It's interesting that when people talk about this issue they aren't interested in a true debate. They have a hypothesis and only seek find the data that supports the hypothesis.
If we really wanted a debate, we'd at least hav some points of view seen on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, et al. But they talk about it as though it were a forgone conclusion. It's not, it's very worthy of study, and genuine study.
The scientific method is based the princlple that one collects data and draws a conclusion from all the data collected.
They have signatures from over 4000 scientists who say:
"The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world's ills, provided that they do not
sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. "
So, as the original posting of the aricle says..
What does this mean for global warming? Nobody knows.
so there's more in the kitty for the manager to take home.
The management's compensation is decided by the board, NOT the manager. Don't emote about these observations, research them and get the facts. Managers get a bad rap because being a good manager is very difficult. Not to say that there aren't some Dilbert-esque managers out there -- there are.
If you believe that the manager gets to pocket the amount of money saved by hiring workers willing to work for less, attend a board meeting and ask about the manager's compensation criteria. If you are unwilling to attend and/or research this information, please hold your tongue.
I guess that would be true if we had language develop without widespread communication. In the western United States. There is little to no accent difference between Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Oregon and neighboring states. Comparing this to the eastern seaboard of the United Stated where each of these much smaller states has a significant difference in colloqialisms and pronunciation. Compare this to countries like England or Germany. These countries are geographically much smaller than the US, and have a more diverse dialectal shift.
Why?
Most likely, beacause the West of the US was settled with reliable transcontinental communication. The orginal thirteen colonies were relatively isolated. Likewise, England and especially Germany had villages that were so isolated that they developed their own local brogue.
As more folks learn English, they will be exchanging information and ideas with Brits, Irish, Aussies, Canucks and Yanks. The differences will be noticable, but they will not be obstacles.
Corporations will always evolve to survive in changing market conditions (of course, those that don't survive are replaced by a better-adapted competitor). This is why governments should have no fear in tightening the leash on corporations, instead of pandering to them (which sickens me to watch).
I agree with you partially. However, I don't think this applies to multinational corporations. If a government puts too tight of a restriction on a company, they leave and go somewhere else. Governments are national, Companies are multinational. Some governments understand this, some don't. Most people don't really care about this when they buy the products they do. They only care about the price and the quality. If consumers cared more about where stuff came from, companies would care more about where they make it.
That *may* have been true once. But the SCOTUS has *clearly* stated, time and time again for almost half a century, that the guarantee in the 14th amendment that "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" *extends* various amendments to cover the states; the first is included in that list. How is it lawful for the SCOTUS to deprive a person the right to express religious speech freely in a public place? Isn't that a violation of a citizen's right to liberty and happiness?..free speech? Isn't this a case of the court stating what kind of speech is ok and what is not?
The constitution in question here is the Federal constitution. The schools are not federal schools, they are a part of local government. (Federal) Congress shall make no law.. the states are left to do this. The federal government does not have jurisdiction here, the constitution states that items not listed here are left to the states.
The US brand of Capitalism is very government controlled, and it needs to stay that way.
I disagree. Commerce is regulated, not controlled. There is a subtle, but very important difference.
As a more academic and interesting example. Let's look at pre-1997 Hong Kong. The government there was described as "benevolent neglect." I kept it's hands out of people's affairs unless there was violation of property rights. (This includes crimes like burglary, murder, assault et al.) This policy was part of Governor Cowperthwaite (sp?) in the 1960's and early 1970's. It is only now that people recognize the "benevolence" of this act. It forced businesses and individuals to know that there wasn't going to be anybody there to catch you if you fall. Businesses and individuals alike. The saying goes "If you know there's no net, you hold on more tightly to the trapeeze."
Anyhow. The point is that the comsumers there know the government isn't looking out for them, so they are more familiar with "caveat emptor." Not only that, the people there are all too aware of a government that wants *lots* of control.
...Sounds like a profitable business plan to me. Isn't this what most businesses try to do in one form or another? Yes, all companies try to do this, however for monopolies to do this is a violation of the law. Most companies who try to achieve this have to team up with other competitors to carry this out; monopolies can just go ahead and do it. That's why our society decided that it was fundamentally bad and made it illegal.
"I also said that there _is_ a difference between America and China; the Chinese are much less hypocritical. And the anti-Chinese propoganda makes the situation there appear to be worse than it is in reality. "
Have you been to China? The reason that they seem less hypocritical is that the government is the only one who has control of the media. They also historically have been very good at playing the "victim" card, when in fact they have used this role to justify their "response" as merely "defensive".
You have to be in China to know what I am talking about. To get any kind of clue from the information the is permitted to leave China in any formal medium is suspect at best. I suppose that a personal friend in China would also be a decent source of information.
People don't come out and protest in obvious ways, they are done in very subtle ways. If they were overt about it, they would be locked up and shut up. To protest the Tiananmen Square Massacre, students would go out into the square and hold small bottles in the air and drop them to watch them smash on the concrete. The stupid wai-guo-ren (foreigners) don't have a damn clue. And thus, it never makes it on the news. To break the small bottle is siginificant. Deng XiaoPing was the dude who ordered the tanks to crush the students. The Chinese word for small bottle is also "xiao ping" (with diffent tones). A quite subtle protest indeed.
To simply read the party line from China and believe it carte blanche, without looking at the dissonance of context that it is stated, is foolish.
The Chinese do not have a free press as a watchdog to the governments actions, we do. This ultimately is the liberating difference. The free-flow of information will not allow covert operations to occur so easily. They will still occur, but less so.
There was a HUGE famine in China in the late 1950's. We didn't know about it until about 25 years later. We found out this information from demographics. The Chinese government still does not admit that there was a 2-3 year famine that killed tens of millions.
This would and could not happen in a society that permits the truth to be revealed.
More interesting info here....http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/
I'm sure we all appreciate your good intentions, but I'll do what's best for me, thank you very much.. it is arrogant indeed to suggest that you know what's best for everybody else.
If you are offended, well that's your problem to solve. If you believe that you can figure it out for yourself, well cool. But don't tell someone to shut up because they make you uncomfortable. It is not illegal to be rude, I think that we are free to be rude; we draw the line at slander.
Ignore them and they will eventually go away.
Yes it can easily be concluded that someone is arrogant. Do you have the right to tell them that you disagree and you think it is arrogant? Yup. Do they have the right to speak their minds too? Yup. Do you have the right to ignore what they say and ask them to leave? Yup. Do you have the right to shut them up, NO. Do they have the right to shut you up? NO.
I believe that Sybase is not as good of a choice as it once was. The latest version is still the only version 11.0.3-3
Wondering if they have lost their interest in Linux....
Also comparing some stuff.... there is no tool in Sybase to get a ddl (need 3rd party toy) [dbschema.pl] there is no way to dump the db to a collection of SQL statements. similar to postgreSQL's pg_dump [a feature that Oracle has in the stock install]
I would love to see Sybase use linux as a means to have Sybase move in on MS-SQL Sewer on the low to mid range. But they don't have the balls/ovaries.
You clearly do not understand that there are two kinds of people who have money.
Those that earned it and those who stole it.
The people who steal the money are attaining wealth at the expense of others. Fortunately, these people are in the minority.
The people who earn it are doing so because they are adding value someplace, and are being compensated for it. (They could, of course, inherit money from a person like this too) Most importantly, people who have money generally know how to make it work for them. They save, invest and grow their assets. There are people who do not know how to handle their money, and consequently they have less than they would otherwise have. People who do not know how to handle their money, and insist on remaining ignorant of this skill have no one to blame but themselves.
The average Joe you speak of, could easily learn how to invest and grow their savings. However, I wonder how many of these folks have even thought about how to manage their money.
I find it fascinating that people bash investors for being wealthy. Would an investor that didn't have much money be able to get a lot of clients ? Doubt it. Would you hire an attorney doing time? Doubt it.
Investors know how to manage their assets and how to take advantage of every opportunity they have. No, kidding they will use these skills to maximize their holdings. If these skills are used in a situation that is illegal--well that's another issue entirely.
I guess I don't know why you have a leg to stand on when you whine about people who are wealthy.
The act of intercourse is EXTREMELY painful for the female big cats, like lions, tiger, cheetahs etc. The male lion pulls his claws over the female's ears just to distract her from the pain of intercourse. Pleasure has little to do with it.
I also have a difficult time with the belief that people are just like all other mammals in the act of procreation, since the human is the only mammal without a penile bone. Somehow, there is a significant difference in the procreation of humans compared to other mammals. This seems to lessen the role of a precedent that other mammals might set for us humans.
Saying that the Catholic church is now what it was hundreds of years ago is like saying that Latin and Church Latin are the same thing. They are not.
The internet, as well as many other things are a result of human inginuity. Clearly not all people believe this, but I believe that human inginuity is not something we made, but something we were given. I am confident you will disagree with me, and I throroughly don't mind at all.
How long has there been a Vatican Political agenda. Not long, the Vatican has not been a soverign nation until this century. This has been very good. It has made some official separation between the Italian political arena and the Church. Clearly, after hundreds of years of the Roman Catholic Church, it will be a while before the Italian part has a chance to fade. The Catholic Church is OLD. When you have been around long enough, people will sometimes do really dumb things. This is no exception. I hope that other people are more forgiving of your decision making, than you are of organized religion.
I am not exacly sure why I responded...knee jerk reatcion I guess. Not so much the aspect of faith, but the historical half-truths and bitter spin you put on the topic. Clearly, your convictions are deep-seated and I am not trying to "win you over." I'm just thinking and letting my fingers click away until I feel better.
M$ releases new versions of it's software on a somwhat regular basis so they advance technology. They release bloated and top heavy software, but guess what, the AVERAGE (read that as consumer, you know the general public, the people who you are trying to save) person LIKES IT
In the words of Brian Sparks "Well, I like air!"
People don't buy M$ because they like it, they buy it because they are ignorant. They are ignorant because they are afraid of incompatibility. M$ tells them what M$ wants people to believe. They think M$ invented the internet (Oh wait that was Al Gore).
People are acting as a result of scare tactics from M$ to make them believe that there is no other way, not because they evaluate the software for what it is.
If mom and pop can't compete put 'em in an old folks home and get back to business.
Very elequent:-)
M$ is not just a business. Legally they are a monopoly. They have over 70% marketshare in the desktop operating market. There is no refuting it. As such, they fall under the laws that regulate monopolies. M$ is trying to convice the public that they are not a monopoly. Monopolies are not illegal, but not adhering to monopoly law is illegal. M$ is trying very hard to convince people that they are not a monopoly. I think they will have a very difficult time doing this. Although, I have met attorneys that could convince me that the moon really is made of green cheese.
People that believe a country that is totally free is somehow equated with a utopia. Utopia it ain't, but free it certainly is. People are free to disagree. This blows the mind of some of my friends and in-laws from China and Japan (respectively) where consensus is the rule and not majority vote.
The fact that people openly disagree and yell and scream at each other looks like totaly chaos on the surface, but the underlying order is that they both hold sacred the right to disagree. This is the freedom that is the freedom in the US.
We are free to criticize the government and tell them they are out of touch and full of it.
The other interesting element of the mistakes and idiotic moves the US government makes is that the whole world is watching. No other country on earth goes through the fine-tooth comb of criticism that the US goes through.
The only way to not be criticised for wrongdoing is to do nothing....oh wait that doesn't work either.
People who expect governments to behave the same as individual people are fooling themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting that when people talk about this issue they aren't interested in a true debate. They have a hypothesis and only seek find the data that supports the hypothesis.
If we really wanted a debate, we'd at least hav some points of view seen on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times, et al. But they talk about it as though it were a forgone conclusion. It's not, it's very worthy of study, and genuine study.
The scientific method is based the princlple that one collects data and draws a conclusion from all the data collected.
In addition, people always seem to gravitate to the Kyoto treaty when this issue is put on the table. I find it curious that we never hear about the Leipzig Declaration, the Heidelburg Appeal, the and the Oregon Appeal.
They have signatures from over 4000 scientists who say:
"The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world's ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. "
So, as the original posting of the aricle says.. What does this mean for global warming? Nobody knows.
so there's more in the kitty for the manager to take home.
The management's compensation is decided by the board, NOT the manager. Don't emote about these observations, research them and get the facts. Managers get a bad rap because being a good manager is very difficult. Not to say that there aren't some Dilbert-esque managers out there -- there are.
If you believe that the manager gets to pocket the amount of money saved by hiring workers willing to work for less, attend a board meeting and ask about the manager's compensation criteria. If you are unwilling to attend and/or research this information, please hold your tongue.
This is the Cato Institute, not Cato Calin.
The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank, Cato Calin thinks about as often as a fish tank.
I guess that would be true if we had language develop without widespread communication. In the western United States. There is little to no accent difference between Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Oregon and neighboring states. Comparing this to the eastern seaboard of the United Stated where each of these much smaller states has a significant difference in colloqialisms and pronunciation. Compare this to countries like England or Germany. These countries are geographically much smaller than the US, and have a more diverse dialectal shift.
Why?
Most likely, beacause the West of the US was settled with reliable transcontinental communication. The orginal thirteen colonies were relatively isolated. Likewise, England and especially Germany had villages that were so isolated that they developed their own local brogue.
As more folks learn English, they will be exchanging information and ideas with Brits, Irish, Aussies, Canucks and Yanks. The differences will be noticable, but they will not be obstacles.
Corporations will always evolve to survive in changing market conditions (of course, those that don't survive are replaced by a better-adapted competitor). This is why governments should have no fear in tightening the leash on corporations, instead of pandering to them (which sickens me to watch).
I agree with you partially. However, I don't think this applies to multinational corporations. If a government puts too tight of a restriction on a company, they leave and go somewhere else. Governments are national, Companies are multinational. Some governments understand this, some don't. Most people don't really care about this when they buy the products they do. They only care about the price and the quality. If consumers cared more about where stuff came from, companies would care more about where they make it.
That *may* have been true once. But the SCOTUS has *clearly* stated, time and time again for almost half a century, that the guarantee in the 14th amendment that "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" *extends* various amendments to cover the states; the first is included in that list.
How is it lawful for the SCOTUS to deprive a person the right to express religious speech freely in a public place? Isn't that a violation of a citizen's right to liberty and happiness?..free speech? Isn't this a case of the court stating what kind of speech is ok and what is not?
The constitution in question here is the Federal constitution. The schools are not federal schools, they are a part of local government.
(Federal) Congress shall make no law..
the states are left to do this. The federal government does not have jurisdiction here, the constitution states that items not listed here are left to the states.
SCO are a "name"
How many SCO are there?
The US brand of Capitalism is very government controlled, and it needs to stay that way.
I disagree. Commerce is regulated, not controlled. There is a subtle, but very important difference.
As a more academic and interesting example. Let's look at pre-1997 Hong Kong. The government there was described as "benevolent neglect." I kept it's hands out of people's affairs unless there was violation of property rights. (This includes crimes like burglary, murder, assault et al.) This policy was part of Governor Cowperthwaite (sp?) in the 1960's and early 1970's. It is only now that people recognize the "benevolence" of this act. It forced businesses and individuals to know that there wasn't going to be anybody there to catch you if you fall. Businesses and individuals alike. The saying goes "If you know there's no net, you hold on more tightly to the trapeeze."
Anyhow. The point is that the comsumers there know the government isn't looking out for them, so they are more familiar with "caveat emptor." Not only that, the people there are all too aware of a government that wants *lots* of control.
...Sounds like a profitable business plan to me. Isn't this what most businesses try to do in one form or another? Yes, all companies try to do this, however for monopolies to do this is a violation of the law. Most companies who try to achieve this have to team up with other competitors to carry this out; monopolies can just go ahead and do it. That's why our society decided that it was fundamentally bad and made it illegal.
Hiroshima was and still is a HUGE industrial center. It was a military target, a civilian target would have been Osaka ot Kyoto.
"I also said that there _is_ a difference between America and China; the Chinese are much less hypocritical. And the anti-Chinese propoganda
makes the situation there appear to be worse than it is in reality. "
Have you been to China? The reason that they seem less hypocritical is that the government is the only one who has control of the media. They also historically have been very good at playing the "victim" card, when in fact they have used this role to justify their "response" as merely "defensive".
You have to be in China to know what I am talking about. To get any kind of clue from the information the is permitted to leave China in any formal medium is suspect at best. I suppose that a personal friend in China would also be a decent source of information.
People don't come out and protest in obvious ways, they are done in very subtle ways. If they were overt about it, they would be locked up and shut up. To protest the Tiananmen Square Massacre, students would go out into the square and hold small bottles in the air and drop them to watch them smash on the concrete. The stupid wai-guo-ren (foreigners) don't have a damn clue. And thus, it never makes it on the news. To break the small bottle is siginificant. Deng XiaoPing was the dude who ordered the tanks to crush the students. The Chinese word for small bottle is also "xiao ping" (with diffent tones). A quite subtle protest indeed.
To simply read the party line from China and believe it carte blanche, without looking at the dissonance of context that it is stated, is foolish.
The Chinese do not have a free press as a watchdog to the governments actions, we do. This ultimately is the liberating difference. The free-flow of information will not allow covert operations to occur so easily. They will still occur, but less so.
There was a HUGE famine in China in the late 1950's. We didn't know about it until about 25 years later. We found out this information from demographics. The Chinese government still does not admit that there was a 2-3 year famine that killed tens of millions.
This would and could not happen in a society that permits the truth to be revealed.
More interesting info here....http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/
dear sir/madam,
.. it is arrogant indeed to suggest that you know what's best for everybody else.
I'm sure we all appreciate your good intentions, but I'll do what's best for me, thank you very much
If you are offended, well that's your problem to solve. If you believe that you can figure it out for yourself, well cool. But don't tell someone to shut up because they make you uncomfortable. It is not illegal to be rude, I think that we are free to be rude; we draw the line at slander.
Ignore them and they will eventually go away.
Yes it can easily be concluded that someone is arrogant. Do you have the right to tell them that you disagree and you think it is arrogant? Yup. Do they have the right to speak their minds too? Yup. Do you have the right to ignore what they say and ask them to leave? Yup. Do you have the right to shut them up, NO. Do they have the right to shut you up? NO.
Freedom.
I think that M$ trying to cut Linux's marketshare in half is a lot like trying to cut a cloud in half with a knife.
It is still something that Microsoft does not understand, and cannot control. It is without a choke point.
I believe that Sybase is not as good of a choice as it once was. The latest version is still the only version 11.0.3-3
Wondering if they have lost their interest in Linux....
Also comparing some stuff....
there is no tool in Sybase to get a ddl (need 3rd party toy) [dbschema.pl]
there is no way to dump the db to a collection of SQL statements. similar to postgreSQL's pg_dump [a feature that Oracle has in the stock install]
I would love to see Sybase use linux as a means to have Sybase move in on MS-SQL Sewer on the low to mid range. But they don't have the balls/ovaries.
Thanks for the heads-up.
:(
It would have taken about 4 hours to download at the transfer rate I was getting
Glad you saved me the @#$@$@#$@#!!!! swearing-fest that would have followed. I don't want to sell a kidney to run the database more than 30 days.
Cheers Mate !!!
You clearly do not understand that there are two kinds of people who have money.
Those that earned it and those who stole it.
The people who steal the money are attaining wealth at the expense of others. Fortunately, these people are in the minority.
The people who earn it are doing so because they are adding value someplace, and are being compensated for it. (They could, of course, inherit money from a person like this too) Most importantly, people who have money generally know how to make it work for them. They save, invest and grow their assets. There are people who do not know how to handle their money, and consequently they have less than they would otherwise have. People who do not know how to handle their money, and insist on remaining ignorant of this skill have no one to blame but themselves.
The average Joe you speak of, could easily learn how to invest and grow their savings. However, I wonder how many of these folks have even thought about how to manage their money.
I find it fascinating that people bash investors for being wealthy. Would an investor that didn't have much money be able to get a lot of clients ? Doubt it. Would you hire an attorney doing time? Doubt it.
Investors know how to manage their assets and how to take advantage of every opportunity they have. No, kidding they will use these skills to maximize their holdings. If these skills are used in a situation that is illegal--well that's another issue entirely.
I guess I don't know why you have a leg to stand on when you whine about people who are wealthy.
Holy balls I just about core dumped my pants I laughed so hard !
You got an AVI of this? I don't want to squander weeks at the zoo waiting for this to happen.
The act of intercourse is EXTREMELY painful for the female big cats, like lions, tiger, cheetahs etc. The male lion pulls his claws over the female's ears just to distract her from the pain of intercourse. Pleasure has little to do with it.
I also have a difficult time with the belief that people are just like all other mammals in the act of procreation, since the human is the only mammal without a penile bone. Somehow, there is a significant difference in the procreation of humans compared to other mammals. This seems to lessen the role of a precedent that other mammals might set for us humans.
Yup,
The fact Algebra came out the Moslem world is unlikely a freak of nature.
I find it ironic that Newton concluded that being able to describe all physical movement with five simple equations was evidence of God.
Saying that the Catholic church is now what it was hundreds of years ago is like saying that Latin and Church Latin are the same thing. They are not.
The internet, as well as many other things are a result of human inginuity. Clearly not all people believe this, but I believe that human inginuity is not something we made, but something we were given. I am confident you will disagree with me, and I throroughly don't mind at all.
How long has there been a Vatican Political agenda. Not long, the Vatican has not been a soverign nation until this century. This has been very good. It has made some official separation between the Italian political arena and the Church. Clearly, after hundreds of years of the Roman Catholic Church, it will be a while before the Italian part has a chance to fade. The Catholic Church is OLD. When you have been around long enough, people will sometimes do really dumb things. This is no exception. I hope that other people are more forgiving of your decision making, than you are of organized religion.
I am not exacly sure why I responded...knee jerk reatcion I guess. Not so much the aspect of faith, but the historical half-truths and bitter spin you put on the topic. Clearly, your convictions are deep-seated and I am not trying to "win you over." I'm just thinking and letting my fingers click away until I feel better.
This is Slashdot; you can do that.
Hey,
:)
I have a St. Jude medal I sometimes wear when I code. He's the patron saint of lost causes, my code sometimes needs all the help it can get
M$ releases new versions of it's software on a somwhat regular basis so they advance technology. They release bloated and top heavy software, but guess what, the AVERAGE (read that as consumer, you know the general public, the people who you are trying to save) person LIKES IT
:-)
In the words of Brian Sparks "Well, I like air!"
People don't buy M$ because they like it, they buy it because they are ignorant. They are ignorant because they are afraid of incompatibility. M$ tells them what M$ wants people to believe. They think M$ invented the internet (Oh wait that was Al Gore).
People are acting as a result of scare tactics from M$ to make them believe that there is no other way, not because they evaluate the software for what it is.
If mom and pop can't compete put 'em in an old folks home and get back to business.
Very elequent
M$ is not just a business. Legally they are a monopoly. They have over 70% marketshare in the desktop operating market. There is no refuting it. As such, they fall under the laws that regulate monopolies. M$ is trying to convice the public that they are not a monopoly. Monopolies are not illegal, but not adhering to monopoly law is illegal. M$ is trying very hard to convince people that they are not a monopoly. I think they will have a very difficult time doing this. Although, I have met attorneys that could convince me that the moon really is made of green cheese.
Interesting.
People that believe a country that is totally free is somehow equated with a utopia. Utopia it ain't, but free it certainly is. People are free to disagree. This blows the mind of some of my friends and in-laws from China and Japan (respectively) where consensus is the rule and not majority vote.
The fact that people openly disagree and yell and scream at each other looks like totaly chaos on the surface, but the underlying order is that they both hold sacred the right to disagree. This is the freedom that is the freedom in the US.
We are free to criticize the government and tell them they are out of touch and full of it.
The other interesting element of the mistakes and idiotic moves the US government makes is that the whole world is watching. No other country on earth goes through the fine-tooth comb of criticism that the US goes through.
The only way to not be criticised for wrongdoing is to do nothing....oh wait that doesn't work either.
People who expect governments to behave the same as individual people are fooling themselves.