I love this argument. I expected more from Willie. This is facism in action, people. We all get to pay for Microsoft to have source code that they can "make improvements" to and sell back to us.
Are you joking? The 9/11 terrorists used boxcutters and a wrist watch. The point was NOT to use our "evil" technology. Comments like this prove that people in the industrialized nations have become too dependent upon technology. Also, such ignorance just gives oppressive governments an excuse to outlaw everything in sight.
That last post seems pretty stupid now that I look at it. If you can't agree on the fact that the software industry is a relatively unregulated market, I don't know what to write to convince you otherwise. I really shouldn't try to argue with you if you're going to be a purist about subjective terms like that. Under your definition, a *free* market has never existed and likely never will.
Ergo, it was not regulated enough. The US has a history of taking a laissez faire approach to emerging markets. Take Ma Bell as an example. After a monopoly appears, however, demand for regulation rises and the government reacts to correct the market and return to a more capitalistic model. I don't know where you're coming from with that comment. If you really "believe" in free markets, you should read The Communist Manifesto. If you think capitalism can be self-sustaining without intervention, I defy you to find an example. If, however, you think capitalism is not such a lofty goal, what form of economy would you prefer?
After reading your bio, while trying to make sense of your post and sig, I thought you would enjoy the piece "Some Past and Future Cliches Regarding Linux". At least do a search for "gun-toting libertarianism" if you don't feel like reading it all.
because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors
This is what is called a Freudian slip. What he's really concerned about is the fact that other OS's CAN be run on other processors. This hurts his company; so he's ignorant enough to make the leap that it hurts the industry as well. This is paper-thin. If I were on AMD's board, I would look for a new CEO who could at least lie effectively.
That's just what we want. More computers that support Hebrew and Arabic. The Israelis would find a way to use it to oppress their neighbors. The Arabs would declare it the tool of Satan. These two fucking ignorant cultures would start killing each other, and the US and Europe would get to sort it out. Oh, wait.
No. You're right. Capitalism means *regulated* markets. Free markets eventually lead to abusive monopolies like Microsoft. That's communism, like the man said.
The first thing I did on a client's SCO box was ftp to Caldera and install Pico. It's simple. It has a few uesful features. It works in a telnet session. I need nothing more to fix 99% of Unix problems.
I've used TWO of the suggestions in this post in the past two days. I used tomsrtbt last night to mount a cd and install drivers because Windows refused to recognize it. Lynx + Google + FTP is a brilliant combination. Maybe these people won't be administering Windows boxes, but they'll sure be using them. If I had points, I'd mod it up.
Here I go again responding to things I shouldn't...
First of all, where did you learn to write? No, I won't be that petty...(note preterition)
This site is not a big shiny advertisement for "linux". It is a group of intelligent, childish computer users & programmers who, for the most part, tend to use the best software and hardware available. Unlike most people, however, these realize that a computer should not be an appliance.
You are very wrong to attribute these responses to some sort of "cult" mentality, in which everyone is brainwashed into hating Microsoft. These people love one thing. They love to fiddle with electronic gizmos. These are not "consumers" who just want their computers to "work". Many of them work in computer related fields and want to foster a genuine appreciation of computing and mathematics in others while enriching their own knowledge. All have used Microsoft products before. Most are disappointed when Windows continues not to live up to the "hype" of Microsoft marketing. Most see the productivity gains possible by using computers being stifled by Microsoft's elitist software model. Most are turned-off by Microsoft's secrecy and predatory business tactics. They see no room on a Windows computer for anything but Microsoft products. These disappointments cause them to eventually give up on trying to use Windows, and to try to convince others not to use it.
This is the sad part: If in the future you see yourself wanting a computer to do something that you think Microsoft might not be willing to implement, doing anything but actively fighting steps such as these is foolish. Believe me. Once a computer becomes an appliance that only runs Windows, the fun stops.
Thesis: Microsoft wants to steal the business of even more companies. Antithesis: Companies are wise to Microsoft's tricks. Synthesis: Microsoft goes out of business. (okay, okay, but I can dream, can't I?)
Re:From the article...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
I don't know why I'm even replying to this, but heregoes: This is sad. I've never said anything about Jews being evil. If you really are Jewish, you are doing your people/religion a disservice by responding in such a manner. If I thought you were serious, I would consider legal action against you. However, judging by your previous posts, you seem to exist only to make Slashdot a worse place, so I will ignore you.
Re:From the article...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
I've had my sig for quite a while. For you ignorami, it is a reference to a MadTV skit about a new Fox show, "When Jews Attack". You can get your panties in a wad all you want about the difference between Israelis and Jews, but to deny that the conflict in the Middle East is a religious one is just plain wrong.
Re:Sending bits back in time
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
YoU'rE CrAAzY! That will never happen! It's quacks like you that... what? Invest in the UN/Worldbank? Sure! Sign me up! That sounds like the safest damn investment ever! World peace, here we come! (only, not)
The answer is "some guy who appeared out of nowhere and looked like what their kid *would have* looked like if they had had kids (in thst branch)".
Re:Logically impossible...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
I'm sick of hearing this argument: if we observe it to happen in nature, it must be logical. Logic implies consistency. The fact is that the whole of quantum physics is hallmarked by a constant willingness to sacrifice consistency for completeness. There are many paradoxes inherent in quantum theories. These are not just "remote from everyday experience", but actually illogical. It is true that theoretical physicists USE logic to concoct new theories from experimental data and, more accurately, to disprove incorrect theories, but that does not mean that the theories themselves are inherently logical.
Re:From the article...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Just an idea: if you send it a few seconds into the future, it should "appear" in a few seconds, right on time. This doesn't sound like what he explains, though. I'm with you, completely baffled. Besides, what exactly is a "rotating laser beam"? Is this just a stretch of fiber-optic cable going in a circle, with a laser attached to one end?
Re:I don't see how slowing down light helps.
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
I'm trying to figure it out myself. Unless you assume that in areas of the universe where light travels slower, so does time. In that case, it really doesn't go "back" in time, it just goes forward in time slower. That can't be right.
making gravity force a neutron to rotate sideways
If one were to force a particle to move in the 4th dimension, would this theoretically put it in a parallel universe?
I thought the crystals you refer to could "tunnel" electrons faster than light. That's not entirely accurate, though, because the speed of each electron is a statistical distribution that is *on average* the speed of light. Only a (random) few of the particles actually travel faster than light. Maybe that's something else entirely, though.
Disclaimer: These are just musings; I can't pretend to understand how this (might) work.
a black hole? Instead of using a massive body to distort space-time, he wants to use massive amounts of energy (photons). It's a bit sparse on details; and I'm (admittedly) a bit rusty on physics, but this sounds like trouble to me.
Logically impossible...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
There are plenty of things in modern physics that are "logically" impossible. Besides, the many-worlds interpretation neatly sidesteps logic for problems such as this.
Slashdot Mirror
I love this argument. I expected more from Willie. This is facism in action, people. We all get to pay for Microsoft to have source code that they can "make improvements" to and sell back to us.
Are you joking? The 9/11 terrorists used boxcutters and a wrist watch. The point was NOT to use our "evil" technology. Comments like this prove that people in the industrialized nations have become too dependent upon technology. Also, such ignorance just gives oppressive governments an excuse to outlaw everything in sight.
That last post seems pretty stupid now that I look at it. If you can't agree on the fact that the software industry is a relatively unregulated market, I don't know what to write to convince you otherwise. I really shouldn't try to argue with you if you're going to be a purist about subjective terms like that. Under your definition, a *free* market has never existed and likely never will.
Ergo, it was not regulated enough. The US has a history of taking a laissez faire approach to emerging markets. Take Ma Bell as an example. After a monopoly appears, however, demand for regulation rises and the government reacts to correct the market and return to a more capitalistic model. I don't know where you're coming from with that comment. If you really "believe" in free markets, you should read The Communist Manifesto. If you think capitalism can be self-sustaining without intervention, I defy you to find an example. If, however, you think capitalism is not such a lofty goal, what form of economy would you prefer?
After reading your bio, while trying to make sense of your post and sig, I thought you would enjoy the piece "Some Past and Future Cliches Regarding Linux". At least do a search for "gun-toting libertarianism" if you don't feel like reading it all.
This is what is called a Freudian slip. What he's really concerned about is the fact that other OS's CAN be run on other processors. This hurts his company; so he's ignorant enough to make the leap that it hurts the industry as well. This is paper-thin. If I were on AMD's board, I would look for a new CEO who could at least lie effectively.
Ha! Are you joking? Find me one that isn't.
That's just what we want. More computers that support Hebrew and Arabic. The Israelis would find a way to use it to oppress their neighbors. The Arabs would declare it the tool of Satan. These two fucking ignorant cultures would start killing each other, and the US and Europe would get to sort it out. Oh, wait.
Yeah, he said it just like that, too. Standing at the base of a mountain with a couple of stone tablets.
No. You're right. Capitalism means *regulated* markets. Free markets eventually lead to abusive monopolies like Microsoft. That's communism, like the man said.
The first thing I did on a client's SCO box was ftp to Caldera and install Pico. It's simple. It has a few uesful features. It works in a telnet session. I need nothing more to fix 99% of Unix problems.
I've used TWO of the suggestions in this post in the past two days. I used tomsrtbt last night to mount a cd and install drivers because Windows refused to recognize it. Lynx + Google + FTP is a brilliant combination. Maybe these people won't be administering Windows boxes, but they'll sure be using them. If I had points, I'd mod it up.
First of all, where did you learn to write? No, I won't be that petty...(note preterition)
This site is not a big shiny advertisement for "linux". It is a group of intelligent, childish computer users & programmers who, for the most part, tend to use the best software and hardware available. Unlike most people, however, these realize that a computer should not be an appliance.
You are very wrong to attribute these responses to some sort of "cult" mentality, in which everyone is brainwashed into hating Microsoft. These people love one thing. They love to fiddle with electronic gizmos. These are not "consumers" who just want their computers to "work". Many of them work in computer related fields and want to foster a genuine appreciation of computing and mathematics in others while enriching their own knowledge. All have used Microsoft products before. Most are disappointed when Windows continues not to live up to the "hype" of Microsoft marketing. Most see the productivity gains possible by using computers being stifled by Microsoft's elitist software model. Most are turned-off by Microsoft's secrecy and predatory business tactics. They see no room on a Windows computer for anything but Microsoft products. These disappointments cause them to eventually give up on trying to use Windows, and to try to convince others not to use it.
This is the sad part: If in the future you see yourself wanting a computer to do something that you think Microsoft might not be willing to implement, doing anything but actively fighting steps such as these is foolish. Believe me. Once a computer becomes an appliance that only runs Windows, the fun stops.
Thesis: Microsoft wants to steal the business of even more companies.
Antithesis: Companies are wise to Microsoft's tricks.
Synthesis: Microsoft goes out of business.
(okay, okay, but I can dream, can't I?)
I don't know why I'm even replying to this, but heregoes: This is sad. I've never said anything about Jews being evil. If you really are Jewish, you are doing your people/religion a disservice by responding in such a manner. If I thought you were serious, I would consider legal action against you. However, judging by your previous posts, you seem to exist only to make Slashdot a worse place, so I will ignore you.
I've had my sig for quite a while. For you ignorami, it is a reference to a MadTV skit about a new Fox show, "When Jews Attack". You can get your panties in a wad all you want about the difference between Israelis and Jews, but to deny that the conflict in the Middle East is a religious one is just plain wrong.
Does this mean that instead of looking for messages from other planets we should be looking for messages from ourselves, in the future?
YoU'rE CrAAzY! That will never happen! It's quacks like you that... what? Invest in the UN/Worldbank? Sure! Sign me up! That sounds like the safest damn investment ever! World peace, here we come! (only, not)
The answer is "some guy who appeared out of nowhere and looked like what their kid *would have* looked like if they had had kids (in thst branch)".
I'm sick of hearing this argument: if we observe it to happen in nature, it must be logical. Logic implies consistency. The fact is that the whole of quantum physics is hallmarked by a constant willingness to sacrifice consistency for completeness. There are many paradoxes inherent in quantum theories. These are not just "remote from everyday experience", but actually illogical. It is true that theoretical physicists USE logic to concoct new theories from experimental data and, more accurately, to disprove incorrect theories, but that does not mean that the theories themselves are inherently logical.
Just an idea: if you send it a few seconds into the future, it should "appear" in a few seconds, right on time. This doesn't sound like what he explains, though. I'm with you, completely baffled. Besides, what exactly is a "rotating laser beam"? Is this just a stretch of fiber-optic cable going in a circle, with a laser attached to one end?
making gravity force a neutron to rotate sideways
If one were to force a particle to move in the 4th dimension, would this theoretically put it in a parallel universe?
I thought the crystals you refer to could "tunnel" electrons faster than light. That's not entirely accurate, though, because the speed of each electron is a statistical distribution that is *on average* the speed of light. Only a (random) few of the particles actually travel faster than light. Maybe that's something else entirely, though.
Disclaimer: These are just musings; I can't pretend to understand how this (might) work.
a black hole? Instead of using a massive body to distort space-time, he wants to use massive amounts of energy (photons). It's a bit sparse on details; and I'm (admittedly) a bit rusty on physics, but this sounds like trouble to me.
There are plenty of things in modern physics that are "logically" impossible. Besides, the many-worlds interpretation neatly sidesteps logic for problems such as this.
OR
"That's not Tetris, it's our new synergy-building groupware"