imporant? Hell no! It lost importance shortly after it was recorded. We could lose it today, and we'd be out of nothing. It could have been lost centuries ago, and it wouldn't have affected us one bit.
I think that's because we could conceivably store these things imperpituity that we think we should, and "could" and "should" are two very different situations.
But scientists will always be able to build something that can scan the surface of a CD-ROM, and decode the data there. But it might not be very economical (though I doubt it; a binary infrared laser scanning device is pretty dirt simple). There's a big difference there between what's economically and technologically unfeasible.
A distinction without a difference if you ask me. The data is out of reach. The more pertinent question is wheter it matters if that data is out of reach.
What he said is that this type of action is equal to not playing the community game as far as the BSD project is concerned. Your code maybe available for Linux, but it is not available anymore for OpenBSD or other non-GPL project. In essence you are removing freedom on code you did not create. This is what is ironic.
They're free to use the code if they want. The GPL allows anyone to use the code. The BSD people don't want to. It's not removing anything. It's them not wanting to exercise their right because it self-important ideas of "purity." (And yes, the FSF is just the other side of the same coin.)
Heaven forbid anyone actually just use the best code that's publicly availble.
GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back.
Ironic.
And open source project locked out of open source code by a open source license? Yeah. "Ironic," would be a word for it. "Self-rightous-hissy-fit," would be another.
To speak of 'rights' on their web site is sort of speaking about rights at K-Mart. You don't have any. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how rights work. You do not check them all at the door. For instance, if K-Mart said, "no Irish," that's not their right, in fact, it's illegal. Is what LJ doing illegal? No. But that doesn't mean that it's not censorship, and not offensive.
Simply instally unison or rsync or whatever and have the job kick off with whereami for linux (you'll have to find the main page yourself) or marco polo for macs.
Persian culture, by way of contrast, produced the world's first assertion and declaration of Human Rights, and is responsible for the foundation of modern mathematics. To which I say, "So what?" To cherry pick anecdotes from distant history adds nothing to this discussion, or really any discussion of a current modern regime. Are we supposed to pretend that since Persia, which is now Iran, came up with a human rights declaration a few thousand years ago, that means everything in hunkie dorie today? Of course not! It's completely irrelevant. It's like saying that since the Romans, which are now the Italians, popularized killing for entertainment, that the Italians suck. But wait! The Romans were also extremely influential on modern democracies, so therefore the Italians are cool. Or that since the Catholic Church is based in Rome, and it jailed Galileo that the Italians hate science! But wait! The Italians also brought us the reinessance and the enlightment, so they love science!
Oh noez!! I haz a pair of ducks![*]
The only thing that's relevant to any discussion of any contemporary political regime is how they act today and the recent past. Pining over long dead civilizations and trying to impart a few choice characteristics some idealized version of them on to their contemporary decendents while ignoring all intervening history is extremely sophmoric.
---- [*] Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all week. Two shows on Friday and Saturday: 7 and 10. No kids at the 10. It gets a little blue.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think that it needs revived? Packup some boxes. Change the name. Hell, even move it to a different department if you want, and you have plausable deniablity for a project's "cancelation."
But yeah. Fuck those pussies at the Boston Tea Party. Fuck those pussies at the Boston "Masacare." They got what they had coming for hating our country.
The interesting thing is, that my experience with the Greatest Generation with regards to the Iraq War would be one of extreme suspect. They've seen real war -- a war of national survival, and they've seen the actions and heard the arguments from this adminstration and their backers and they're disturbed by it.
Make no mistake that there is a war on, but you're right to say that the country is not "at war." A country can not be on a war footing when only 1% (if that) of the population is fighting and when there's no sacrifice on the homefront.
One onlooker told the protesters they should support their country. Another passer-by snapped back at him: "That's exactly what she's doing."
That might be the most embiggening thing about the entire episode... that people (who are not just typing it on their blog) are starting to realize that. We can only hope.
Your flawed because your have the mistaken belief that government subsides are an investment to create a profit through ensuring scarcity instead of promoting the development of useful technologies for the public good. In this case improve air quality and reduce overall greenhouse emissions.
Now this is what happened:
1. California subsidizes development of pzevs.
2. California passes a law requiring that all new vehicles sold in California by a certain date are pzevs as per California emission laws.
3. The market now requires automanufactures sell pzevs in California if they wish to sell any vehicles in California, thus ensuring
California receives thhe majority of thhe initial pzevs produced.
Now I ask you, how does increasing the total supply of pzevs in order to satisify not only the California market and the larger non-Californian market affect the availability of pzevs in California, and more importantly degrade improvement of Californian airquality? Keeping in mind that California is the largest market in the United States, so mass production of pzevs will inevitably reduce costs.
Now I'll tell you what's going on here. The American auto manufacturers don't want to spend the money to develop and produce new technologies. Instead they are focused on single quarter results, and thus mortgage future profits for short term profits. So they loby for artificial barrers to be enacted through federal legislation in an attempt to maintain the status quo.
We saw this trick with GM and EV-1. You couldn't buy the car outright. You could only lease it. When the lease was up, GM required that every leassee return car for destruction. The majority of the EV-1 owners wanted keep the car. They wanted to purchase the car. GM wouldn't let them? Why? The EV-1 was never intended to be success. It was intended from the outset to be window dressing to say, "we care," and then be a failure so they could say, "look, we tried. it didn't work, now let's get back to the status quo." This isn't to say that GM is run by Snidely Whiplash twirrling his mustache saying "ha! ha! ha!" If by some miracle the EV-1 worked, great, but they certainly weren't going to go out of their way to make it one.
Meanwhile the Japanese manufactuers are leading the way in the development of new green vehicles.
Now what industry was it again where the American companies refused to develop new products, and the Japanese produced new produucts that the market actually wanted to purchase? It was back in the 70s. There's that major city that's never recovered since then. I don't remember. It starts with a D. It's not Des Moines, but something like that, De-something. I don't know which industry it was, but I'm sure it wasn't the American auto industry though. No one would be stupid enough to allow the same thing to happen twice in less than a generation.
Accomplished pilot takes off from a remote airport without a flightplan and goes missing? Sounds like he killed himself.
States can't tax out of state sales, since the cars aren't made in california. That's interstate commerce, and is exressely the sole-domain of the federal government.
No discernible impact on the market place. So why aren't they satisfied? Wasn't that the point?
The point was apparently completely missed by you.
The line wasn't "the rich are richer," as you implied but rather "get richer" as in "increase wealth relative to the rest of society." It is well known that of the destabilizing influence large economic gaps have on societies. The creation of a permanent underclass is not conductive to democracies, nor productive economies. For instance, it's well known that the wealthy have better access to the legal system through being able to afford more and better lawyers, while the poor often have no access to legal council in civil settings, and inadequate council in criminal settings.
It's relative wealth, not absolute wealth that matters to the fabric of a society. Attempting to place emphasis on absolute wealth, while ignoring the very real effects of large relative wealth disparity is a well known trick of the wealthy to attempt distract the majority poor into supporting that are not in their economic self-interest.
You really should learn some socioeconomics.
Yeah. I hear the The North Platte Bulletin has an opening for a Beijing bureau chief.
Wire services exist because it is impossible for every news outlet to cover every story. Hell, given the buisness situation in the newspaper industry, even the major papers are drawing down their national and international coverage and relying more on wire services. I'm specifically thinking the LA Times' recent hyperlocal direction.
The idea that somehow that newspapers sites were getting reliable significant "free traffic" from google news is absurd. gnews's site selection algorithm is essentially random. We've all seen examples where gnews would highlight some white supremacist news site. (Yes, Google has since blacklisted that site from gnews.) It's no secret who the top sites featured on gnews are, its the old standbys. In all actuality, having gnews highllight some small newspaper could actually cause more problems for the paper, when their site is inevitably slashdotted, or gnewsed as the case may be.
So does a painting.
Also you don't need ten thousand receipts.
Well there's no maybe about it. This problem already exists. Do you know where you can find a an 8 inch floppy disk drive? I don't. The only one I've ever seen was in Matthew Broderick's room in Wargames.
Well let's be clear about what type of problem this really is. Is the problem of effectively losing archival data an actual problem or just soething we perceive as a problem do to a pack-rat mentality? Humanity has lost data from the very beginning. Either Crug forgot it, or it died with him, or if it was recorded, it was lost or destroyed. Does it matter? Not really. The important stuff has pretty much remained accessable through oput the ages. Undoubtedly, some important stuff has been lost, or at least we would consider it important if we knew it existed, but all in all we've done okay, since the vast majority of data stored is records that's lose their value after a year.
Right now I'm thinking of this story I heard recently about these old records that were found preserved in a vault from some early Chinese imperial dynasty. What was so imporant that the Chinese Empire felt compeled to preserve for all time?
Tax Records. Tax Records! Honestly, it was rooms filled with with stacks and stacks of paper that read things like, "The boat belonging to Qin Xiaofu is hereby permitted to access to the Han river for the duration of the season."
Interesting? Sure. It shows that bureacracies are timeless, and ads a poignant reminder of the old adage, "the only thing that's constant is death and taxes," but is it imporant? Hell no! It lost importance shortly after it was recorded. We could lose it today, and we'd be out of nothing. It could have been lost centuries ago, and it wouldn't have affected us one bit.
I think that's because we could conceivably store these things imperpituity that we think we should, and "could" and "should" are two very different situations.
A distinction without a difference if you ask me. The data is out of reach. The more pertinent question is wheter it matters if that data is out of reach.
They're free to use the code if they want. The GPL allows anyone to use the code. The BSD people don't want to. It's not removing anything. It's them not wanting to exercise their right because it self-important ideas of "purity." (And yes, the FSF is just the other side of the same coin.)
Heaven forbid anyone actually just use the best code that's publicly availble.
Don't dual license code. Especially when you have to deal with not one, but two, bullheaded people.
And open source project locked out of open source code by a open source license? Yeah. "Ironic," would be a word for it. "Self-rightous-hissy-fit," would be another.
I believe the other thing registration of copyright allows you to do is sue for damages as opposed to simplly C&D.
I think it pretty much reached maturity and so development stopped. Afterall, there's only so much you can do with a file syncher.
Simply instally unison or rsync or whatever and have the job kick off with whereami for linux (you'll have to find the main page yourself) or marco polo for macs.
rsync is unidirectional, while unison is bidirectional. While great, rsync isn't always the right solution.
Oh noez!! I haz a pair of ducks![*]
The only thing that's relevant to any discussion of any contemporary political regime is how they act today and the recent past. Pining over long dead civilizations and trying to impart a few choice characteristics some idealized version of them on to their contemporary decendents while ignoring all intervening history is extremely sophmoric.
----
[*] Thank you. Thank you. I'll be here all week. Two shows on Friday and Saturday: 7 and 10. No kids at the 10. It gets a little blue.
It's not him. It's his evil clone. Or perhaps... HE is the evil clone!
I kind of like it.
Now that would be cool. Especically when I eat a traditional Southern breakfast!
Let me reply again...
Actually, having someone else encased in carbonite, might actually be cooler. Afterall this is one of a kind, and Han is so cliched.