You wouldn't be so confused if you had been working for Digital Research as they saw there contracts dry up due to Microsoft enforcing per-processor liscensing. You'd probably know what we're talking about if you'd ever had to actually pay your money to upgrade perfectly good software because Microsoft was foisting another incompatible memory dump file format on the world. You'd most likely understand if you had to pay for a copy of software that you'd never use due to the restrictive liscensing schemes the Microsoft forces on the market. You'd probably had a clue if you had worked at BeOS and saw every avenue for introducing your software cut off by Microsoft.
You can't see the the evil because you have your head up your managers butt. Every read many reports that the environment up there is insular an breeds that particular condition. Microsoft has a monopoly and foist crap on the public at extortionist rates. That makes the whole lot corrupt...which is to say, evil.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers back when Google results were essentially free of this type of nonsense. Even a very broad search would generally return useful results. For instance, searching for "toy firetruck" would return links to toy stores and antique toy dealers on the first few pages. Quality search results were the driving factor in switching from some other search engine to Google.
I remember. I also remember searching for a subject and getting results from individuals websites with useful information. I used to use Google to get the real information about any expensive object I was considering buying. Now any search for a product returns so many hits for someone who is selling it, with nothing more than the same marketing blurb across all the sites, that I've nearly abandoned the practice. I think Google should provide a no-commercial option that does 2 thing:
1) Lower the page ranking of sites with identical text as several other sites.
2) Lower the page ranking of sites with advertisements.
I do. Worked on system test for it in one of IBMs RTP, NC sweatshop labs. It is an overly bloated POS that tries to hack together everything in the enterprise for managing PCs into a Web frontend. It's a disjointed, discontiguous hack of lots of various technologies thrown in a bucket and stirred liberally.
Websphere was not "architected". That implies forethought and planning, not "hack together lots of other people's technologies and call it a management platform."
I won't say your incorrect, but I think the concentration on sniper fire in the Iraqi theater is misguided. The inventor could have served himself better by ignoring the issue of bullet penetration completely. This sort of protection would be much more useful against the sort of damage that the enemy is actually inflicting...roadside bombs.
The perception of apparent injustice in wealth distribution leads immediately to the conlusion that the government needs to confiscate wealth and redistribute it. I'm not buying it, as that leads to the perception that no matter how hard you work, the government is just going to come and take it all. I think laws that empower average citizens, and at least enhances the perception that there is a way out, will be what reduces overall crime.
Redistribution always leads to someone having to decide how much is redistributed and to whom. This task most often will fall to those who are wealthy. If you're not already attuned to where this leads, you get the situation where there is a 'tax on the wealthy' that just happens to have a loophole big enough to drive a large SUV/truck through...but only if you can afford to pay cash for the SUV/truck.
There are only three things that drive men in this world: power, money, and sex. Of those, money is only good for obtaining power, and the only point of power is to obtain sex. The only unfairness in all of it, is that women control half the money, and all of the sex.
What is this "support" you speak of with Windows software? How often have you called the friendly support line and talked to someone that could find their butt with either hand?
I can guarantee that the FiOS is running over ATM. All the boxes on the houses switch each of the services into seperate ATM VCs. It's the easiest and most logical way to handle it if you want to maintain any sort of QoS guarantees between the different services.
I'm totally confused by the responses I've read to this article. Everyone is immediately jumping to the idea of vigilantism and the corporate newspapers outsourcing their investigations for free. Remember that saying about those willing to give up their freedom for a little percieved safety deserving neither? Well, people who are not willing to be involved with investigations of local government deserve to be financially raped by the same.
I've been a member of a church at several times that was transitioning from one pastor to another. For the non-religious, it can be any club or organization. Doesn't really matter. But when there wasn't a pastor, all the members would step up to the plate, things would get done, and the church did well. Then a new pastor would come in, everyone would say that it's the pastors job (for N number of jobs), and the place would start to fall apart. I've seen music groups do the same thing, and a democracy is no different. When people set back and say its the police/FDA/FCC/newspaper's job to expose corruption, then corruption is never dealt with, because there is always more corruption than any authority can handle.
The summary said that the newspaper got responses from architects and accountants. People with skills and knowledge that no reporter could hope to have. We all complain about reporters being idiots, and then we complain when they ask for help? If I saw something in some source code that didn't look quite right, I would take it to co-workers and ask for input. Why is it wrong for a newspaper to do the same for something in the government that looks suspicious? It is OUR government, after all.
A whistle-blower saw that there was a place to submit information that would possibly do something about the problem. He could call a 1-800 number and then suffer the retribution as the problem being reported is swept under the rug, or he can be a hero for exploding it into the light. Which is more likely to get people to come forward?
Is it vigilantism for people to band together and seek the truth? Where does it say that truth seeking must remain secretive till someone determines that the process is complete? The idea is ludicrous, because it only insures that the powerful know where to go to suppress inconventient truths.
Ever since the airports were forced to take out the pay toilets, they just have not had as much loot in their lobby fund.
So use some of the cafeteria fund, then. There's bound to be plenty there. Have you seen the prices they charge for that crap-in-a-box they serve there?
Was watching a show on CNN last night about digital privacy, cameras, et. al.
There's all these gray areas about what is or should be public knowledge and what is wrong with someone sharing what is already in the public domain. Why is it a freedom of speech issue for 'Online Tech Magazine' to be able to review motherboards and tell the world that they suck..but when the company that makes the motherboard turns around and reviews the reviewer, showing everyone the PUBLIC records of the multiple fraud convictions, it's called a privacy issue? The records were made public by law for a reason, were they not?
We came to a simple conclusion, and a simpler solution. It's not the sharing of the information. It's the damn sneaky way they go about sharing it. If my employer requests a background check from Verifact, why the hell isn't Verifact required to tell me what it is telling the employer? That's whispering behind my back, and it considered very rude behavior in polite company. Hell, Verifact already knows where I live (as well as what I had for dinner last night). It wouldn't cost them more than some duplicate copies and a stamp to tell me what they're telling everybody else about me.
The conclusion we drew was that obviously they know their database is full of constantly perpetuated crap, and they don't want the onslaught of customer service calls that they will be battered with when people find out what is being said about them. I call them up, tell them that the information is wrong, and now they are at risk of libel/slander. Before they can just plead, "Heh, it's a mistake. We didn't know." Much more profitable to just dump crap in a database then sell it, than to attempt to exercise due diligence. Which begs the next question: As an employer, what the hell do I want with a background check that is jsut as likely to be full of lies and misinformation than anything else? Before paying one of these companies, the employer should ask if the victim will be given a copy and any chance to correct mistakes.
I take it a step further. My children have been taught, and will continue to be taught, that there is nothing wrong to put yourself on the line to protect those weaker than yourself. Befriend the bullied and stand with them. Part of the socialization is that your supposed to be converted to sheep and accept the bullies as overlords. Replace 'adminstrator' with 'police' and the conversion to adulthood is complete.
Fuck 'em. I will protect myself, my family, and my neighbors, and if I have to sacrifice to do it...so be it. OP should have learned that standing up for yourself is painful, but it's the only way to stop the bullying.
Without (government) regulation, reputable doctors and health care providers would likely form their own associations which would certify that people were actually competent to practice medicine. And what's more, they might actually be run by medical experts rather than politicians and bureaucrats.
I can't believe after the last 200 years of history that anyone has the gall to make this argument with a straight face.
We had unregulated medicine. Throughout the 19th century. And what did we get? A bunch of traveling quacks with patent syrup. And very little real healing for anybody.
So, why can't the government provide certification, without the paternal step of saying that I can't pay a witch doctor to bleed me? Just say, Mr. Voodoo is a quack, and leave it at that? It's my money and my blood, after all. This is along the lines of rating restaurants. I can eat at a B rated restaurant all day long. I'd rather not, though, and will turn around and leave in a heartbeat (big incentive for the establishment to clean-up their act...literally). I prefer my regulation with a healthy dash of minimalism.(sp?)
As for the FAA. I'm nearly finished building my own airplane. 4 seat. 180MPH. Delta configuration. I would have bought one, but the cost of a comparative plane that is certificated would be about $250,000(US). This is arguably in large part due to regulation. The price difference between two altimeters, one TSOed and the other not, will be about $210 and $110. Both come off the same assembly line, but the expensive one has the government paperwork. The largest growing section of the US GA fleet is experimental aircraft for this very reason. Most of the big pushes from pilot organizations (EAA and AOPA) is for the Feds to back up on some of their more onerous regulations.
Remember, that when governments start all the regulations, that the industry groups don't sit idly by and take what's handed to them. The biggest rule I learned in pilot training was that I'm not allowed to charge anyone for a flight. The argument was that this was for safety, but this is ridiculously transparent bullshite. The airlines didn't want to compete against a fleet of part-time air taxis. Again, I like my regulation with a healthy dash of minimalism.
these companies are attempting to use technology to enforce contract law.
Except they're not. There is nothing contractual about a EULA. They are attempting to use technology to enforce their own will, but they'd need my signature for the EULA to be a contract.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but your argument above is why the masses refer to the Greens as "environmental wackos".
You are proposing that the politico's are purposefully ignoring a situation that will have disastrous results for themselves and their children? Just so they don't have to tell the people something the people don't want to hear? Are you seriously proposing that there are politicians running for office on the "Cadillac in every garage" platform? And not only are they ignoring the situation, they are fully aware of it and its consequences, but instead are expending a great amount of political capital to actively promote lies, twist the truth, and even commit illegal acts to confuse the public? Son, you need to put a second layer on that tinfoil hat of yours. Wouldn't it be much more likely that they share the disbelief that the greater public has in the idea that our doom lies around the corner because we drove to work this morning.
So Gore found 900+ reports that all agreed 100%. What does the greater public think? How did he do that? By ignoring 900+ reports that disagreed, maybe? The number is pointless and meaningless without context, except as a propoganda tool, which is what everyone except the converted sees it as? The vast majority of the people see nothing more that Gore still stumping for attention, whether it be true or no.
Gore needs to go away and shut-up. He is a spent shell that is getting in the way of people that have a chance of swaying public opinion. Greens in general need to stop looking for disaster and villany, because people in general will just turn that off. Politically, you can't be very effective once marginalized.
Not to belittle your comments, but you say that it needs to be a growing company with good prospects of advancement, and the stability and wherewithall to pay bonuses, but that 'prominent' doesn't really matter.
I read this as contradictory. The fact that the company is 'prominent' implies that it has staying power and the ability to maintain it's developers financially. I left IBM for Alcatel for a nearly 15% pay raise. Two years later, I was laid off. I would have been kept on in my old position. The following two years really sucked if you happened to be an out-of-work developer living in or around RTP, NC. I think I should have stayed with the prominent company at the lower salary.
Why the dichotomy? Why must everything either be blown apart forever, or eventually everything sucked back in? Why can the Big Bang/Big Collapse, instead be Big Bang/Not Quite as Big Collapse, as in a damped oscillation? Some material being lost each period, resulting in a smaller bang until the process just wears itself out?
I'm positive that someone smarter that me has postulated such a circumstance, but I've never heard of it. It's always either open or closed, never a swinging universe.
With all these freebies, more people will likely have received free HD DVD/Blu-ray discs by the end of 2006 than will have actually paid for them
That's because there will be very little content on most shelves for people to buy. Remember LaserDisc? The BlockBusters and BestBuys of the world don't care about low volume, competing formats. They only care to stock material that moves fast. None of these formats will take off until one starts getting a definite advantage on the market, and then the network effect will take over to doom the rest. The stores don't want to be left holding a lot of stock that nobody wants, so they'll wait and see...and by extension...so will the rest of us.
I've found that just saying the smart things in a really dumb or ambivalent tone/voice will really confuse the hell out of most people. They'll generally agree with you by default, because they don't know what else to do.
I can still remember it. I must have been 6 or so at the time. I wanted to see if a burner on the stove was hot. Have no idea why, but I wanted to know. So I laid my hand on it. It was hot. I have been much more circumspect ever since.
So I get old and have my own son. We move into a house with a wood burning, fireplace insert type stove. BIG chunk of very hot steel sitting at one side of the room. I still remember the pain from that hot stove, and I could imagine Robert falling and landing with his face against the fireplace insert (that's what clumsy kids do). I heated up the fireplace, held my sons hand within mine and held it close to the hot steel. Only after I felt some pain did I let him go, and my hand was closer than his. Then we got to have a good talk about how "near the fireplace" was not where we should play.
He had to feel the pain in order to learn, but not as bad as I felt it. Bumps, scrapes, bruises, etc. are a necessary part of learning about the world around us. Games like tag let us learn without causing permanent damage. Unfortunately, kids from this school will get to learn the implications of E=mc^2 only after getting a driver's liscense.
But we have a Constitution that says a rich man can spend his money to say anything he likes.
My solution is to get away from trying to eliminate free speech, and start trying to promote it. The citizens still own the airwaves. Appoint a date each year in which all broadcasters must transmit the "Official Debates". Everyone on the ballot will be invited, though not required to participate. Each candidate will be allowed to enter a question(s) for the debate, and everyone in the debate will be given equal time to answer ("I choose not to answer" being a valid answer).
Now, voters can decide to listen to the "Official Debates" and hear from all the candidates, and all the issues (people will run independant just to raise issues, which I believe to be a valid endeavor). Or they can listen to the idiotic commercials. I believe only half the people are of below average intelligence.
That FIBER has to send the bits somewhere. And it has to send the bits of all your neighbors, too. Think of cable as a big Ethernet, with anyone able to put a packet on the line as long as that listen for someone else speaking first. If the neighborhood is quiet, you can scream all you want and play in the street. If the hood is busy, though, you may have to be locked inside.
DSL is more of a rotary dispenser. There is a carton with your name on it, and you're only allowed to place a packet in your carton. Even if all your neighbor's cartons are empty, you may only use yours. The upside is that you always get to use your carton. Your space is your space, even if you are limited to a small front yard.
Actually, Freedom Format would be a perfect name, even if the French choose to ignore it. It makes an excellent point and is much catchier that ODF or OpenDocument.
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't be so confused if you had been working for Digital Research as they saw there contracts dry up due to Microsoft enforcing per-processor liscensing.
You'd probably know what we're talking about if you'd ever had to actually pay your money to upgrade perfectly good software because Microsoft was foisting another incompatible memory dump file format on the world.
You'd most likely understand if you had to pay for a copy of software that you'd never use due to the restrictive liscensing schemes the Microsoft forces on the market.
You'd probably had a clue if you had worked at BeOS and saw every avenue for introducing your software cut off by Microsoft.
You can't see the the evil because you have your head up your managers butt. Every read many reports that the environment up there is insular an breeds that particular condition. Microsoft has a monopoly and foist crap on the public at extortionist rates. That makes the whole lot corrupt...which is to say, evil.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers back when Google results were essentially free of this type of nonsense. Even a very broad search would generally return useful results. For instance, searching for "toy firetruck" would return links to toy stores and antique toy dealers on the first few pages. Quality search results were the driving factor in switching from some other search engine to Google.
I remember. I also remember searching for a subject and getting results from individuals websites with useful information. I used to use Google to get the real information about any expensive object I was considering buying. Now any search for a product returns so many hits for someone who is selling it, with nothing more than the same marketing blurb across all the sites, that I've nearly abandoned the practice. I think Google should provide a no-commercial option that does 2 thing:
1) Lower the page ranking of sites with identical text as several other sites.
2) Lower the page ranking of sites with advertisements.
I do. Worked on system test for it in one of IBMs RTP, NC sweatshop labs. It is an overly bloated POS that tries to hack together everything in the enterprise for managing PCs into a Web frontend. It's a disjointed, discontiguous hack of lots of various technologies thrown in a bucket and stirred liberally.
Websphere was not "architected". That implies forethought and planning, not "hack together lots of other people's technologies and call it a management platform."
I won't say your incorrect, but I think the concentration on sniper fire in the Iraqi theater is misguided. The inventor could have served himself better by ignoring the issue of bullet penetration completely. This sort of protection would be much more useful against the sort of damage that the enemy is actually inflicting...roadside bombs.
The perception of apparent injustice in wealth distribution leads immediately to the conlusion that the government needs to confiscate wealth and redistribute it. I'm not buying it, as that leads to the perception that no matter how hard you work, the government is just going to come and take it all. I think laws that empower average citizens, and at least enhances the perception that there is a way out, will be what reduces overall crime.
Redistribution always leads to someone having to decide how much is redistributed and to whom. This task most often will fall to those who are wealthy. If you're not already attuned to where this leads, you get the situation where there is a 'tax on the wealthy' that just happens to have a loophole big enough to drive a large SUV/truck through...but only if you can afford to pay cash for the SUV/truck.
There are only three things that drive men in this world: power, money, and sex. Of those, money is only good for obtaining power, and the only point of power is to obtain sex. The only unfairness in all of it, is that women control half the money, and all of the sex.
What is this "support" you speak of with Windows software? How often have you called the friendly support line and talked to someone that could find their butt with either hand?
If I redefine a mile to be 3,000ft, I would be able to run twice as fast as I do now.
Cut the bit size in half, you double the number of bits that can be crossed in a given time.
That's ridiculous. A perl manual is so large it would have killed the child. There are very few parents who could even swing one properly. SHEESH!
8*)
I can guarantee that the FiOS is running over ATM. All the boxes on the houses switch each of the services into seperate ATM VCs. It's the easiest and most logical way to handle it if you want to maintain any sort of QoS guarantees between the different services.
I'm totally confused by the responses I've read to this article. Everyone is immediately jumping to the idea of vigilantism and the corporate newspapers outsourcing their investigations for free. Remember that saying about those willing to give up their freedom for a little percieved safety deserving neither? Well, people who are not willing to be involved with investigations of local government deserve to be financially raped by the same.
I've been a member of a church at several times that was transitioning from one pastor to another. For the non-religious, it can be any club or organization. Doesn't really matter. But when there wasn't a pastor, all the members would step up to the plate, things would get done, and the church did well. Then a new pastor would come in, everyone would say that it's the pastors job (for N number of jobs), and the place would start to fall apart. I've seen music groups do the same thing, and a democracy is no different. When people set back and say its the police/FDA/FCC/newspaper's job to expose corruption, then corruption is never dealt with, because there is always more corruption than any authority can handle.
The summary said that the newspaper got responses from architects and accountants. People with skills and knowledge that no reporter could hope to have. We all complain about reporters being idiots, and then we complain when they ask for help? If I saw something in some source code that didn't look quite right, I would take it to co-workers and ask for input. Why is it wrong for a newspaper to do the same for something in the government that looks suspicious? It is OUR government, after all.
A whistle-blower saw that there was a place to submit information that would possibly do something about the problem. He could call a 1-800 number and then suffer the retribution as the problem being reported is swept under the rug, or he can be a hero for exploding it into the light. Which is more likely to get people to come forward?
Is it vigilantism for people to band together and seek the truth? Where does it say that truth seeking must remain secretive till someone determines that the process is complete? The idea is ludicrous, because it only insures that the powerful know where to go to suppress inconventient truths.
Ever since the airports were forced to take out the pay toilets, they just have not had as much loot in their lobby fund.
So use some of the cafeteria fund, then. There's bound to be plenty there. Have you seen the prices they charge for that crap-in-a-box they serve there?
Was watching a show on CNN last night about digital privacy, cameras, et. al.
There's all these gray areas about what is or should be public knowledge and what is wrong with someone sharing what is already in the public domain. Why is it a freedom of speech issue for 'Online Tech Magazine' to be able to review motherboards and tell the world that they suck..but when the company that makes the motherboard turns around and reviews the reviewer, showing everyone the PUBLIC records of the multiple fraud convictions, it's called a privacy issue? The records were made public by law for a reason, were they not?
We came to a simple conclusion, and a simpler solution. It's not the sharing of the information. It's the damn sneaky way they go about sharing it. If my employer requests a background check from Verifact, why the hell isn't Verifact required to tell me what it is telling the employer? That's whispering behind my back, and it considered very rude behavior in polite company. Hell, Verifact already knows where I live (as well as what I had for dinner last night). It wouldn't cost them more than some duplicate copies and a stamp to tell me what they're telling everybody else about me.
The conclusion we drew was that obviously they know their database is full of constantly perpetuated crap, and they don't want the onslaught of customer service calls that they will be battered with when people find out what is being said about them. I call them up, tell them that the information is wrong, and now they are at risk of libel/slander. Before they can just plead, "Heh, it's a mistake. We didn't know." Much more profitable to just dump crap in a database then sell it, than to attempt to exercise due diligence. Which begs the next question: As an employer, what the hell do I want with a background check that is jsut as likely to be full of lies and misinformation than anything else? Before paying one of these companies, the employer should ask if the victim will be given a copy and any chance to correct mistakes.
I take it a step further. My children have been taught, and will continue to be taught, that there is nothing wrong to put yourself on the line to protect those weaker than yourself. Befriend the bullied and stand with them. Part of the socialization is that your supposed to be converted to sheep and accept the bullies as overlords. Replace 'adminstrator' with 'police' and the conversion to adulthood is complete.
Fuck 'em. I will protect myself, my family, and my neighbors, and if I have to sacrifice to do it...so be it. OP should have learned that standing up for yourself is painful, but it's the only way to stop the bullying.
Without (government) regulation, reputable doctors and health care providers would likely form their own associations which would certify that people were actually competent to practice medicine. And what's more, they might actually be run by medical experts rather than politicians and bureaucrats.
I can't believe after the last 200 years of history that anyone has the gall to make this argument with a straight face.
We had unregulated medicine. Throughout the 19th century. And what did we get? A bunch of traveling quacks with patent syrup. And very little real healing for anybody.
So, why can't the government provide certification, without the paternal step of saying that I can't pay a witch doctor to bleed me? Just say, Mr. Voodoo is a quack, and leave it at that? It's my money and my blood, after all. This is along the lines of rating restaurants. I can eat at a B rated restaurant all day long. I'd rather not, though, and will turn around and leave in a heartbeat (big incentive for the establishment to clean-up their act...literally). I prefer my regulation with a healthy dash of minimalism.(sp?)
As for the FAA. I'm nearly finished building my own airplane. 4 seat. 180MPH. Delta configuration. I would have bought one, but the cost of a comparative plane that is certificated would be about $250,000(US). This is arguably in large part due to regulation. The price difference between two altimeters, one TSOed and the other not, will be about $210 and $110. Both come off the same assembly line, but the expensive one has the government paperwork. The largest growing section of the US GA fleet is experimental aircraft for this very reason. Most of the big pushes from pilot organizations (EAA and AOPA) is for the Feds to back up on some of their more onerous regulations.
Remember, that when governments start all the regulations, that the industry groups don't sit idly by and take what's handed to them. The biggest rule I learned in pilot training was that I'm not allowed to charge anyone for a flight. The argument was that this was for safety, but this is ridiculously transparent bullshite. The airlines didn't want to compete against a fleet of part-time air taxis. Again, I like my regulation with a healthy dash of minimalism.
these companies are attempting to use technology to enforce contract law.
Except they're not. There is nothing contractual about a EULA. They are attempting to use technology to enforce their own will, but they'd need my signature for the EULA to be a contract.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but your argument above is why the masses refer to the Greens as "environmental wackos".
You are proposing that the politico's are purposefully ignoring a situation that will have disastrous results for themselves and their children? Just so they don't have to tell the people something the people don't want to hear? Are you seriously proposing that there are politicians running for office on the "Cadillac in every garage" platform? And not only are they ignoring the situation, they are fully aware of it and its consequences, but instead are expending a great amount of political capital to actively promote lies, twist the truth, and even commit illegal acts to confuse the public? Son, you need to put a second layer on that tinfoil hat of yours. Wouldn't it be much more likely that they share the disbelief that the greater public has in the idea that our doom lies around the corner because we drove to work this morning.
So Gore found 900+ reports that all agreed 100%. What does the greater public think? How did he do that? By ignoring 900+ reports that disagreed, maybe? The number is pointless and meaningless without context, except as a propoganda tool, which is what everyone except the converted sees it as? The vast majority of the people see nothing more that Gore still stumping for attention, whether it be true or no.
Gore needs to go away and shut-up. He is a spent shell that is getting in the way of people that have a chance of swaying public opinion. Greens in general need to stop looking for disaster and villany, because people in general will just turn that off. Politically, you can't be very effective once marginalized.
Not to belittle your comments, but you say that it needs to be a growing company with good prospects of advancement, and the stability and wherewithall to pay bonuses, but that 'prominent' doesn't really matter.
I read this as contradictory. The fact that the company is 'prominent' implies that it has staying power and the ability to maintain it's developers financially. I left IBM for Alcatel for a nearly 15% pay raise. Two years later, I was laid off. I would have been kept on in my old position. The following two years really sucked if you happened to be an out-of-work developer living in or around RTP, NC. I think I should have stayed with the prominent company at the lower salary.
We really need an astrophysicist here.
Why the dichotomy? Why must everything either be blown apart forever, or eventually everything sucked back in? Why can the Big Bang/Big Collapse, instead be Big Bang/Not Quite as Big Collapse, as in a damped oscillation? Some material being lost each period, resulting in a smaller bang until the process just wears itself out?
I'm positive that someone smarter that me has postulated such a circumstance, but I've never heard of it. It's always either open or closed, never a swinging universe.
With all these freebies, more people will likely have received free HD DVD/Blu-ray discs by the end of 2006 than will have actually paid for them
That's because there will be very little content on most shelves for people to buy. Remember LaserDisc? The BlockBusters and BestBuys of the world don't care about low volume, competing formats. They only care to stock material that moves fast. None of these formats will take off until one starts getting a definite advantage on the market, and then the network effect will take over to doom the rest. The stores don't want to be left holding a lot of stock that nobody wants, so they'll wait and see...and by extension...so will the rest of us.
Try being from the southern portion of the US.
I've found that just saying the smart things in a really dumb or ambivalent tone/voice will really confuse the hell out of most people. They'll generally agree with you by default, because they don't know what else to do.
You have never spoken truer words.
I can still remember it. I must have been 6 or so at the time. I wanted to see if a burner on the stove was hot. Have no idea why, but I wanted to know. So I laid my hand on it. It was hot. I have been much more circumspect ever since.
So I get old and have my own son. We move into a house with a wood burning, fireplace insert type stove. BIG chunk of very hot steel sitting at one side of the room. I still remember the pain from that hot stove, and I could imagine Robert falling and landing with his face against the fireplace insert (that's what clumsy kids do). I heated up the fireplace, held my sons hand within mine and held it close to the hot steel. Only after I felt some pain did I let him go, and my hand was closer than his. Then we got to have a good talk about how "near the fireplace" was not where we should play.
He had to feel the pain in order to learn, but not as bad as I felt it. Bumps, scrapes, bruises, etc. are a necessary part of learning about the world around us. Games like tag let us learn without causing permanent damage. Unfortunately, kids from this school will get to learn the implications of E=mc^2 only after getting a driver's liscense.
But we have a Constitution that says a rich man can spend his money to say anything he likes.
My solution is to get away from trying to eliminate free speech, and start trying to promote it. The citizens still own the airwaves. Appoint a date each year in which all broadcasters must transmit the "Official Debates". Everyone on the ballot will be invited, though not required to participate. Each candidate will be allowed to enter a question(s) for the debate, and everyone in the debate will be given equal time to answer ("I choose not to answer" being a valid answer).
Now, voters can decide to listen to the "Official Debates" and hear from all the candidates, and all the issues (people will run independant just to raise issues, which I believe to be a valid endeavor). Or they can listen to the idiotic commercials. I believe only half the people are of below average intelligence.
That FIBER has to send the bits somewhere. And it has to send the bits of all your neighbors, too. Think of cable as a big Ethernet, with anyone able to put a packet on the line as long as that listen for someone else speaking first. If the neighborhood is quiet, you can scream all you want and play in the street. If the hood is busy, though, you may have to be locked inside.
DSL is more of a rotary dispenser. There is a carton with your name on it, and you're only allowed to place a packet in your carton. Even if all your neighbor's cartons are empty, you may only use yours. The upside is that you always get to use your carton. Your space is your space, even if you are limited to a small front yard.
Actually, Freedom Format would be a perfect name, even if the French choose to ignore it. It makes an excellent point and is much catchier that ODF or OpenDocument.