I wonder if people fully grasp the size of the US military.
A European Military would be smaller. But it would be nice because maybe we could bring all our troops home from England, Spain, Germany, Boznia and who knows where else.
In fact there already is an European Military but they all wear the stars and stripes on their shoulders.
We could save a lot of money if we could shut those bases down.
A curious question is when the US is no longer the dominant world power (when - not if) will it be replaced by another or will there be a bunch of factions fighting for control? I hope I'm long dead before then.
- by getting something that can use for what they need. I make stuff all the time that I need. And I save a lot of money making it myself. If it turns out that someone else can use it then cool- they can have it.
- a sense of achievement. Don't write this off to quickly. A lot of people pay a lot of money to very high priced shrinks to feel good about themselves. If contributing to a project for the good of many others is beneficial to your well being- everyone wins.
Can you live on a sense of achievement? Of course not. I have a house, kids, bills, school loans etc. I know that. But I can do open source stuff on the side and it has benefits.
Those are two I can think of and I'm sure others here could put together a much better list.
I do not advocate that all software should be open source. I do not 'contribute' money to open source projects. (I have other places my charitable funds go that are much more urgent- homelessness for example) I do not fit in the pigeonhole that some above are trying to put me in.
There is a nice reply to my original post that moves in the direction I was thinking. Economics are going to shift and move away from this centralized mode of thinking and acting. I for one am glad. (that was the whole gist of what I was trying to get at)
A lot of the compensation for the creation of open source software itself is not as immediately tangible as the benefits of closed software. As in direct economic gain.
But I'm talking about things well outside of just open source and software. I'm talking about technology enabling people to have more control over their lives and the ability to see the benefits of their own work.
Some of this will be generated by propietary software that runs on open operating systems.
I'm getting all these hyper critical, emotional responses to a pretty simple post.
People (and I think usually of programmers since I am one) can start to think outside the box in terms of making a living.
I can stop putting in 60 hours a week so someone else can afford a third multi million dollar home. Someone who has put in much less effort and taken no risk.
Take the blinders off. Look around and start thinking that things can be better if you make an effort. Don't settle for the way it's always been.
Upper level management in the US is grossly overcompensated. Much of this comes directly at the expense of the employees whos labor made their riches possible.
There is a 'club' that one gains entry to- is given the keys to the kingdom- and there is no accountability. This is not even remotely close to capatilism or a free market. It is the very worst kind of communism. The rich club guys continue to bolster one anothers income while the majority of the citizens suffer.
I am far from what you are claiming me to be. I am a paid programmer. I work for a small company. I think that smaller, more flexible business units are the way of the future. Not huge corporations that can suck up the losses here and there.
You fall into the trap of it's all or nothing. You also read little of my post w/out really paying attention to what I said. Your own preconceptions were already hard at work.
I am saying that there will be new ways to do things that have not yet emerged. I say this because...
1) Open Source Will Not Go Away
2) The companies trying to make money using open source are not doing too well.
3) This will not continue indefinitely-- someone will find a way to make the use of open software profitable.
That is all I'm saying. And someone will find a way to work it out.
Is all of corporate America wrotten? No. Is it all good? Most definitely not.
As well as not being a plumber, I am not an aquarium expert.
But I do know that the filter in my aquarium pumps water. It's quite clever, it has a little impeller in a tube that is driven by magnets- so no leaks.
It cranks a lot of water through the filtering system. So some aquarium pumps may not be appropriate but I know of least one that would work.
.
New Approach to Software/ Old Approach to business
on
Red Hat In Business News
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It may just be that building large publicly traded coporations is not the way to go with open source software.
I'm no economist but I see no reason why this should be a terrible thing.
Personally I don't care how corporations fare. I care how individuals fare.
If individuals can succeed, without a corporation then I think that is better anyway. Large organizations tend to carry along overcompensated freeloaders. (Read CEO, CFO, etc.)
I would like to see an economy where individuals are compensated on their merits.
Like I said, I'm no economist and I don't have all the answers but I don't understand why I see articles that intimate that Open Source may fail because it does not work with the old business model.
In my eyes it is the old business model that is failing and a new one needs to be found.
He should take a look at some aquariums as well. That would take care of finding a pump that can run continually w/out overheating. I would think it has to be much cheaper than pumps built for remote controled submarines.
Some small compression fittings would take care of the tube problem. Maybe some o-rings instead of rubberbands on the outside. I can think of a few ideas that would involve more than just pressure on the outside of the tubing. (That's why he had such a tough time stopping the leaks- he tried to tackle it all from the outside)
Very nice box- a little tweaking and it would be very applicable for anyone.
I would like to see a system where one must opt in and the companies who sell your information must compensate you to some extent.
Maybe someone could put together a group to protect surfers (SIAA) and they could set up some kind of payment plan for companies who use personal information.
And that information could be in a propietary format that expires in a set amount of time.
I envision a grand future of riches for all surfers. (And SIAA lawyers)
The govt. is not going to keep track of who opts out in a central database. It would be up to the individual to opt out w/the various ISP's. And there will probably be some kind of time frame. A lot like what just went on w/banks and credit cards.
Your opt in concerns are valid and just point out that users will really need to be on their toes either way if they really care about protecting their personal information.
I am most curious to see how this turns out as the big money is so obviously on one side of the issue.
There is this fear of government 'ruining' your life by passing laws about software and copy rights and such.
Some of it is warranted but not this kind of horrid future.
There is a very good alternative to it all. Just walk away from it. I know I don't have to have email in my personal life. I don't have to have the web either. I certainly don't need the music produced by the big record companies, or the movies and t.v. shows produced by the big entertainment conglomerates.
If enough people opt out of these things- and put their energy into developing alternatives, those alternatives will thrive.
The only government that can stop that is one that does away with the very basic liberties of movement and ownership. I know- a lot of people think that is already happening but I would say not.
I'm not saying don't be concerned or take action. I just think that this dark vision of the future is a bit much.
Not to mention it completely leaves out the advances that will be made in the circumvention of these laws.
Imagine before cable t.v. someone writing a story where the draconian cable company sends you a bill- or they'll turn your t.v. off!
Some people pay and don't think anything of it.
A lot of people just steal cable.
Me- I just go without and save a lot of time that would have been wasted watching what is for the most part drivel.
I'm not commenting about the politics of the situation, I am commenting on the reality of the situation. Esp. as it relates to simulations using computers.
I think it is unrealistic to believe that the U.S. will never again test nuclear weapons. There may not be a pressing need at this time, or they may have found a way to do so that evades detection.
Either way- I'm glad. I am not one who is prone to think that disarmament is a good way to go. There is a crack in another thread about Neville Chamberlain that I thought was right on. We live in a dangerous world and we need to maximize our ability to take effective action.
But frankly that whole thing is already getting beaten to death here.
I would love to know, in a way that I can understand (I am not a mathematician) how they go about modeling this type of event. How do they deal with unknowns? How do these simulations work?
That would be fascinating and applicable in many more areas than just nuclear testing.
No there will be real testing because it will be necessary. As the parent post states-- a simulation is useful but cannot replace the real thing.
A simulation is no better than the model used to build it- and that model is built by people who expect things to work a certain way. If you want to know for sure what something will do - you have to try it out.
I would think that they must use some interesting logarithms to emulate randomness. But in the end these are once again- simulations that cannot do more than emulate the real thing.
It sounds like a lot of it is going to be used to simulate how aging weapons will behave. They already have real test data on how they worked when they were new.
When new weapons are developed they will need to be tested by actual detonation.
I don't usually do this because I don't see the point.
But someone please tell me how that was a troll.
Because I asked a question?
Because people responded and some discussion ensued?
Maybe it was because I said it doesn't take a lot of talent to create what passes for music lately. That's not a troll, that's a fact.
Anyone read yesterday's post about the pitch correcting Karaoke machine and how many 'artists' use similar equipment to improve how they sound?
Is using a machine to sing, and play your music talent?
That was my honest question that generated some honest responses, that I appreciated. So I get modded down by some idiot.
Do the FM radio stations that I listen to pay the artists for playing their music?
If they do- I have to admit, I did not know that. If they don't, why are internet radio stations any different?
Personally this matters less and less to me as I become more and more disinterested in what "popular" music is floating around out there.
As is regularly posted in this discussion, there are a lot of bands that just want to be heard and have not sold out. They are usually much more interesting. And lets be honest - it does not take a whole lot of talent to produce most of what you can hear on the radio or buy on a $17.oo CD
I agree with your main point-- the thing that will stop even the film company owned theaters from putting movies out early only in their theaters is they will want the opening day/week end numbers.
The paper here in PHX today ran an article on the whole digital film deal and specifically mentioned that some thought Star Wars II might come out early in digital theaters- but it wont because they want it to open in as many theaters as possible.
But you are correct it isn't going anywhere soon. It is not worth it.
The best reasons I can think of off the top of my head are--
Having a job
The standard of living
The difficulty of gaining those things in a country that has anything comparable.
That's just 3 but for many people that's enough. (Yeah, you can find exceptions- I'm talking about the majority)
I'm not bashing other countries- but for instance let's say I think to myself "yeah- the US sucks I'm going to move to New Zealand. It looked cool in LOTR"
Problem is I can't just pack up, and go live in New Zealand - they wont let me. Not too many industrial nations in the world are as open as the US.
And the last part. Well I don't really need to comment on that. You obviously have no more familiarity with the 3rd world than what you've seen on T.V.
Slashdot Mirror
We still have space superiority and it's not just that.
It is that combined with unmatched superiority on the ground, in the air and on the sea.
Their may be other nations that can match us man to man- but they don't have the volume to keep up.
Any conflict (If America were to fully engage) today would be like WWII. The time to completion may be in question but the outcome would be definite.
.
I wonder if people fully grasp the size of the US military.
A European Military would be smaller. But it would be nice because maybe we could bring all our troops home from England, Spain, Germany, Boznia and who knows where else.
In fact there already is an European Military but they all wear the stars and stripes on their shoulders.
We could save a lot of money if we could shut those bases down.
A curious question is when the US is no longer the dominant world power (when - not if) will it be replaced by another or will there be a bunch of factions fighting for control? I hope I'm long dead before then.
.
Ways I can think of off the top of my head--
- by getting something that can use for what they need. I make stuff all the time that I need. And I save a lot of money making it myself. If it turns out that someone else can use it then cool- they can have it.
- a sense of achievement. Don't write this off to quickly. A lot of people pay a lot of money to very high priced shrinks to feel good about themselves. If contributing to a project for the good of many others is beneficial to your well being- everyone wins.
Can you live on a sense of achievement? Of course not. I have a house, kids, bills, school loans etc. I know that. But I can do open source stuff on the side and it has benefits.
Those are two I can think of and I'm sure others here could put together a much better list.
I do not advocate that all software should be open source. I do not 'contribute' money to open source projects. (I have other places my charitable funds go that are much more urgent- homelessness for example) I do not fit in the pigeonhole that some above are trying to put me in.
There is a nice reply to my original post that moves in the direction I was thinking. Economics are going to shift and move away from this centralized mode of thinking and acting. I for one am glad. (that was the whole gist of what I was trying to get at)
.
A lot of the compensation for the creation of open source software itself is not as immediately tangible as the benefits of closed software. As in direct economic gain.
But I'm talking about things well outside of just open source and software. I'm talking about technology enabling people to have more control over their lives and the ability to see the benefits of their own work.
Some of this will be generated by propietary software that runs on open operating systems.
I'm getting all these hyper critical, emotional responses to a pretty simple post.
People (and I think usually of programmers since I am one) can start to think outside the box in terms of making a living.
I can stop putting in 60 hours a week so someone else can afford a third multi million dollar home. Someone who has put in much less effort and taken no risk.
Take the blinders off. Look around and start thinking that things can be better if you make an effort. Don't settle for the way it's always been.
.
I thought about it, yes.
Upper level management in the US is grossly overcompensated. Much of this comes directly at the expense of the employees whos labor made their riches possible.
There is a 'club' that one gains entry to- is given the keys to the kingdom- and there is no accountability. This is not even remotely close to capatilism or a free market. It is the very worst kind of communism. The rich club guys continue to bolster one anothers income while the majority of the citizens suffer.
I am far from what you are claiming me to be. I am a paid programmer. I work for a small company. I think that smaller, more flexible business units are the way of the future. Not huge corporations that can suck up the losses here and there.
You fall into the trap of it's all or nothing. You also read little of my post w/out really paying attention to what I said. Your own preconceptions were already hard at work.
I am saying that there will be new ways to do things that have not yet emerged. I say this because...
1) Open Source Will Not Go Away
2) The companies trying to make money using open source are not doing too well.
3) This will not continue indefinitely-- someone will find a way to make the use of open software profitable.
That is all I'm saying. And someone will find a way to work it out.
Is all of corporate America wrotten? No. Is it all good? Most definitely not.
Settle down. Use a little reason and patience.
.
As well as not being a plumber, I am not an aquarium expert.
But I do know that the filter in my aquarium pumps water. It's quite clever, it has a little impeller in a tube that is driven by magnets- so no leaks.
It cranks a lot of water through the filtering system. So some aquarium pumps may not be appropriate but I know of least one that would work.
.
It may just be that building large publicly traded coporations is not the way to go with open source software.
I'm no economist but I see no reason why this should be a terrible thing.
Personally I don't care how corporations fare. I care how individuals fare.
If individuals can succeed, without a corporation then I think that is better anyway. Large organizations tend to carry along overcompensated freeloaders. (Read CEO, CFO, etc.)
I would like to see an economy where individuals are compensated on their merits.
Like I said, I'm no economist and I don't have all the answers but I don't understand why I see articles that intimate that Open Source may fail because it does not work with the old business model.
In my eyes it is the old business model that is failing and a new one needs to be found.
.
These guys have some time on their hands.
That's cool though- they are just thinking up ideas and trying them out. They are not worrying too much about convention apparently.
How many great ideas started that way?
More than I could name.
.
First off IANAP but this guy should talk to one.
He should take a look at some aquariums as well. That would take care of finding a pump that can run continually w/out overheating. I would think it has to be much cheaper than pumps built for remote controled submarines.
Some small compression fittings would take care of the tube problem. Maybe some o-rings instead of rubberbands on the outside. I can think of a few ideas that would involve more than just pressure on the outside of the tubing. (That's why he had such a tough time stopping the leaks- he tried to tackle it all from the outside)
Very nice box- a little tweaking and it would be very applicable for anyone.
.
I would like to see a system where one must opt in and the companies who sell your information must compensate you to some extent.
Maybe someone could put together a group to protect surfers (SIAA) and they could set up some kind of payment plan for companies who use personal information.
And that information could be in a propietary format that expires in a set amount of time.
I envision a grand future of riches for all surfers. (And SIAA lawyers)
.
I doubt the opt out will be that simple either.
The govt. is not going to keep track of who opts out in a central database. It would be up to the individual to opt out w/the various ISP's. And there will probably be some kind of time frame. A lot like what just went on w/banks and credit cards.
Your opt in concerns are valid and just point out that users will really need to be on their toes either way if they really care about protecting their personal information.
I am most curious to see how this turns out as the big money is so obviously on one side of the issue.
.
There is this fear of government 'ruining' your life by passing laws about software and copy rights and such.
Some of it is warranted but not this kind of horrid future.
There is a very good alternative to it all. Just walk away from it. I know I don't have to have email in my personal life. I don't have to have the web either. I certainly don't need the music produced by the big record companies, or the movies and t.v. shows produced by the big entertainment conglomerates.
If enough people opt out of these things- and put their energy into developing alternatives, those alternatives will thrive.
The only government that can stop that is one that does away with the very basic liberties of movement and ownership. I know- a lot of people think that is already happening but I would say not.
I'm not saying don't be concerned or take action. I just think that this dark vision of the future is a bit much.
Not to mention it completely leaves out the advances that will be made in the circumvention of these laws.
Imagine before cable t.v. someone writing a story where the draconian cable company sends you a bill- or they'll turn your t.v. off!
Some people pay and don't think anything of it.
A lot of people just steal cable.
Me- I just go without and save a lot of time that would have been wasted watching what is for the most part drivel.
.
I'm not commenting about the politics of the situation, I am commenting on the reality of the situation. Esp. as it relates to simulations using computers.
I think it is unrealistic to believe that the U.S. will never again test nuclear weapons. There may not be a pressing need at this time, or they may have found a way to do so that evades detection.
Either way- I'm glad. I am not one who is prone to think that disarmament is a good way to go. There is a crack in another thread about Neville Chamberlain that I thought was right on. We live in a dangerous world and we need to maximize our ability to take effective action.
But frankly that whole thing is already getting beaten to death here.
I would love to know, in a way that I can understand (I am not a mathematician) how they go about modeling this type of event. How do they deal with unknowns? How do these simulations work?
That would be fascinating and applicable in many more areas than just nuclear testing.
.
No there will be real testing because it will be necessary. As the parent post states-- a simulation is useful but cannot replace the real thing.
A simulation is no better than the model used to build it- and that model is built by people who expect things to work a certain way. If you want to know for sure what something will do - you have to try it out.
I would think that they must use some interesting logarithms to emulate randomness. But in the end these are once again- simulations that cannot do more than emulate the real thing.
It sounds like a lot of it is going to be used to simulate how aging weapons will behave. They already have real test data on how they worked when they were new.
When new weapons are developed they will need to be tested by actual detonation.
.
I don't usually do this because I don't see the point.
But someone please tell me how that was a troll.
Because I asked a question?
Because people responded and some discussion ensued?
Maybe it was because I said it doesn't take a lot of talent to create what passes for music lately. That's not a troll, that's a fact.
Anyone read yesterday's post about the pitch correcting Karaoke machine and how many 'artists' use similar equipment to improve how they sound?
Is using a machine to sing, and play your music talent?
That was my honest question that generated some honest responses, that I appreciated. So I get modded down by some idiot.
Very nice.
.
I would like to see this law challenged on a regular basis until it has been struck down.
The whole thing is insane (but this is preaching to the choir)
I think it is also good that foreign companies will get to see what a travesty this is.
The more people in the world against the DMCA the better.
.
Do the FM radio stations that I listen to pay the artists for playing their music?
If they do- I have to admit, I did not know that. If they don't, why are internet radio stations any different?
Personally this matters less and less to me as I become more and more disinterested in what "popular" music is floating around out there.
As is regularly posted in this discussion, there are a lot of bands that just want to be heard and have not sold out. They are usually much more interesting. And lets be honest - it does not take a whole lot of talent to produce most of what you can hear on the radio or buy on a $17.oo CD
.
The article makes it pretty clear that they are not trying to replace keyboards for desk tops.
(Can you imagine? I have people stealing my pens now and it is a pain. This would make it more than an annoyance.)
And in the mobile market, where a keyboard is really not a good solutions-- someone does need to come up w/something that works better.
We really need something driven by thought. That's a ways off so the pen will have to do for now.
.
That's why I'm thinking sub-ground level as opposed to ground floor.
And I would think that power, connectivity, etc. would be generated down there as well.
Like NORAD but not quite so extreme.
Apparently it is not that big a deal if this thing gets taken out anyways.
Though, the more I think about it- if 8 public locations need to be destroyed to cause a problem, well how hard would it be to coordinate that?
.
I was surprised that the equipment is on the top floor.
It would seem that you would be better off going w/the basement. In fact the deeper the better, I would think.
Airplane strikes come to mind as one reason.
Or the fact that if someone took out the ground floor- the floors above it go too, but if you are deep enough that could be avoided.
Apparently physical security isn't of the utmost importance, as they say.
The raised floor is always good- or the night guy's beer wouldn't stay cold.
.
yeah-- that was an awesome short story. I read it in an anthology I think.
The guy looks at the various pieces that have been out in the woods, etc. for various periods of time.
All the while watching the family of the guy selling the glass- through the front window of their house.
That's the one right?
I would love to know the title and the author. Very, very good story.
.
I agree with your main point-- the thing that will stop even the film company owned theaters from putting movies out early only in their theaters is they will want the opening day/week end numbers.
The paper here in PHX today ran an article on the whole digital film deal and specifically mentioned that some thought Star Wars II might come out early in digital theaters- but it wont because they want it to open in as many theaters as possible.
But you are correct it isn't going anywhere soon. It is not worth it.
.
Well let's take this in a couple parts.
Why stay in the USA?
The best reasons I can think of off the top of my head are--
Having a job
The standard of living
The difficulty of gaining those things in a country that has anything comparable.
That's just 3 but for many people that's enough. (Yeah, you can find exceptions- I'm talking about the majority)
I'm not bashing other countries- but for instance let's say I think to myself "yeah- the US sucks I'm going to move to New Zealand. It looked cool in LOTR"
Problem is I can't just pack up, and go live in New Zealand - they wont let me. Not too many industrial nations in the world are as open as the US.
And the last part. Well I don't really need to comment on that. You obviously have no more familiarity with the 3rd world than what you've seen on T.V.
I've lived there. You can have it.
.
You can't be serious.
Well maybe you are but then you are terribly mistaken.
Exodus from the US? To where?
No- many will not like it, many will fight it but there will be no mass exodus.
In fact many will take jobs designing the changes required by the law. You can take that to the bank.
(of course all this hinges upon it passing- I for one am skeptical)
.
will come if they can get it to be incredibly sensitive. Sensitive enough to pick up on the slightest facial twitch.
I always envied Paul's ability (DUNE) to read peoples expressions, even when they were subconcious. Basically an ability to 'read minds'
Put that in a box and sell it. Oooh-- put it in court rooms.
"I did not have sex with that girl!"
FacialRecognitionAmplifier2000- "BEEEEP!"
Judge- "Are you sure you want to stick w/that lie?"
Very interesting possibilities down the road.
.