I'm sorry, but your attempt at logic fails for the following reason: The Founding Fathers were first concerned with individual rights, that's the whole idea behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Understanding that indivduals vary, they sought to create a government of laws that were the least restrictive possible, trusting to the states and to the people everything except for a few matters, and those they sought to keep strictly constrained.
The idea of restrictions on arms in general at the Federal level would have horrified them, I think (as would the size and power of the US Federal government today, I am sure).
The strawman that you use: The "weapon that could destroy every person in the country including the wielder", if it existed today, would most likely be in the possession of the Federal Government... and that would have horrified them even more, I am certain.
I think you give the Founding Fathers short shrift when you say that they didn't anticipate weapons of mass destruction: They didn't need to, from their perspective, what they created sufficed for their purpose, to create a strictly limited Federal government within with the states and the people could co-exist.
>Plus, there's that whole "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" >part of the Amendment most people gloss over...
I don't gloss over it; I can read. More importantly, I can comprehend.
The full Second Ammendment reads as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I can't speak for you, but that means to me that the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, since it says exactly that. The "well-regulated militia" consists of those same "people" referred to in the Second Ammendment and throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in case you weren't aware of that (You know, the same ones that have free speech rights, and freedom of press and religion and everything else guaranteed by the Constitution, et al), and the "well-regulated" part refers to the militia, not to the people... it's says so right in the Ammendment.
You can argue about what "well-regulated" means with regards to the miltia, it doesn't matter... as written, the prohibition against infringement is aimed at the people's right to keep and bear arms. Again, because that is what it says.
It'd be self-defeating to permit laws infringing upon arms ownership of the people, because they'd not be armed when called up in time of need, which is the whole point of the militia.
None of the Federal armed forces are deemed to be militia, not even the National Guard in its various forms, despite most people's beliefs to the contrary.
There may be other reasons not to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but it isn't necessary to speculate about them; the prohibition suffices as stated.
The current interpretation of the Second Ammendment by the Supreme Court is the same as yours, and is what has allowed laws infringing on the people's Second Ammendment rights to be passed. I think that both you and the Supreme Court are wrong, for the reasons stated above.
Their interpretation is in the process of being challenged; it'll be interesting to see whether or not the Suprememe Court will decide to hear the case. If I had to bet, I'd say no: The current political environment in the US is anti-people's rights in general, regardless of party affliation. President Bush and company trust the citizenry only slightly more than the average terrorist, and the Democrats think that the people should allow the Federal government to think for them, preferably with them in control.
OK, this, in my opinion, is just a foolish statement. Maybe it's a troll, but if it is, it's a good one.
>I just consider the life of a burglar to be more important than your property. First of all, you assume that the theoretical burglar's only purpose in being somewhere they ought not be is for the purposes of theft. In addition, you assume that this "burglar" isn't carrying a weapon, and isn't violent or even homicicidal even if s/he doesn't have one, should they be caught in the act.
How do you propose to ascertain these things should you encounter this "burgler" in your home? Ask?
I'd prefer not to ask, and to have the means to protect my family, myself and my property. I would attempt to detain them without injury first, and to notify the police as soon as possible.
But I'd not hesitate to shoot them if I thought that anyone in my family or myself were in danger. At that point, the burglar's life drops off of that list from its nominal, albeit unmentioned, third place in that list above (Surprise! No, I don't value "things" more than a human life and I'd prefer not to have to shoot at all, as I think most rational people would).
Nor would I lose any sleep over it: The "burglar"'s presence and actions in my home would already have told me everything that I needed or cared to know about that person at that point.
>If you shoot a burglar, you're an outlaw to me. Well, I'd prefer that my family and myself be alive and uninjured, first, and preferably unburgled if possible, thanks, and your opinion of me means nothing at all to me.
Well, in light of the fact that Indiana drank from the Grail, and further considering that he used it to heal his father's wound - and such healing wasn't reversed once they left... I'd say that the effect of the Grail is "limited immortality", a complete heal, as it were, although not complete rejuvenation (Note the visably aged appearance of the knight guarding the Grail Room). As a result, any internal damage that either had experienced from their aging, including disease, up until that point, would be nullified, although their exterior appearance would not necessarily be effected (again, considering the knight's appearance).
Since both Indiana and his father benefitted, one could make the argument that such would, simply as a side effect, grant them exended life and vigor, if not the appearance of such, even though it didn't release them from the effects of aging that would naturally resume later.
This would have the beneficial side effect (from an RL perspective) of not having to overly rectify the current ages and appearance either of Harrison Ford or Sean Connery in their roles - their appearance NOW would suffice, and IMHO, would even lend a degree of realism to the movie.
Set the next film in the 40's, 50's, or even the 60's: Both are remarkably vigorous in RL, and, their age and appearance in RL would merely be the natural result in the next film of their characters having lived that time between the last film and the next, while aging normally as time passed.
An easy solution to the "age issue", I think, and a satisfying one, all around: Both Indiana and Henry could easily still be vigorous in all ways, and capable of physical feats that one would might not normally associate with two men "past their prime" (the latter in quotes, because, of course they'd be deemed such in terms of years, and perhaps by appearance, but not practically, since they'd be able to do things that would task far younger men, because of the Grail's benefit).
It appears to me that Microsoft's EULA's (which may or may not be enforcable) are an ongoing attempt to continue their control over the desktop, at the very least, via untested legalese, in the face of increasing competition, of which Open Source and, more importantly, Linux, et al, are a large part.
This, of course, is understandable (if not acceptable) - Microsoft, historically, wishes to compete solely on its terms, so as to maximize its profits and minimize competition in those areas from which they derive profit, to ensure their existence and continued profits (the latter, of course, being the definition of corporate existence in a nutshell).
The problem in the latter strategy (IMHO)is this:
Without a true test of EULAs in the courts (most especially those of the "shrink-wrap" type in any form) that supports and enforces such terms, it is, at best, a tenuous foundation upon which to base an ongoing corporate profit strategy in an ever-increasingly litigious world - at any moment there could come a legal challenge that could potentially undermine the whole structure beneath. And, even if they were to win, it would cost them money to do so - potentially, a LOT of money. If they were to lose, well...
All it would take is money (certainly, a *lot* of money - but there *are* ways to solicite the help of powerful lawfirms, as we've seen with the current SCO lawsuit): A determined effort by anti-Microsoft forces to force such a test could easily be mounted, should profit be sniffed by lawfirms sufficiently informed, capable and motivated.
Further, given Microsoft's current status as a monopoly (not in itself a bad thing), and more importantly, as a monopoly that has abused its position in the past as such and been convicted of so doing, their "backing down" on EULA issues is, I think, simply a case of them "seeing the light", and not wishing to provoke any such tests, because it is in their best interests not to do so.
Certainly, EULAs in general, in their current untested form, serve to protect their interests now (and ensure their profit), and shrink-wrap EULAs (including those from downloads) in all forms do so as well, especially when untested.
Just my opinion.
dj
Re:This mess, viewed as Poker
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Well, another scenario occurs to me, at this point:
IBM buys the pot, by buying SCO, just because its cheap. Microsoft gets a ride on the deal, and Novell does, too.
Later, IBM buys out Novell's IP rights to Unix, thereby leaving Microsoft beholding to IBM for all Unix rights they purchased (since IBM bought out SCO, previously) - leaving Microsoft's Services for Unix, et al, beholden to IBM... and wouldn't that be a nice turn of events?
Here's my perspective - regardless of all the hype:
Warning: I don't claim it to be a perfect representation of Poker, but, I had fun writing it:)
Consider this as Poker: The chips are IP, copyrights, licenses - the "pot", of course, is potentially HUGE.
SCO claims infringement by IBM, and sues (the opening bet). IBM says "You're bluffing", and calls. Microsoft buys into the game by purchasing licenses to SCO's copyrights (We call, too, just to cover our asses, and we want to be in the game as well). Novell chips in, and raises (You're bluffing, SCO - we own the copyrights, let's see what you have).
SCO gets dealt what they deem a Joker (we got the rights we always said we had - see?) - and in this game, Jokers are wild (or so SCO thinks). SCO raises.
Next bet is to IBM, I think.
Personally - I think it will play out thus: IBM calls, once (they don't care, really that Jokers are wild - they have a lot of chips, and can buy the pot at will, if they wish, and deem it worth the price).
Microsoft, seeking to shore up its position, calls as well (They, too, have a lot of chips, but won't waste them on raising at this point, and won't try to buy the pot unless they are sure they can win - but they can always negotiate with IBM later).
Novell calls, not really caring about the outcome (they have a lot of chips, too, but are already firmly positioned outside this game, and so don't care to try to buy the pot, since they correctly deem it a relatively small one at this point).
So, IBM calls, Microsoft calls, Novell calls. SCO folds.
Just my opinion.
It'll be interesting to see what happens, though.
Regards,
dj
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually - NetWare 6 has been out for quite some time (Support Pack 3 for it was recently released)and NetWare 6.5 is in beta.
Novell, although much maligned by many here on Slashdot, actually has much to offer to the Open Source community, and appears to be slowly gravitating towards Open Source - apparently NetWare 7 will offer NetWare services via Linux:
To move this a bit more on-topic - I doubt that Novell's Unix patents and IP are worth more to Novell at this point than their efforts to remain viable as a player in networking in general while retaining such, since they paid for them.
And, to postulate just a bit (and go off-topic again) - I believe that the increasingly more-important realm of heterogeneous network integration and management, and the services related thereto (something that Novell has encouraged by releasing native versions of NDS for not only NetWare, but NT, Linux and Solaris)*will* become the next battleground for all network software and hardware companies (MS has attempted to address this, in a short-sighted fashion, by creating Active Directory and.Net).
As such, I suspect that their defense of their Unix patents and IP is merely pro forma - not a bad thing in itself.
However, I expect to hear much more from Novell in the future as they complete their transition.
Discounting them at this point (especially on OS "religous" grounds) would be a huge mistake - one could argue that Novell Directory Services (NDS), as a mature, stable DS platform, widely available, and soon to be even more so, could be the straw that breaks Microsoft's back as MS attempts to stop the trend towards choice in network server platforms at all levels.
Novell, I think, conceeded that battle long ago with regards to their native implementation of NetWare, and has made an admirable, if at times muddled, effort towards what I deem the future of networking in general - the management of disparate resources, regardless of platform (and, eventually, if they are sufficiently foresighted) underlying infrastructure, to the benefit of those that adopt it.
Novell calls it "OneNet" - and I think that they have finally "got it", in a way that MS simply cannot (for they have too much to lose) and at the risk of being ridiculed for so obvious a statement: "It's about the Network" - and has been, for quite some time. And, more importantly, about the network and it services, its availability, its reliability and its security.
So, to wrap this up, and on a purely nostalgic basis: I saw glimmers of this in NetWare v4.x - does anyone remember NetWare for OS/2? I ran such a server on my work desktop, as a budding network geek many moons ago - and remember the panic that ensued when my manager saw a server on the network at our office for which he could not account... and I remember his surprise, and admiration, when he saw what I had done with the lowly 80486 PC on my desktop.
I ran NetWare for OS/2, as a process on my desktop PC, and leveraged it for various things to my company's benefit (our mail server, for one, until we could afford to buy a seperate box for it).
Once I had overcome my "hatred" for NetWare v4.x in general - it was a completely different paradigm for networking, and I hated it at first simply because I didn't understand it, couldn't fix it, and it went against the grain of all the NetWare v2.x/v3.x servers/networks I had installed in the past.
Once I "got it" - I came to understand that it was the future of networking - from the viewpoint of someone that had to maintain it and provide services for users, and that THAT was the most important thing.
Later, I attended a Novell conference that merely served to reinforce my understanding - at the end, we were shown a native implementation of NetWare, running atop Windows 3.1, fresh from Novell's geeks:)
Starship Troopers, the movie - wasn't satire, it was merely a bad science fiction action movie with decent special effects.
Starship Troopers, the novel, couldn't be interpreted as satire unless one only reads English as a third language.
And I doubt that most Heinlein fans would care what anyone said about the movie, as it was so far removed from the novel as to only have the title and the names of the characters in common with it.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The "people" referred to are the same people that are referred to throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the same ones that enjoy freedom of speech, religion, etc.
Even if you were to assume that the ONLY purpose of arms ownership by the people was to support a militia (as many gun control advocates believe), it would be contrary to the stated purpose underlying such an interpretation (i.e. "A well regulated militia") to restrict arms ownership by the people by dint of law, simply because of the fact that the 2nd Ammendment prohibits it...
"Well regulated" refers to the militia, NOT to the people - it says so right in the ammendment.
It isn't a "throwaway" part of the ammendment at all, but is one justification for not infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms: To be able to call up an armed populace in time of need, and as such is stated as an absolute.
Well, if they're serious about it, perhaps it would prod the US Federal Government to take space exploration more seriously, and allocate resources to it once again.
I'd hate to call it "The Second Space Race" - but it doesn't appear that the US is going to do undertake anything major unless prodded by some external force, as happened with the USSR in the late 50's - 60's.
China attempting this might just be what is needed to revitalize our space program.
As far as I know (and if anyone has information confirming or denying this I'd be happy to hear it) - all of the money spent to develop the technologies that lead up to the Apollo missions and beyond has been paid back many times over in various forms, resulting in things that we take for granted today (computers, as only one example?).
I can't speak for the viability of "moon mining" in general, but think that it is far past time to move to what appears to me to be a natural next step - manned moon bases, as the staging point for humanity's expansion into the solar system, and perhaps one day beyond it.
The ISS is important as well, and would play a critical role in that, I think.
It's a pity that I'll never be able to go, but if I saw its beginning, I'd be happy.
"Given the choice, I think people would pick good buildings over good laws."
That's a cynical view, IMHO.
Laws are complex, sure... but, in light of the fact that they are designed to encompass all of us, don't you think that we should have at least an opportunity to understand them without having to hire expensive lawyers?
No offense - but there are a LOT more citizens in the US than there are lawyers - so, why shouldn't we be able to understand the laws that constrain us?
"Almost by definition laws attempt to restrain that element of society which is not prepared to respect other members of society without the threat of some penalty."
Huh? Laws don't *do* anything, by definition: They define what can happen when they are transgressed, and the transgressor is caught so transgressing.
Their effect, and punishment, is always after being caught.
What was your point?
Re:Laws should *NOT* be accessable to common peopl
on
Democracy in the Dark?
·
· Score: 1
Sigh, OK, away, not awya:)
Re:Laws should *NOT* be accessable to common peopl
on
Democracy in the Dark?
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, IMHO, NOT IMOHO - fingers got awya from me:)
Re:Laws should *NOT* be accessable to common peopl
on
Democracy in the Dark?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
YOU are,IMOHO, an idiot, and here is why:
Laws are not like construction. Laws are not like designing a building.
Laws are the rules that bind us all as a country. As such, each of us has a right, duty and obligation to understand them.
If they grow so complex so as to preclude this, we cannot excercise our duties and obligations as citizens.
I reject your implied necessity that laws without specialized practioners to intrepret them would, or must, be so vague so as to preclude justice or general applicability.
I think you underestimate the ability of the average citizen to understand their rights, obligations and duties, in general, as citizens of the United States.
I believe that most American citizens are, generally, decent, kind and law-abiding.
I believe that, for every crime committed by one person, there are tens, hundreds, thousands, millions that did not commit that same crime.
I believe that the law in the US has become not the practice of protecting citizens, but seeks out the minority that commits crimes, and holds that minority up as examples as why we should submit to greater restrictions on our liberties under the auspices of law, ostensibly to prevent those crimes that the vast majority of Americans would not commit in the first place.
In short, I believe in the citizenry, and think that most people in the US are kind and decent people.
And, I think that the practice of law in the US, now, generally, undermines us - litigation has become the rule, rather than the exception.
Ultimately, that serves only the practitioners of law, it creates an antagonistic environment that creates conflict that would not be necessary otherwise.
Laws were, by design, created to protect citizens.
Once the wording of law, its intrepretation and practice becomes so impenetrable so as to require the expertise of specialized practitioners whose sole purpose is exerted to this function, law itself moves beyond the apprehension of citizens: They can no longer avail themselves of its protections by their own accord and understanding, and so become subject to its application and abuse by those same specialists at all levels within its purview.
At that point, law is removed from the province of the citizenry, and becomes the means whereby its elite practitoners, possessing the wherewithal to spend the time to learn its intricacies, can benefit from its ever increasing elitism, created such over time, to the detriment of the citizenry.
As I stated previously - I am a technician, not a programmer - all of the subcontractors that I have hired are the same. So, I don't need programmers, open source or otherwise, regardless: That is not what I do, nor is it what I subcontract to others to do.
As I also stated, I am not sure whether or not this applies to programming, in general.
But, my point was, and is, this:
Generally, I consider overtime to be a good thing, as it forces management to consider their priorities when balanced against their salaried employees' personal lives (which are, IMHO, at least as important as their professional lives). If they've no incentive to pay for the extra time spent by their technical staff (REGARDLESS of stripe) beyond a standard work week then time becomes a non-issue to them: At that point, pure salary eliminates the consideration of the personal lives of salaried employees on the part of management, by definition.
The end result is a corporate culture that has no regard for technical staff beyond what they can provide while working, and creates the attitude on the part of management that any intrusion of a geek's personal life into the time they spend working to be "disloyal". The personal lives of "the geeks" are a non-issue to management at that point: After all, they have "paid" for their time, at a flat rate (salary), and so, in their estimation, "own" them, and their time, to the exclusion of any consideration beyond their job.
It is, ultimately, an abuse of the idea of salary, and converts it from a privileged position to one of servitude to the detriment of the employee(s) so classified.
To put this in perspective: All of the jobs that I subcontract now have after hours/weekend/holiday clauses. I do this to protect my technicians, and to ensure that the time that they spend after hours, on weekends and holidays, are rewarded commensurately to compensate them for time that they have to spend away from their personal lives to perform those services.
And, they get 85 percent of that time, as well...
As I said - I'm not getting rich by so doing, but I sleep well at night.
Well, fortunately, I didn't *have* to look for a job - I started a business, and have been working for the past 2 years to grow it.
As I expanded it, I paid my subcontractors 85 percent of their billable hours once I was in a position to hire help. My customers are happy, my subs are happy, and I am happy...
Hmm, I guess you didn't read my entire post. I was fired - and I now make quite a bit more money working on my own than I did while working for someone else.
But, my point was this (and perhaps it was lost in the whole "$41/hour" idea):
Regardless of how much an employer pays a person per hour, or flat rate, there comes a point when they should pay overtime, whether that person is salaried or not.
Salaries should not used by employers to allow them to exploit employees, regardless of the salary, within reason. If an employee is worth, for example, $41/hour, to the employer,on a salaried basis (which is based upon a 40 hour work week) then why should they not be worth more when the employee is working past standard business hours? After all - they deemed his/her time/skill/experience/expertise sufficient to pay them that amount in the first place. Refusing overtime beyond a standard work week or a bit more (generally 10-15 hours/week) (or commensurate perks in the form of personal time, etc.) simply on the basis of "we pay you enough already" is tantamount to slavery: It indicates an attitude on the part of management that the employee's personal time has no value.
And that, IMHO, is one the things that is wrong with corporate America - the view that a salaried employee should be bound to work as long as is deemed necessary for no additional money, simply because they are salaried, and so, by "definition", are already being paid "more than enough" in their estimation.
Somewhere along the line - salaried has come to mean "enslaved" - a salaried employee feels obligated to work far beyond reasonable hours, simply because of their status as a salaried employee. In so doing, they give up their personal time to the company, to its benefit and to their detriment.
I am not against salaries, when working for employers that appreciate their salaried employees, and understand that it is, and should be, a balanced relationship.
I was a salaried employee for nearly 20 years, despite the fact that my jobs (field tech, etc.), aren't generally deemed to be salaried positions. Generally, I thought my remuneration worth the extra time I spent working, and was happy to do so, knowing that I was helping my company by billing extra time.
At my last job, I realized that it was being used to exploit my skills solely to benefit my employer.
And that is what I am against, most especially in a service industry: If an employer charges hourly for a service person, then they should not be allowed to pay that person a flat rate salary. That invites abuse.
Never having been a professional programmer, I cannot say whether or not the latter should apply. But, I can say this, in general: Salary is not an excuse to require people to work far beyond a standard work week to their detriment.
This is slightly off-topic, as I am a technician, not a programmer.
Well, I made over $41/hour working for my last employer (quite a bit more, actually, all things considered, viewed from a 40 hour work week perspective). At my last job, my title was "Vice President of Technical Services". But, I can say that overtime *should* be paid, regardless, and here is why:
My last job (2 years ago): In return for a great salary, plus a company vehicle for my work and personal use and full health insurance benefits, I worked anywhere from 60 - 80 hours per week, 7 days a week, and holidays.
At the time, I thought it was worth it: I was the "star" employee, first technician hired, bright, motivated - all the other techs came to me for help, and as a result, they could successfully complete their service calls with my assistance, thereby benefitting the customers and the company. My customers loved me, and I was happy doing what I loved to do.
For awhile, I enjoyed being "it", and thought that the time I spent working was the natural result of my skills and experience, and the need for my company to make money to offset my salary and benefits.
Now, I realize that I was wrong. I almost always billed enough time, directly or indirectly, during a normal business week, to justify my remuneration. The late nights, weekends and holidays were just "gravy" for my employer, since I was never paid for any of that time.
Weekend server migrations/upgrades (to save downtime for the customer, of course!): Billed at full rates by my employer ($95/hour at the time). LAN/WAN infrastructure improvements, the same.
Was I being compensated well? Absolutely. Was it worth the time spent? In my opinion, in retrospect, no.
At any given point, ALL of the time I spent beyond a standard work week was at my personal expense, just extra money generated for my employer. Over time, it became expected of me, and I bought into it, for years, as the price for employment, for being "good" at what I do. To my shame, I demanded the same from all of my technicans as well.
Training? Forget about it! My last boss wouldn't authorize training during business hours. If I wanted to learn, I did it on my own time. He would graciously pay for certification tests, but God forbid I should fail the first time.
Sadly, it has been my experience over the past 15+ years that this is the paradigm for all small-medium sized service companies, especially those owned privately. The technicians are merely cash cows to be milked. Technicians around here (Upstate New York) are salaried, not because they are being paid higher than normal, generally, but to save on overtime.
When I was fired from my last job (officially for "having been late for no compelling reason after having been previously warned" - tell me that a VP that sets his own hours can be late?!?), I set off on my own. I've done well over the past 2 years, and, when I needed additional help, I hired good technicians as subcontractors, and paid them the lion's share of their billable time (85/15 split - they get the 85 percent, after all, they are doing the work). I'm not getting rich by so doing, but I sleep well at night.
Over time, what I've come to realize is this: Money is a good thing, but money earned to the detriment of others ("greed") is not. The vast majority of managers, executives, etc. that have never been in the trenches, possess no technical skills to any great degree, view we geeks as chattel. The phrase "human capital" has been mentioned in the IT trade mags of late (notably in InfoWorld) - it underscores the problem, the perception that we geeks are merely plug-in components of a company's technical prowess, to be used, discarded and replaced at whim.
So, to wrap this up - Sure, $41/hour is a lot of money, but at what cost to the person earning it? If that person works 60 hours per week, salaried, what was once $41/hour becomes about $27/hour, and lessens with every additional hour worked, to the employee's detriment, NOT to the employer's.
So, I think that overtime, generally, is a good thing: It uses the motivation of management to generate revenue as a brake: The more we geeks work, the more the employer has to pay. It is a perfect example of negative feedback in its truest sense, and removes the incentive on the part of the greedy to exploit us egregiously.
"If you refuse to play the game, don't complain when someone else wins."
What if entry to the only playing field (Congress) were blocked because the means of egress (1 vote per citizen) doesn't matter any longer to the players (Representatives and Senators), because they'd rather have corporate soft money?
The erosion of our Constitution isn't a game, nor is our helplessness in the face of the enormous power that companies such as Disney wield over our federal government.
I am saddened that Supreme Court took such a stance, there is little chance of getting Congress to revoke it, the corruption there is too deep, and too entrenched.
My reaction when reading the sentence "In Extremadura, the regional government paid a local company $180,00 to cobble together a set of freely available software." was this: The phrase "cobble together" implies a sloppy, makeshift solution (Perhaps in contrast to Microsoft's Office Suite?).
That, in conjunction with the mention of the dollar amount to do so, leads me to believe that there is a subtle spin against custom Linux-based application/software "bundles" or "suites" in the article, for whatever reason, and I think that there are two ways to interpret this, both undermining Linux in general (I warned you that this was mildly paraniod ):
1) Upon reading that paragraph it seemed, solely based upon the phrasing, to denigrate this effort in general, since it required a "cobbled together solution" costing a substantial amount of money.
Yeah, yeah, it is not that much money when you consider the number of people that would benefit, but how many people do you think read it that didn't consider that and merely thought "Wow that's a lot of money, I wonder why they had to spend so much to tie those programs together?"
2) Or, on the flip side - the opposite reaction from IT people that know how much money Microsoft has spent on developing and integrating their Office suite: "Wow, that isn't anywhere near as much money as Microsoft has spent on Office - it *can't* be as good."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but your attempt at logic fails for the following reason: The Founding Fathers were first concerned with individual rights, that's the whole idea behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Understanding that indivduals vary, they sought to create a government of laws that were the least restrictive possible, trusting to the states and to the people everything except for a few matters, and those they sought to keep strictly constrained.
The idea of restrictions on arms in general at the Federal level would have horrified them, I think (as would the size and power of the US Federal government today, I am sure).
The strawman that you use: The "weapon that could destroy every person in the country including the wielder", if it existed today, would most likely be in the possession of the Federal Government... and that would have horrified them even more, I am certain.
I think you give the Founding Fathers short shrift when you say that they didn't anticipate weapons of mass destruction: They didn't need to, from their perspective, what they created sufficed for their purpose, to create a strictly limited Federal government within with the states and the people could co-exist.
Regards,
dj
>Plus, there's that whole "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"
>part of the Amendment most people gloss over...
I don't gloss over it; I can read. More importantly, I can comprehend.
The full Second Ammendment reads as follows:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I can't speak for you, but that means to me that the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, since it says exactly that. The "well-regulated militia" consists of those same "people" referred to in the Second Ammendment and throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, in case you weren't aware of that (You know, the same ones that have free speech rights, and freedom of press and religion and everything else guaranteed by the Constitution, et al), and the "well-regulated" part refers to the militia, not to the people... it's says so right in the Ammendment.
You can argue about what "well-regulated" means with regards to the miltia, it doesn't matter... as written, the prohibition against infringement is aimed at the people's right to keep and bear arms. Again, because that is what it says.
It'd be self-defeating to permit laws infringing upon arms ownership of the people, because they'd not be armed when called up in time of need, which is the whole point of the militia.
None of the Federal armed forces are deemed to be militia, not even the National Guard in its various forms, despite most people's beliefs to the contrary.
There may be other reasons not to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but it isn't necessary to speculate about them; the prohibition suffices as stated.
The current interpretation of the Second Ammendment by the Supreme Court is the same as yours, and is what has allowed laws infringing on the people's Second Ammendment rights to be passed. I think that both you and the Supreme Court are wrong, for the reasons stated above.
Their interpretation is in the process of being challenged; it'll be interesting to see whether or not the Suprememe Court will decide to hear the case. If I had to bet, I'd say no: The current political environment in the US is anti-people's rights in general, regardless of party affliation. President Bush and company trust the citizenry only slightly more than the average terrorist, and the Democrats think that the people should allow the Federal government to think for them, preferably with them in control.
Regards,
dj
OK, this, in my opinion, is just a foolish statement. Maybe it's a troll, but if it is, it's a good one.
>I just consider the life of a burglar to be more important than your property.
First of all, you assume that the theoretical burglar's only purpose in being somewhere they ought not be is for the purposes of theft. In addition, you assume that this "burglar" isn't carrying a weapon, and isn't violent or even homicicidal even if s/he doesn't have one, should they be caught in the act.
How do you propose to ascertain these things should you encounter this "burgler" in your home? Ask?
I'd prefer not to ask, and to have the means to protect my family, myself and my property. I would attempt to detain them without injury first, and to notify the police as soon as possible.
But I'd not hesitate to shoot them if I thought that anyone in my family or myself were in danger. At that point, the burglar's life drops off of that list from its nominal, albeit unmentioned, third place in that list above (Surprise! No, I don't value "things" more than a human life and I'd prefer not to have to shoot at all, as I think most rational people would).
Nor would I lose any sleep over it: The "burglar"'s presence and actions in my home would already have told me everything that I needed or cared to know about that person at that point.
>If you shoot a burglar, you're an outlaw to me.
Well, I'd prefer that my family and myself be alive and uninjured, first, and preferably unburgled if possible, thanks, and your opinion of me means nothing at all to me.
Regards,
dj
Well, in light of the fact that Indiana drank from the Grail, and further considering that he used it to heal his father's wound - and such healing wasn't reversed once they left... I'd say that the effect of the Grail is "limited immortality", a complete heal, as it were, although not complete rejuvenation (Note the visably aged appearance of the knight guarding the Grail Room). As a result, any internal damage that either had experienced from their aging, including disease, up until that point, would be nullified, although their exterior appearance would not necessarily be effected (again, considering the knight's appearance).
Since both Indiana and his father benefitted, one could make the argument that such would, simply as a side effect, grant them exended life and vigor, if not the appearance of such, even though it didn't release them from the effects of aging that would naturally resume later.
This would have the beneficial side effect (from an RL perspective) of not having to overly rectify the current ages and appearance either of Harrison Ford or Sean Connery in their roles - their appearance NOW would suffice, and IMHO, would even lend a degree of realism to the movie.
Set the next film in the 40's, 50's, or even the 60's: Both are remarkably vigorous in RL, and, their age and appearance in RL would merely be the natural result in the next film of their characters having lived that time between the last film and the next, while aging normally as time passed.
An easy solution to the "age issue", I think, and a satisfying one, all around: Both Indiana and Henry could easily still be vigorous in all ways, and capable of physical feats that one would might not normally associate with two men "past their prime" (the latter in quotes, because, of course they'd be deemed such in terms of years, and perhaps by appearance, but not practically, since they'd be able to do things that would task far younger men, because of the Grail's benefit).
Just my opinion.
dj
Obligatory note: IANAL
It appears to me that Microsoft's EULA's (which may or may not be enforcable) are an ongoing attempt to continue their control over the desktop, at the very least, via untested legalese, in the face of increasing competition, of which Open Source and, more importantly, Linux, et al, are a large part.
This, of course, is understandable (if not acceptable) - Microsoft, historically, wishes to compete solely on its terms, so as to maximize its profits and minimize competition in those areas from which they derive profit, to ensure their existence and continued profits (the latter, of course, being the definition of corporate existence in a nutshell).
The problem in the latter strategy (IMHO)is this:
Without a true test of EULAs in the courts (most especially those of the "shrink-wrap" type in any form) that supports and enforces such terms, it is, at best, a tenuous foundation upon which to base an ongoing corporate profit strategy in an ever-increasingly litigious world - at any moment there could come a legal challenge that could potentially undermine the whole structure beneath. And, even if they were to win, it would cost them money to do so - potentially, a LOT of money. If they were to lose, well...
All it would take is money (certainly, a *lot* of money - but there *are* ways to solicite the help of powerful lawfirms, as we've seen with the current SCO lawsuit): A determined effort by anti-Microsoft forces to force such a test could easily be mounted, should profit be sniffed by lawfirms sufficiently informed, capable and motivated.
Further, given Microsoft's current status as a monopoly (not in itself a bad thing), and more importantly, as a monopoly that has abused its position in the past as such and been convicted of so doing, their "backing down" on EULA issues is, I think, simply a case of them "seeing the light", and not wishing to provoke any such tests, because it is in their best interests not to do so.
Certainly, EULAs in general, in their current untested form, serve to protect their interests now (and ensure their profit), and shrink-wrap EULAs (including those from downloads) in all forms do so as well, especially when untested.
Just my opinion.
dj
Well, another scenario occurs to me, at this point:
IBM buys the pot, by buying SCO, just because its cheap. Microsoft gets a ride on the deal, and Novell does, too.
Later, IBM buys out Novell's IP rights to Unix, thereby leaving Microsoft beholding to IBM for all Unix rights they purchased (since IBM bought out SCO, previously) - leaving Microsoft's Services for Unix, et al, beholden to IBM... and wouldn't that be a nice turn of events?
Well, I can dream, can't I?
Well gang -
:)
Here's my perspective - regardless of all the hype:
Warning: I don't claim it to be a perfect representation of Poker, but, I had fun writing it
Consider this as Poker: The chips are IP, copyrights, licenses - the "pot", of course, is potentially HUGE.
SCO claims infringement by IBM, and sues (the opening bet).
IBM says "You're bluffing", and calls.
Microsoft buys into the game by purchasing licenses to SCO's copyrights (We call, too, just to cover our asses, and we want to be in the game as well).
Novell chips in, and raises (You're bluffing, SCO - we own the copyrights, let's see what you have).
SCO gets dealt what they deem a Joker (we got the rights we always said we had - see?) - and in this game, Jokers are wild (or so SCO thinks). SCO raises.
Next bet is to IBM, I think.
Personally - I think it will play out thus: IBM calls, once (they don't care, really that Jokers are wild - they have a lot of chips, and can buy the pot at will, if they wish, and deem it worth the price).
Microsoft, seeking to shore up its position, calls as well (They, too, have a lot of chips, but won't waste them on raising at this point, and won't try to buy the pot unless they are sure they can win - but they can always negotiate with IBM later).
Novell calls, not really caring about the outcome (they have a lot of chips, too, but are already firmly positioned outside this game, and so don't care to try to buy the pot, since they correctly deem it a relatively small one at this point).
So, IBM calls, Microsoft calls, Novell calls. SCO folds.
Just my opinion.
It'll be interesting to see what happens, though.
Regards,
dj
Actually - NetWare 6 has been out for quite some time (Support Pack 3 for it was recently released)and NetWare 6.5 is in beta.
.Net).
:)
Novell, although much maligned by many here on Slashdot, actually has much to offer to the Open Source community, and appears to be slowly gravitating towards Open Source - apparently NetWare 7 will offer NetWare services via Linux:
http://www.computerworld.com/networkingtopics/ne tw orking/os/story/0,10801,80497,00.html
To move this a bit more on-topic - I doubt that Novell's Unix patents and IP are worth more to Novell at this point than their efforts to remain viable as a player in networking in general while retaining such, since they paid for them.
And, to postulate just a bit (and go off-topic again) - I believe that the increasingly more-important realm of heterogeneous network integration and management, and the services related thereto (something that Novell has encouraged by releasing native versions of NDS for not only NetWare, but NT, Linux and Solaris)*will* become the next battleground for all network software and hardware companies (MS has attempted to address this, in a short-sighted fashion, by creating Active Directory and
As such, I suspect that their defense of their Unix patents and IP is merely pro forma - not a bad thing in itself.
However, I expect to hear much more from Novell in the future as they complete their transition.
Discounting them at this point (especially on OS "religous" grounds) would be a huge mistake - one could argue that Novell Directory Services (NDS), as a mature, stable DS platform, widely available, and soon to be even more so, could be the straw that breaks Microsoft's back as MS attempts to stop the trend towards choice in network server platforms at all levels.
Novell, I think, conceeded that battle long ago with regards to their native implementation of NetWare, and has made an admirable, if at times muddled, effort towards what I deem the future of networking in general - the management of disparate resources, regardless of platform (and, eventually, if they are sufficiently foresighted) underlying infrastructure, to the benefit of those that adopt it.
Novell calls it "OneNet" - and I think that they have finally "got it", in a way that MS simply cannot (for they have too much to lose) and at the risk of being ridiculed for so obvious a statement: "It's about the Network" - and has been, for quite some time. And, more importantly, about the network and it services, its availability, its reliability and its security.
So, to wrap this up, and on a purely nostalgic basis: I saw glimmers of this in NetWare v4.x - does anyone remember NetWare for OS/2? I ran such a server on my work desktop, as a budding network geek many moons ago - and remember the panic that ensued when my manager saw a server on the network at our office for which he could not account... and I remember his surprise, and admiration, when he saw what I had done with the lowly 80486 PC on my desktop.
I ran NetWare for OS/2, as a process on my desktop PC, and leveraged it for various things to my company's benefit (our mail server, for one, until we could afford to buy a seperate box for it).
Once I had overcome my "hatred" for NetWare v4.x in general - it was a completely different paradigm for networking, and I hated it at first simply because I didn't understand it, couldn't fix it, and it went against the grain of all the NetWare v2.x/v3.x servers/networks I had installed in the past.
Once I "got it" - I came to understand that it was the future of networking - from the viewpoint of someone that had to maintain it and provide services for users, and that THAT was the most important thing.
Later, I attended a Novell conference that merely served to reinforce my understanding - at the end, we were shown a native implementation of NetWare, running atop Windows 3.1, fresh from Novell's geeks
It was a wo
Starship Troopers, the movie - wasn't satire, it was merely a bad science fiction action movie with decent special effects.
:)
Starship Troopers, the novel, couldn't be interpreted as satire unless one only reads English as a third language.
And I doubt that most Heinlein fans would care what anyone said about the movie, as it was so far removed from the novel as to only have the title and the names of the characters in common with it.
Just my opinion
dj
The full text of the 2nd Ammendment reads:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The "people" referred to are the same people that are referred to throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the same ones that enjoy freedom of speech, religion, etc.
Even if you were to assume that the ONLY purpose of arms ownership by the people was to support a militia (as many gun control advocates believe), it would be contrary to the stated purpose underlying such an interpretation (i.e. "A well regulated militia") to restrict arms ownership by the people by dint of law, simply because of the fact that the 2nd Ammendment prohibits it...
"Well regulated" refers to the militia, NOT to the people - it says so right in the ammendment.
It isn't a "throwaway" part of the ammendment at all, but is one justification for not infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms: To be able to call up an armed populace in time of need, and as such is stated as an absolute.
dj
Well, if they're serious about it, perhaps it would prod the US Federal Government to take space exploration more seriously, and allocate resources to it once again.
I'd hate to call it "The Second Space Race" - but it doesn't appear that the US is going to do undertake anything major unless prodded by some external force, as happened with the USSR in the late 50's - 60's.
China attempting this might just be what is needed to revitalize our space program.
As far as I know (and if anyone has information confirming or denying this I'd be happy to hear it) - all of the money spent to develop the technologies that lead up to the Apollo missions and beyond has been paid back many times over in various forms, resulting in things that we take for granted today (computers, as only one example?).
I can't speak for the viability of "moon mining" in general, but think that it is far past time to move to what appears to me to be a natural next step - manned moon bases, as the staging point for humanity's expansion into the solar system, and perhaps one day beyond it.
The ISS is important as well, and would play a critical role in that, I think.
It's a pity that I'll never be able to go, but if I saw its beginning, I'd be happy.
Just my opinion.
dj
"Given the choice, I think people would pick good buildings over good laws."
That's a cynical view, IMHO.
Laws are complex, sure... but, in light of the fact that they are designed to encompass all of us, don't you think that we should have at least an opportunity to understand them without having to hire expensive lawyers?
No offense - but there are a LOT more citizens in the US than there are lawyers - so, why shouldn't we be able to understand the laws that constrain us?
Just my opinion.
dk
"Almost by definition laws attempt to restrain that element of society which is not prepared to respect other members of society without the threat of some penalty."
Huh? Laws don't *do* anything, by definition: They define what can happen when they are transgressed, and the transgressor is caught so transgressing.
Their effect, and punishment, is always after being caught.
What was your point?
Sigh, OK, away, not awya :)
Sorry, IMHO, NOT IMOHO - fingers got awya from me :)
YOU are,IMOHO, an idiot, and here is why:
Laws are not like construction. Laws are not like designing a building.
Laws are the rules that bind us all as a country. As such, each of us has a right, duty and obligation to understand them.
If they grow so complex so as to preclude this, we cannot excercise our duties and obligations as citizens.
Just my opinion.
dj
I reject your implied necessity that laws without specialized practioners to intrepret them would, or must, be so vague so as to preclude justice or general applicability.
I think you underestimate the ability of the average citizen to understand their rights, obligations and duties, in general, as citizens of the United States.
I believe that most American citizens are, generally, decent, kind and law-abiding.
I believe that, for every crime committed by one person, there are tens, hundreds, thousands, millions that did not commit that same crime.
I believe that the law in the US has become not the practice of protecting citizens, but seeks out the minority that commits crimes, and holds that minority up as examples as why we should submit to greater restrictions on our liberties under the auspices of law, ostensibly to prevent those crimes that the vast majority of Americans would not commit in the first place.
In short, I believe in the citizenry, and think that most people in the US are kind and decent people.
And, I think that the practice of law in the US, now, generally, undermines us - litigation has become the rule, rather than the exception.
Ultimately, that serves only the practitioners of law, it creates an antagonistic environment that creates conflict that would not be necessary otherwise.
Just my opinion.
dj
Laws were, by design, created to protect citizens.
Once the wording of law, its intrepretation and practice becomes so impenetrable so as to require the expertise of specialized practitioners whose sole purpose is exerted to this function, law itself moves beyond the apprehension of citizens: They can no longer avail themselves of its protections by their own accord and understanding, and so become subject to its application and abuse by those same specialists at all levels within its purview.
At that point, law is removed from the province of the citizenry, and becomes the means whereby its elite practitoners, possessing the wherewithal to spend the time to learn its intricacies, can benefit from its ever increasing elitism, created such over time, to the detriment of the citizenry.
Just my opinion.
dj
Um, no -
As I stated previously - I am a technician, not a programmer - all of the subcontractors that I have hired are the same. So, I don't need programmers, open source or otherwise, regardless: That is not what I do, nor is it what I subcontract to others to do.
As I also stated, I am not sure whether or not this applies to programming, in general.
But, my point was, and is, this:
Generally, I consider overtime to be a good thing, as it forces management to consider their priorities when balanced against their salaried employees' personal lives (which are, IMHO, at least as important as their professional lives). If they've no incentive to pay for the extra time spent by their technical staff (REGARDLESS of stripe) beyond a standard work week then time becomes a non-issue to them: At that point, pure salary eliminates the consideration of the personal lives of salaried employees on the part of management, by definition.
The end result is a corporate culture that has no regard for technical staff beyond what they can provide while working, and creates the attitude on the part of management that any intrusion of a geek's personal life into the time they spend working to be "disloyal". The personal lives of "the geeks" are a non-issue to management at that point: After all, they have "paid" for their time, at a flat rate (salary), and so, in their estimation, "own" them, and their time, to the exclusion of any consideration beyond their job.
It is, ultimately, an abuse of the idea of salary, and converts it from a privileged position to one of servitude to the detriment of the employee(s) so classified.
To put this in perspective: All of the jobs that I subcontract now have after hours/weekend/holiday clauses. I do this to protect my technicians, and to ensure that the time that they spend after hours, on weekends and holidays, are rewarded commensurately to compensate them for time that they have to spend away from their personal lives to perform those services.
And, they get 85 percent of that time, as well...
As I said - I'm not getting rich by so doing, but I sleep well at night.
And, I am happy to do so.
Just my opinion.
dj
Well, fortunately, I didn't *have* to look for a job - I started a business, and have been working for the past 2 years to grow it.
As I expanded it, I paid my subcontractors 85 percent of their billable hours once I was in a position to hire help. My customers are happy, my subs are happy, and I am happy...
I am sorry that you are not doing well.
Hmm, I guess you didn't read my entire post. I was fired - and I now make quite a bit more money working on my own than I did while working for someone else.
But, my point was this (and perhaps it was lost in the whole "$41/hour" idea):
Regardless of how much an employer pays a person per hour, or flat rate, there comes a point when they should pay overtime, whether that person is salaried or not.
Salaries should not used by employers to allow them to exploit employees, regardless of the salary, within reason. If an employee is worth, for example, $41/hour, to the employer,on a salaried basis (which is based upon a 40 hour work week) then why should they not be worth more when the employee is working past standard business hours? After all - they deemed his/her time/skill/experience/expertise sufficient to pay them that amount in the first place. Refusing overtime beyond a standard work week or a bit more (generally 10-15 hours/week) (or commensurate perks in the form of personal time, etc.) simply on the basis of "we pay you enough already" is tantamount to slavery: It indicates an attitude on the part of management that the employee's personal time has no value.
And that, IMHO, is one the things that is wrong with corporate America - the view that a salaried employee should be bound to work as long as is deemed necessary for no additional money, simply because they are salaried, and so, by "definition", are already being paid "more than enough" in their estimation.
Somewhere along the line - salaried has come to mean "enslaved" - a salaried employee feels obligated to work far beyond reasonable hours, simply because of their status as a salaried employee. In so doing, they give up their personal time to the company, to its benefit and to their detriment.
I am not against salaries, when working for employers that appreciate their salaried employees, and understand that it is, and should be, a balanced relationship.
I was a salaried employee for nearly 20 years, despite the fact that my jobs (field tech, etc.), aren't generally deemed to be salaried positions. Generally, I thought my remuneration worth the extra time I spent working, and was happy to do so, knowing that I was helping my company by billing extra time.
At my last job, I realized that it was being used to exploit my skills solely to benefit my employer.
And that is what I am against, most especially in a service industry: If an employer charges hourly for a service person, then they should not be allowed to pay that person a flat rate salary. That invites abuse.
Never having been a professional programmer, I cannot say whether or not the latter should apply. But, I can say this, in general: Salary is not an excuse to require people to work far beyond a standard work week to their detriment.
Just my opinion.
dl
This is slightly off-topic, as I am a technician, not a programmer.
Well, I made over $41/hour working for my last employer (quite a bit more, actually, all things considered, viewed from a 40 hour work week perspective). At my last job, my title was "Vice President of Technical Services". But, I can say that overtime *should* be paid, regardless, and here is why:
My last job (2 years ago): In return for a great salary, plus a company vehicle for my work and personal use and full health insurance benefits, I worked anywhere from 60 - 80 hours per week, 7 days a week, and holidays.
At the time, I thought it was worth it: I was the "star" employee, first technician hired, bright, motivated - all the other techs came to me for help, and as a result, they could successfully complete their service calls with my assistance, thereby benefitting the customers and the company. My customers loved me, and I was happy doing what I loved to do.
For awhile, I enjoyed being "it", and thought that the time I spent working was the natural result of my skills and experience, and the need for my company to make money to offset my salary and benefits.
Now, I realize that I was wrong. I almost always billed enough time, directly or indirectly, during a normal business week, to justify my remuneration. The late nights, weekends and holidays were just "gravy" for my employer, since I was never paid for any of that time.
Weekend server migrations/upgrades (to save downtime for the customer, of course!): Billed at full rates by my employer ($95/hour at the time). LAN/WAN infrastructure improvements, the same.
Was I being compensated well? Absolutely. Was it worth the time spent? In my opinion, in retrospect, no.
At any given point, ALL of the time I spent beyond a standard work week was at my personal expense, just extra money generated for my employer. Over time, it became expected of me, and I bought into it, for years, as the price for employment, for being "good" at what I do. To my shame, I demanded the same from all of my technicans as well.
Training? Forget about it! My last boss wouldn't authorize training during business hours. If I wanted to learn, I did it on my own time. He would graciously pay for certification tests, but God forbid I should fail the first time.
Sadly, it has been my experience over the past 15+ years that this is the paradigm for all small-medium sized service companies, especially those owned privately. The technicians are merely cash cows to be milked. Technicians around here (Upstate New York) are salaried, not because they are being paid higher than normal, generally, but to save on overtime.
When I was fired from my last job (officially for "having been late for no compelling reason after having been previously warned" - tell me that a VP that sets his own hours can be late?!?), I set off on my own. I've done well over the past 2 years, and, when I needed additional help, I hired good technicians as subcontractors, and paid them the lion's share of their billable time (85/15 split - they get the 85 percent, after all, they are doing the work). I'm not getting rich by so doing, but I sleep well at night.
Over time, what I've come to realize is this: Money is a good thing, but money earned to the detriment of others ("greed") is not. The vast majority of managers, executives, etc. that have never been in the trenches, possess no technical skills to any great degree, view we geeks as chattel. The phrase "human capital" has been mentioned in the IT trade mags of late (notably in InfoWorld) - it underscores the problem, the perception that we geeks are merely plug-in components of a company's technical prowess, to be used, discarded and replaced at whim.
So, to wrap this up - Sure, $41/hour is a lot of money, but at what cost to the person earning it? If that person works 60 hours per week, salaried, what was once $41/hour becomes about $27/hour, and lessens with every additional hour worked, to the employee's detriment, NOT to the employer's.
So, I think that overtime, generally, is a good thing: It uses the motivation of management to generate revenue as a brake: The more we geeks work, the more the employer has to pay. It is a perfect example of negative feedback in its truest sense, and removes the incentive on the part of the greedy to exploit us egregiously.
Just my opinion.
dj
"If you refuse to play the game, don't complain when someone else wins."
What if entry to the only playing field (Congress) were blocked because the means of egress (1 vote per citizen) doesn't matter any longer to the players (Representatives and Senators), because they'd rather have corporate soft money?
The erosion of our Constitution isn't a game, nor is our helplessness in the face of the enormous power that companies such as Disney wield over our federal government.
I am saddened that Supreme Court took such a stance, there is little chance of getting Congress to revoke it, the corruption there is too deep, and too entrenched.
dj
In the 80's Apple ripped off Xerox's GUI... the more things change...
My reaction when reading the sentence "In Extremadura, the regional government paid a local company $180,00 to cobble together a set of freely available software." was this: The phrase "cobble together" implies a sloppy, makeshift solution (Perhaps in contrast to Microsoft's Office Suite?).
That, in conjunction with the mention of the dollar amount to do so, leads me to believe that there is a subtle spin against custom Linux-based application/software "bundles" or "suites" in the article, for whatever reason, and I think that there are two ways to interpret this, both undermining Linux in general (I warned you that this was mildly paraniod ):
1) Upon reading that paragraph it seemed, solely based upon the phrasing, to denigrate this effort in general, since it required a "cobbled together solution" costing a substantial amount of money.
Yeah, yeah, it is not that much money when you consider the number of people that would benefit, but how many people do you think read it that didn't consider that and merely thought "Wow that's a lot of money, I wonder why they had to spend so much to tie those programs together?"
2) Or, on the flip side - the opposite reaction from IT people that know how much money Microsoft has spent on developing and integrating their Office suite: "Wow, that isn't anywhere near as much money as Microsoft has spent on Office - it *can't* be as good."
Just my opinion.