I'm not saying you have a wrong stance, but, would you actually try to battle guys who you know would win?
OK... I know you didn't intend this... but...
This kind of thinking, being totally subservient to "authority" figures... is one of the reasons that three airplanes made it to their intended target.
And, the government response has been to make Americans even more subservient by standing in long lines, taking their shoes off and bending over... for the real screwing. (and yes, I know that it is totally off topic... and the OP wasn't anything about America... but this particular thread of it is.)
The real solution is to constantly question and push back at "authority". That is the only way you are going to avoid being taken somewhere you don't want to go.
It's definitely better to get arrested, and then create a better strategy for the revolution.
See, I think the real lesson that every American should have learned from 9/11 (and applied to every part of life) is this:
Fight. Right now. You may never get another chance.
Are you saying that it couldn't happen in the US... or that I'm implying that it is?
Personally, I think the whole thing (religion) is somebody's dope trip that weak minded people use as a crutch. So, I won't say that it is going to happen in any part of the world...
The only part I can really defend is that I wasn't implying a connection between the US and Revelations.
I'm implying a connection between having to carry an ID and Revelations. And, not because *I* believe in Revelations... but I know many who's brain turn to jello once you get into that territory.
Sometimes, when you say stupid things to stupid people... something clicks... and the get it.
let's make an id that everyone can carry if/when asked for.
Why don't we just skip all that and get straigt to the apocalypse already?
He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
Seems like a stretch... but, you have to start somewhere. Obviously requiring people to always have an ID would be unworkable... they might be naked. So, let's just go for the gusto and mark eveyone with "the number of the beast" and stop pretending that we aren't headed in that direction.
You are being taken in by bad thinking if you think they have.
Now, who whould have you think that the courts are "making laws"? That would be the people elected to make the laws... and too chicken shit to do it right for fear that they won't be re-elected.
In the 1950s, oil producers discovered about fifty barrels of oil for every barrel invested in drilling and pumping. Today, the figure is only about five for one. Sometime around 2005, that figure will become one for one. In other words, even if the price of oil reaches $500 a barrel, it wouldn't make energy sense to look for new oil in the United States after 2005 because it would consume more energy than it would recover.
The increasing energy cost of oil sets up a positive feedback loop: since oil is used directly or indirectly in everything, as the energy costs of oil increase, the energy costs of everything else increase too -- including other forms of energy. For example, oil provides about 50% of the fuel used in coal extraction.[7]
Immutable energy laws tell us that a growing economy must eventually consume more energy than it can buy. When America spends more-than-one unit of energy to produce enough goods and services to buy one unit of energy, it will be physically impossible to cover the overhead (money is irrelevant). At that point, America's economic machine is "out of gas". Forever!
There are languages that would be fun if ONLY YOU yourself do all the writing, but the potential for abuse and bizzar variation is so great that I don't want to make a paid specialty in them, fearing that someday I will inherit spehgetti-and-sand-in-a-blender hell.
If a company doesn't have the discipline to set and enforce coding standards, then the choice of language isn't going to be your biggest problem.
First of all, Saddam was in power for 10 years before Bush was elected.
Reagan... Bush... Bush... it is all the same people in the background, and puppets in the foreground.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the weapons Saddam used during the 80's were from either Japan or Germany, but they weren't from the US.
How do you suppose they bought those weapons?
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.
Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].
Way back in the very beginning of Reagan's term they were shaping the policy of killing anyone (or letting anyone die) so that we can have oil.
And, look at the people involved (the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and see if they still have their finger in the pie.
Over twenty years I've programmed with at least as many languages.
So, I won't claim to know any language intimately.
But... I have programed in Perl for the last five years. Why is simple.
Because Perl let's me leverage the last 20 years of programming. If they see a good idea in another language... they put it in Perl.
You will see a lot of people complain because of how Perl code looks. The simple fact is that you can write clean looking code... or ugly code. Perl doesn't care. It is your code... do it the way you want.
Perl's strength is that it let's a programmer program the way they want to. That is also it's weakness.
My advice would be to spend a few more years with a few other languages. You won't appreciate Perl until you know how elegantly it lets you solve some problems that you have used other tools for.
If you are looking for "structure" and don't have the discipline to enforce it yourself... then stay away from Perl.
There is this saying: Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
Remember the last time some jackass in charge of a superpower ignored all of his domestic problems and insisted on building his military at all costs?
I'll give you a hint... they were in Afganistan.
They also believed that they did not need allies in the international community... that they could stand alone.
Sound familiar? That is history repeating itself.
Oh, those advances... we are still driving big ass cars that get less than 30 mpg. Sucking bad air. Dying of heart disease. Can't find good drinking water. And the food we eat is killing us.
And... let's not even talk about the fact that some baseball player is getting paid more than 2500 public school teachers do... combined.
Well, I certainly wasn't talking about individual stocks... there will always be some that are over-valued and some that are under-valued.
Now, my question is... what economic theory allows for a free market to be "overvalued"? Isn't a free market, with rational actors, by definition "balanced"?
But, you just pointed out that the market was "held up by a technological revolution". And the stock examples you picked out bear out what I was saying... the forward looking value of the stocks was high, in anticipation of phenomenal growth.
That balloon was burst when it became apparent that money was going to be channeled back to the dinosaur business... and... it has to come from somewhere.
Just as tax cuts have to come from war programs... or social programs.
TANSTAAFL
And... nowhere did I "blame" Bush... I simply pointed out what the data seems to indicate. If I was going to "blame" anyone, it would be John McCain. The market seemed fine with the idea of him being president. But... he wasn't "controllable" so, the party dumped him in favor of someone that was.
---
And... this all assumes that the only qualification that matters is the market. Which, IMHO should be the absolute last factor to consider.
Or Wait! Let's find something else to talk about!!
But... god forbid... we actually look at facts and use science and logic to solve our problems any more. That would require thinking... and that would be waaayyy too hard.
Well, I read the quoted part to say that you thought "standing sphexishly by" section six to be a problem... and that you thought additional restrictions should be allowed.
Which sounded a lot to me like: after the code is released we should be able to place additional restrictions on it.
Then you say...
Even assuming, for whatever reason, you cannot withdraw your code, by someone releasing it against your will under a more restrictive license, you haven't lost anything at all...
To which I say, yes... you have lost something. You have lost the ability to insure that the end user has access to the source code that you wrote.
Someone may have specifically choosen the GPL because of the inability to restrict access to the code. (Which is my point.)
Note that I'm not talking about changes by the original author. If they release the software under a specific license, then that is done. It is their code and they can always release it under another license if they want. (Keeping in mind that it is still out there under the other license, also.) What I am talking about is how the software is released by someone else based upon the original license.
So, for example, taking a chunk of BSD code and converting it to GPL would be OK... because the BSD license let's you do just about anything with the code. But, going from GPL to BSD would be a no-no because you could have a binary only release and thus restrict who and how the original GPL source is furhter used... against the wishes of the GPL code author.
And my point (again) is that the original GPL code writer may have choosen the GPL because they wanted to make sure that the end user always had access to the source code... that the access was not restricted.
(Perhaps our different POVs are due to the term restricting?)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying you have a wrong stance, but, would you actually try to battle guys who you know would win?
OK... I know you didn't intend this... but...
This kind of thinking, being totally subservient to "authority" figures... is one of the reasons that three airplanes made it to their intended target.
And, the government response has been to make Americans even more subservient by standing in long lines, taking their shoes off and bending over... for the real screwing. (and yes, I know that it is totally off topic... and the OP wasn't anything about America... but this particular thread of it is.)
The real solution is to constantly question and push back at "authority". That is the only way you are going to avoid being taken somewhere you don't want to go.
It's definitely better to get arrested, and then create a better strategy for the revolution.
See, I think the real lesson that every American should have learned from 9/11 (and applied to every part of life) is this:
Fight. Right now. You may never get another chance.
Well, perhaps when you are in your twenties it is about the free beer.
But, for me... now that I just hit 40, it is about the free speach.
Dollar for dollar, I'd go with the Open Source solution. For those that don't understand what I just said...
I'd pay just as much for my Open Source software, more even, than I would for my Mac OSX or Windows software... which I also have and paid for.
The most valueable part of my computing experience, by far, is the Open Source parts.
Except... GPL software is not "free of charge".
And people that use the GPL don't intend for it to be "free of charge". They just aren't charging money for it.
It has a cost. If you are not willing to pay the cost, you may not use the software.
What gets SCO in a tizzy is that the cost is not an amount of dollars... it is a behavior requirement.
And, we all know how good they are at behaving.
You are not going to get a mile out of a thousand paces at anything less than a dead run.
(You would be much closer to a kilometer than a mile.)
The average pace is less than a yard, and a thousand multiplied by less than a yard is much less than 1760 yards.
If I say it is spam, I'm not reading it... and I am deleting it.
Any software that tries to stop me is removed via because it is faulty.
Who is assuming what?
Are you saying that it couldn't happen in the US... or that I'm implying that it is?
Personally, I think the whole thing (religion) is somebody's dope trip that weak minded people use as a crutch. So, I won't say that it is going to happen in any part of the world...
The only part I can really defend is that I wasn't implying a connection between the US and Revelations.
I'm implying a connection between having to carry an ID and Revelations. And, not because *I* believe in Revelations... but I know many who's brain turn to jello once you get into that territory.
Sometimes, when you say stupid things to stupid people... something clicks... and the get it.
Why would you refuse to cooperate?
Because you are innocent.
And you are supposed to be presumed innocent by the government also.
And the fourth ammendment is supposed to protect you against unreasonable searches.
And the fifth ammendment is supposed to protect you against self incrimination.
And sometimes people need to be reminded of these facts.
Why don't we just skip all that and get straigt to the apocalypse already?Seems like a stretch... but, you have to start somewhere. Obviously requiring people to always have an ID would be unworkable... they might be naked. So, let's just go for the gusto and mark eveyone with "the number of the beast" and stop pretending that we aren't headed in that direction.
Courts don't make law.
You are being taken in by bad thinking if you think they have.
Now, who whould have you think that the courts are "making laws"? That would be the people elected to make the laws... and too chicken shit to do it right for fear that they won't be re-elected.
Many of these people, ironically... are lawyers.
See... the problem I have with this, is the presumption of innocence.
It isn't there.
And it is supposed to be.
Why is the cop asking for ID? He wants you to prove you are innocent.
That is wrong, IMHO.
And, that is the problem I have with the Patriot Act... in a nutshell.
You are guilty until proven otherwise.
That is the problem I have with the DMCA... you are guilty until proven otherwise.
Do you know how hard it is to wage class warfare without people catching on?
And then... to have the indentured servants unable to work because of pot?
That simply won't do... too much energy has been expended to create those wage slaves.
Why?
Too lazy to walk to work?
Too stupid to develop an alternative energy source?
Oh my, What will you do?
There are languages that would be fun if ONLY YOU yourself do all the writing, but the potential for abuse and bizzar variation is so great that I don't want to make a paid specialty in them, fearing that someday I will inherit spehgetti-and-sand-in-a-blender hell.
If a company doesn't have the discipline to set and enforce coding standards, then the choice of language isn't going to be your biggest problem.
IMHO
Reagan... Bush... Bush... it is all the same people in the background, and puppets in the foreground.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the weapons Saddam used during the 80's were from either Japan or Germany, but they weren't from the US.
How do you suppose they bought those weapons? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Here is the most telling part:Way back in the very beginning of Reagan's term they were shaping the policy of killing anyone (or letting anyone die) so that we can have oil.
And, look at the people involved (the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and see if they still have their finger in the pie.
Over twenty years I've programmed with at least as many languages.
So, I won't claim to know any language intimately.
But... I have programed in Perl for the last five years. Why is simple.
Because Perl let's me leverage the last 20 years of programming. If they see a good idea in another language... they put it in Perl.
You will see a lot of people complain because of how Perl code looks. The simple fact is that you can write clean looking code... or ugly code. Perl doesn't care. It is your code... do it the way you want.
Perl's strength is that it let's a programmer program the way they want to. That is also it's weakness.
My advice would be to spend a few more years with a few other languages. You won't appreciate Perl until you know how elegantly it lets you solve some problems that you have used other tools for.
If you are looking for "structure" and don't have the discipline to enforce it yourself... then stay away from Perl.
But... he killed them because the other George Bush let him.
And gave him the weapons.
Bet that never comes out at "the trial".
Bet they never get that accomplice to the crimes.
You are kidding, right?
There is this saying: Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
Remember the last time some jackass in charge of a superpower ignored all of his domestic problems and insisted on building his military at all costs?
I'll give you a hint... they were in Afganistan.
They also believed that they did not need allies in the international community... that they could stand alone.
Sound familiar? That is history repeating itself.
Oh, those advances... we are still driving big ass cars that get less than 30 mpg. Sucking bad air. Dying of heart disease. Can't find good drinking water. And the food we eat is killing us.
And... let's not even talk about the fact that some baseball player is getting paid more than 2500 public school teachers do... combined.
Yeah... we've come a long way.
Thanks for playing!
And the winner is...
Well, I certainly wasn't talking about individual stocks... there will always be some that are over-valued and some that are under-valued.
Now, my question is... what economic theory allows for a free market to be "overvalued"? Isn't a free market, with rational actors, by definition "balanced"?
But, you just pointed out that the market was "held up by a technological revolution". And the stock examples you picked out bear out what I was saying... the forward looking value of the stocks was high, in anticipation of phenomenal growth.
That balloon was burst when it became apparent that money was going to be channeled back to the dinosaur business... and... it has to come from somewhere.
Just as tax cuts have to come from war programs... or social programs.
TANSTAAFL
And... nowhere did I "blame" Bush... I simply pointed out what the data seems to indicate. If I was going to "blame" anyone, it would be John McCain. The market seemed fine with the idea of him being president. But... he wasn't "controllable" so, the party dumped him in favor of someone that was.
---
And... this all assumes that the only qualification that matters is the market. Which, IMHO should be the absolute last factor to consider.
And... watch the market increase in value as it starts to "build in" the possibility of Bush being replaced.
As Bush sinks in the polls... the market goes up.
It isn't just coincidence.
It wasn't "overvalued" until it became obvious that Bush was the Republican candidate for president.
Almost to the day.
Go look at a graph of the stock market... find the point in time where John McCain dropped out and Bush became the official Republican candidate.
And, watch the market "build in" the possibility of Bush becoming president.
The "market" understood what the return of the dinosaurs meant to our economy... and it was reflected in the downturn.
My experience has been that people that make a LOT of money... don't deserve it.
They haven't done a darn thing that someone making $200 Grand couldn't have done.
Certainly nothing to earn $10 Million...
Limit the amount of money that a person can earn in a year and there would have been no reason for Enron... or Iraq for that matter, to happen.
I'll define "excess" as more than a million a year... let the debate begin!
Hey! That's it!
Let's attack the source of the money!
No! Don't look at the facts! Look at the money!!
Or Wait! Let's find something else to talk about!!
But... god forbid... we actually look at facts and use science and logic to solve our problems any more. That would require thinking... and that would be waaayyy too hard.
What was this article about again?
Yes... slavery went on for a long time too.
Your point?
Well, I read the quoted part to say that you thought "standing sphexishly by" section six to be a problem... and that you thought additional restrictions should be allowed.
Which sounded a lot to me like: after the code is released we should be able to place additional restrictions on it.
Then you say...
Even assuming, for whatever reason, you cannot withdraw your code, by someone releasing it against your will under a more restrictive license, you haven't lost anything at all...
To which I say, yes... you have lost something. You have lost the ability to insure that the end user has access to the source code that you wrote.
Someone may have specifically choosen the GPL because of the inability to restrict access to the code. (Which is my point.)
Note that I'm not talking about changes by the original author. If they release the software under a specific license, then that is done. It is their code and they can always release it under another license if they want. (Keeping in mind that it is still out there under the other license, also.) What I am talking about is how the software is released by someone else based upon the original license.
So, for example, taking a chunk of BSD code and converting it to GPL would be OK... because the BSD license let's you do just about anything with the code. But, going from GPL to BSD would be a no-no because you could have a binary only release and thus restrict who and how the original GPL source is furhter used... against the wishes of the GPL code author.
And my point (again) is that the original GPL code writer may have choosen the GPL because they wanted to make sure that the end user always had access to the source code... that the access was not restricted.
(Perhaps our different POVs are due to the term restricting?)