Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).
Why is learning the language and culture of the country you move to viewed as divisive? All of my grandparents came to the U.S. at around 1900 from eastern Europe. None of them expected to be able to continue speaking German or Lithuanian once they got here so they learned English. My parents, aunts and uncles all spoke English and succeeded in taking part in the "American dream" (house, education, kids went to college if they wanted to, etc.). That wouldn't have happened if they were still acting like they were still in the "old country."
Insisting that immigrants learn the language and culture isn't divisive. It's the best way for them to fit into their new society and succeed. How far would Sarkozy have goten if he only spoke Hungarian?
Just because the person you disagree with wins doesn't mean that the system is broken. I don't recall hearing a single complaint about the French electoral system. Maybe the conservative's ideas actually appealed to more voters.
Thanks for the wikipedia reference. If I read this part of the article correctly,
ZFS is built on top of virtual storage pools called zpools. A pool is constructed from virtual devices (vdevs), each of which is either a raw device, a mirror (RAID 1) of one or more devices, or a RAID-Z group of two or more devices.
ZFS just has a different set of abstract layers than the usual hardware oriented file system.
Sort of make sense to start hiding the hardware details of the storage devices. Most users don't know and don't care other than when they try to do something and get told, "insufficient space" or a disk crashes and their data is gone. A file system that prevents/hides such nasties will probably appeal to people who want a computing appliance (most of the world).
I used to work with a bunch of Raytheon radar engineers. They claimed the microwave oven was invented when someone noticed that coffee stayed warm when it was in front of the radar transmitter. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story but will point out that Amana (their microwave ovens were originally advertised as "the Amana radar range") was originally a division of Raytheon until they spun it off.
That's just it. No one knows a priori which fork will succeed and which will fail. The only way to find out is to try. Lots of chaos but lots of new things to try. Some work; some don't.
The Microsoft monoculture alternative has the same experiments taking place only inside of Microsoft and with the results always colored by how the new technology will affect revenue streams. That's why MS is so reactive. You didn't see a MS browser, search engine, streaming media, or now web 2.0 apps until someone else created them. Even then MS, does it's embrace, extend, extinguish if they can. They'd rather bury a disruptive technology that might upset their monopoly.
Sort of like the way the command economy of the Soviet Union did such a great job of both competing with the "chaotic" capitalist west and, at the same time, creating a "workers utopia?" The Soviet Union failed at both the same way the Microsoft monoculture neither provides as stable and secure of a computing environment as open source nor does it meet the needs of specific groups of users. With Microsoft monoculture, one size fits all whether you like it or not. For most applications, Linux provides a plethora of choices from several well designed GUI applications to powerful command line utilities. These choices allow the user to determine which alternative suits his or her needs best.
Continuing with my analogy, the arguments in favor of Microsoft's monoculture remind me of the same ones offerred by Lenin. Stalin, Khrushchev, et al when they argued that their socialist, centrally-planned economy would triumph over the chaotic capitalist system. We all saw how that played out.
Looking at the latest excretions from Redmond, Microsoft seems to only be interested in extracting more money from their users by offering less functionality for more money but with a glitzy interface. Capitalism will slowly drive companies that see Microsoft's offerings for what they are to use open source alternatives and be more profitable than those that pay squeeze to Redmond. People will find a way to manage open source choices in a corporate environment (sort of like the way "corporate distros" like RHEL and SuSE already do). Speaking from experience, it's not at all hard to lock down a RHEL installation while managing the updates and the choices available to users.
Real choice drives real innovation. Lack of choice results in stagnation.
If all you need is black and white, low-end Laser printers aren't that expensive and you don't have the problem you described. At worst, you may want a dust cover and keep the printer powered down until you need it although most use very little power when in "stand-by" mode. Also, if you only need color infequently, print services can be resonable. One of the local shops charges 59 cents a sheet. We go there when we need color and use a Samsung ML-1210 for black and white prints.
That's fine. You get to fly the airplane that gets used for testing whether a cell phone can interfere with the avionics enough to make it crash. The nut job who wrote the original article can be your passenger chatting on his cell phone. I'd rather not risk the lives of several hundred people running that experiment at random.
We know that use of cell phones on an airplane can interefere with the avionics (see the article I quoted). We know that prohibiting the use of cell phones on an airplane is a way of removing this danger. I'd say it makes sense to not allow cell phone use on an airplane until we know it can be done safely. Doing otherwise is taking a risk with very little return (if the call is that important, use the Airphone).
I think I'll trust real research from CMU over a vapid so-called journalist who probably just can't stand not yapping on his cell-phone.
BTW, it doesn't matter if some or even nearly all cell phones don't cause interference with flight controls. All it takes is one person using one that does and things get ugly. Likewise, most airplanes have a mix of avionic equipment. Some of it is new where the cost/benefit makes it worth it for the airline to upgrade and some of it is old. Rather than test each airplane independently, it makes more sense to just say "no" until someone comes up with a way that is known to be absolutely safe regardless of the equipment on the airplane.
Yep. My economic philosophy is very free market so that part of my philosophy tends to be identified as "right wing." On the other hand, my belief in personal freedom to choose (e.g., pro choice, for legalizing various substances, etc.) tends to be identified with "left wing" politics.
The problem is that many of the lefties in the U.S. are also about limiting freedom of choice. They just go about it subtle ways like taxing and regulating the things that they don't think people should do/have. At least the right wing types are up front about passing laws that enact what they want to see happen. I may not agree with them but I prefer the honest approach of putting their agenda up for a vote as oppsed to the lefty approach of doing something like requiring a license and then just not issuing any licenses (try getting a concealed carry permit in most places; they're in theory available, you just can't have one).
BTW, I started using Linux in 1998 with Red Hat 5.0. I currently run FC6 (workstation and laptop) and CentOS 4 (server).
Conservatives want to make the pie bigger, without regard to how the pie is divided.
Liberals want to divide the pie equally, without regard to how big the pie is.
Superb explanation.
Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" described exactly how the "liberal" approach would shrink the pie. I guess I never realized that an equal division of the pie was more important to liberals than a bigger pie.
I'm still totally baffled by liberals. Their approach means that the person with the smallest portion of the "conservative pie" gets more than if the same person got an equal portion of the "liberal pie" but equal distribution means more to them than better off. Of course I also agree with Hayek that the liberal approach has the advantage (from the "liberal's" point of view) that they get to control ever aspect of everyone's life since that's the only was to guarantee that everyone gets an equal portion.
I almost feel sorry for the wimps who can't handle wasabi but, on the other hand, more for me. I keep a container of wasabi powder on hand and mix some up whenever I fix a tuna steak.
The local sushi place (http://www.junzrestaurant.com/index.htm - see the Phoenix Role on the sushi menu) has a spicy role with seared tuna and lots of chili sauce. Absolutely incredible even with powdered wasabi but you have to try it with fresh wasabi. The fresh stuff is just as pungent as the powder but tastes better.
Dammit. Now I'm hungry again and I just finished a nice steak dinner.
The other rationale that came right from an Oracle guy presenting at the local LUG was "one throat to choke." He said that customers didn't like calling Oracle support only to be told their problem was a Linux issue and then calling Red Hat and be told it was an Oracle issue. To the extent that people install RHEL only to run a Linux server, customers will probably migrate to Oracle. Oracle Linux isn't positioned as a general purpose distro but as a platform for an Oracle database (hine: don't call Oracle if you have a Samba issue).
In a similar vein, the same person said that Oracle is pushing current Windows customers to migrate to Linux. It seems Oracle's Windows support spends more time dealing with Windows issues than Oracle issues. Oracle Linux isn't a way to go after Linux distros. Larry's ultimate target is Bill.
I am looking forward to watching PJ saunter down towards the stand in her red dress, as the crowd throws rose pedals.
... and an exit from the court room that looks something like the scene in the art museum from the movie "The Thomas Crowne Affair" (lots of look-alikes; each wearing a red dress). With a couple of dozen volunteers it could probably be arranged.
I recall someone claiming that they had *made money* based on stock spam. The strategy was really simple: they shorted whatever stock that was being pushed by spam. Shorting a stock means you borrow shares of the stock and sell them. If the price of the stock drops, you buy shares to fulfill your short contact at a lower price than the ones you borrowed. You make money on the difference. Sounds simple but you're screwed if the price of the stock goes up.
Example: You "borrow" 500 shares of Pump-n-dump Enterprises at $5.00 a share and sell them making $2,500.00. It crashes to $0.10 per share. You buy 500 shares to fulfill your short contract at that price for $50.00. You net $2,450.00.
Planning on doing the same. I'm currently running FC6 on my laptop and primary workstation but CentOS-4.4 on my server. I needed more current hardware support especially on my laptop but I'm thinking CentOS-5 should provide everything I need plus stability, automatic updates to point releases, etc.
I had originally updated from FC4 to FC6 to get the bcm43xx driver for the laptop. The only problem is the bcm43xx driver doesn't work with my AP unless I run the AP fully open (WEP authentication times out before the AP responds then bcm43xx bitches that it got an authentication response when one wasn't expected when the AP responds. S-I-G-H). So I'm still stuck running ndiswrapper for my wireless NIC. So much for more current hardware support.
Finally, CentOS has been stable as a rock on my server while I keep getting random X crashes on both the laptop and more frequently on the workstation (seems to be related to running xscreensaver on the workstation). I don't need that kind of grief.
When I worked for a defense contractor bck in the 1980s and 1990s, one of the things the government looked at before granting you a security clearance was whether you had "too much" debt. They had no way of measuring your loyalty but they looked at people with too much debt as being susceptible to bribery. It sucks but that's the way the world works. As far as I know, they still use a similar criteria.
I didn't say only hire people with clean backgrounds. Employers are free to give someone a "secoond chance." They also should know who they're hiring.
Most job applications have a question along the lines of, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony or do you currently have criminal proceedings pending against you?" Someone who answers this question untruthfully has something to hide. A background check gives the employer a way to verify the answer to this question. If someone has been convicted of crimes like embezzlement, fraud, identity theft, etc., it might be nice to know before giving them root access to a bank's server.
And you have the right not to work for anyone who requires a background check. Just like someone who requires a background check has the right not to hire you for refusing to take one.
Who said anything about the threshold has to be somebody gets killed? That's a criteria you seem to have imposed. Granted, it rarely happens after a sporting event although I'm sure I could dig up an instance or two with some research. What I have heard a lot about is significant property damage and people getting injured. Sometimes the injured are the rioters themselves and other times it's some poor slob who happenned to be wearing the other team's colors or something after a loss.
The whole idea behind non-lethal methods of crowd control is to convince a group that has a mob mentality that it's going to hurt if they don't cease and desist. Kidding aside, the current methods of non-lethal crowd control are all too ofter lethal or can cause serious injury. People have lost eyes or been killed by rubber bullets, tear gas and pepper spray can do nasty things to people with breathing problems and water cannons can seriously maim people. Is that your preference?
Police need something better (less lethal, less likely to cause serious injury) than what they use now. I'd say say the described zapper has the potential.
I hate to break this to you, but angry mobs aren't just going to forget what caused them to air their grievances after being dispersed. In fact, denying them the ability to do so usually means the next step is violent civil resistance.
<SARCASM>OK. Then we'll just stick with the existing tools for crowd control like water cannons, tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, etc. If you prefer, we can turn the clock back instead. I've always seen Napoleon's "whiff of grapeshot" to be preferable to these pansy-assed, "don't really hurt them" approaches.</SARCASM>
There are reasons for needing crowd control that have nothing to do with "civil discontent." You apparently have never seen some of the rioting after some sporting events or other triggers that have NOTHING to do with civil discontent.
Slashdot Mirror
Insisting that immigrants learn the language and culture isn't divisive. It's the best way for them to fit into their new society and succeed. How far would Sarkozy have goten if he only spoke Hungarian?
Cheers,
Dave
Just because the person you disagree with wins doesn't mean that the system is broken. I don't recall hearing a single complaint about the French electoral system. Maybe the conservative's ideas actually appealed to more voters.
Cheers,
Dave
Sort of make sense to start hiding the hardware details of the storage devices. Most users don't know and don't care other than when they try to do something and get told, "insufficient space" or a disk crashes and their data is gone. A file system that prevents/hides such nasties will probably appeal to people who want a computing appliance (most of the world).
Cheers,
dave
Probably the only business where when a boss says, "Working here gives you a nice warm feeling inside!" they are telling the truth.
Cheers,
Dave
I used to work with a bunch of Raytheon radar engineers. They claimed the microwave oven was invented when someone noticed that coffee stayed warm when it was in front of the radar transmitter. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story but will point out that Amana (their microwave ovens were originally advertised as "the Amana radar range") was originally a division of Raytheon until they spun it off.
Cheers,
Dave
That's just it. No one knows a priori which fork will succeed and which will fail. The only way to find out is to try. Lots of chaos but lots of new things to try. Some work; some don't.
The Microsoft monoculture alternative has the same experiments taking place only inside of Microsoft and with the results always colored by how the new technology will affect revenue streams. That's why MS is so reactive. You didn't see a MS browser, search engine, streaming media, or now web 2.0 apps until someone else created them. Even then MS, does it's embrace, extend, extinguish if they can. They'd rather bury a disruptive technology that might upset their monopoly.
Cheers,
Dave
Sort of like the way the command economy of the Soviet Union did such a great job of both competing with the "chaotic" capitalist west and, at the same time, creating a "workers utopia?" The Soviet Union failed at both the same way the Microsoft monoculture neither provides as stable and secure of a computing environment as open source nor does it meet the needs of specific groups of users. With Microsoft monoculture, one size fits all whether you like it or not. For most applications, Linux provides a plethora of choices from several well designed GUI applications to powerful command line utilities. These choices allow the user to determine which alternative suits his or her needs best.
Continuing with my analogy, the arguments in favor of Microsoft's monoculture remind me of the same ones offerred by Lenin. Stalin, Khrushchev, et al when they argued that their socialist, centrally-planned economy would triumph over the chaotic capitalist system. We all saw how that played out.
Looking at the latest excretions from Redmond, Microsoft seems to only be interested in extracting more money from their users by offering less functionality for more money but with a glitzy interface. Capitalism will slowly drive companies that see Microsoft's offerings for what they are to use open source alternatives and be more profitable than those that pay squeeze to Redmond. People will find a way to manage open source choices in a corporate environment (sort of like the way "corporate distros" like RHEL and SuSE already do). Speaking from experience, it's not at all hard to lock down a RHEL installation while managing the updates and the choices available to users.
Real choice drives real innovation. Lack of choice results in stagnation.
Cheers,
Dave
If all you need is black and white, low-end Laser printers aren't that expensive and you don't have the problem you described. At worst, you may want a dust cover and keep the printer powered down until you need it although most use very little power when in "stand-by" mode. Also, if you only need color infequently, print services can be resonable. One of the local shops charges 59 cents a sheet. We go there when we need color and use a Samsung ML-1210 for black and white prints.
Cheers,
Dave
Fortune says: The difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is the car salesman knows when he's lying.
Cheers,
Dave
We know that use of cell phones on an airplane can interefere with the avionics (see the article I quoted). We know that prohibiting the use of cell phones on an airplane is a way of removing this danger. I'd say it makes sense to not allow cell phone use on an airplane until we know it can be done safely. Doing otherwise is taking a risk with very little return (if the call is that important, use the Airphone).
Cheers,
Dave
The effect has been idependently tested and confirmed:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06060/662669.stm
I think I'll trust real research from CMU over a vapid so-called journalist who probably just can't stand not yapping on his cell-phone.
BTW, it doesn't matter if some or even nearly all cell phones don't cause interference with flight controls. All it takes is one person using one that does and things get ugly. Likewise, most airplanes have a mix of avionic equipment. Some of it is new where the cost/benefit makes it worth it for the airline to upgrade and some of it is old. Rather than test each airplane independently, it makes more sense to just say "no" until someone comes up with a way that is known to be absolutely safe regardless of the equipment on the airplane.
Cheers,
Dave
I prefer to phrase it as I piss off everyone.
Yep. My economic philosophy is very free market so that part of my philosophy tends to be identified as "right wing." On the other hand, my belief in personal freedom to choose (e.g., pro choice, for legalizing various substances, etc.) tends to be identified with "left wing" politics.
The problem is that many of the lefties in the U.S. are also about limiting freedom of choice. They just go about it subtle ways like taxing and regulating the things that they don't think people should do/have. At least the right wing types are up front about passing laws that enact what they want to see happen. I may not agree with them but I prefer the honest approach of putting their agenda up for a vote as oppsed to the lefty approach of doing something like requiring a license and then just not issuing any licenses (try getting a concealed carry permit in most places; they're in theory available, you just can't have one).
BTW, I started using Linux in 1998 with Red Hat 5.0. I currently run FC6 (workstation and laptop) and CentOS 4 (server).
Cheers,
Dave
Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" described exactly how the "liberal" approach would shrink the pie. I guess I never realized that an equal division of the pie was more important to liberals than a bigger pie.
I'm still totally baffled by liberals. Their approach means that the person with the smallest portion of the "conservative pie" gets more than if the same person got an equal portion of the "liberal pie" but equal distribution means more to them than better off. Of course I also agree with Hayek that the liberal approach has the advantage (from the "liberal's" point of view) that they get to control ever aspect of everyone's life since that's the only was to guarantee that everyone gets an equal portion.
Cheers,
Dave
I almost feel sorry for the wimps who can't handle wasabi but, on the other hand, more for me. I keep a container of wasabi powder on hand and mix some up whenever I fix a tuna steak.
The local sushi place (http://www.junzrestaurant.com/index.htm - see the Phoenix Role on the sushi menu) has a spicy role with seared tuna and lots of chili sauce. Absolutely incredible even with powdered wasabi but you have to try it with fresh wasabi. The fresh stuff is just as pungent as the powder but tastes better.
Dammit. Now I'm hungry again and I just finished a nice steak dinner.
Cheers,
Dave
The other rationale that came right from an Oracle guy presenting at the local LUG was "one throat to choke." He said that customers didn't like calling Oracle support only to be told their problem was a Linux issue and then calling Red Hat and be told it was an Oracle issue. To the extent that people install RHEL only to run a Linux server, customers will probably migrate to Oracle. Oracle Linux isn't positioned as a general purpose distro but as a platform for an Oracle database (hine: don't call Oracle if you have a Samba issue).
In a similar vein, the same person said that Oracle is pushing current Windows customers to migrate to Linux. It seems Oracle's Windows support spends more time dealing with Windows issues than Oracle issues. Oracle Linux isn't a way to go after Linux distros. Larry's ultimate target is Bill.
Cheers,
Dave
Cheers,
Dave
I recall someone claiming that they had *made money* based on stock spam. The strategy was really simple: they shorted whatever stock that was being pushed by spam. Shorting a stock means you borrow shares of the stock and sell them. If the price of the stock drops, you buy shares to fulfill your short contact at a lower price than the ones you borrowed. You make money on the difference. Sounds simple but you're screwed if the price of the stock goes up.
Example: You "borrow" 500 shares of Pump-n-dump Enterprises at $5.00 a share and sell them making $2,500.00. It crashes to $0.10 per share. You buy 500 shares to fulfill your short contract at that price for $50.00. You net $2,450.00.
Cheers,
Dave
Planning on doing the same. I'm currently running FC6 on my laptop and primary workstation but CentOS-4.4 on my server. I needed more current hardware support especially on my laptop but I'm thinking CentOS-5 should provide everything I need plus stability, automatic updates to point releases, etc.
I had originally updated from FC4 to FC6 to get the bcm43xx driver for the laptop. The only problem is the bcm43xx driver doesn't work with my AP unless I run the AP fully open (WEP authentication times out before the AP responds then bcm43xx bitches that it got an authentication response when one wasn't expected when the AP responds. S-I-G-H). So I'm still stuck running ndiswrapper for my wireless NIC. So much for more current hardware support.
Finally, CentOS has been stable as a rock on my server while I keep getting random X crashes on both the laptop and more frequently on the workstation (seems to be related to running xscreensaver on the workstation). I don't need that kind of grief.
Cheers,
Dave
Given the above comments, very few on Slashdot are virtuous.
Cheers,
Dave
When I worked for a defense contractor bck in the 1980s and 1990s, one of the things the government looked at before granting you a security clearance was whether you had "too much" debt. They had no way of measuring your loyalty but they looked at people with too much debt as being susceptible to bribery. It sucks but that's the way the world works. As far as I know, they still use a similar criteria.
Cheers,
Dave
I didn't say only hire people with clean backgrounds. Employers are free to give someone a "secoond chance." They also should know who they're hiring.
Most job applications have a question along the lines of, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony or do you currently have criminal proceedings pending against you?" Someone who answers this question untruthfully has something to hide. A background check gives the employer a way to verify the answer to this question. If someone has been convicted of crimes like embezzlement, fraud, identity theft, etc., it might be nice to know before giving them root access to a bank's server.
Cheers,
Dave
All too true. Obviously background checks discriminate against those with something to hide in their background.
Cheers,
Dave
And you have the right not to work for anyone who requires a background check. Just like someone who requires a background check has the right not to hire you for refusing to take one.
Welcome to the free market.
Cheers,
Dave
Who said anything about the threshold has to be somebody gets killed? That's a criteria you seem to have imposed. Granted, it rarely happens after a sporting event although I'm sure I could dig up an instance or two with some research. What I have heard a lot about is significant property damage and people getting injured. Sometimes the injured are the rioters themselves and other times it's some poor slob who happenned to be wearing the other team's colors or something after a loss.
The whole idea behind non-lethal methods of crowd control is to convince a group that has a mob mentality that it's going to hurt if they don't cease and desist. Kidding aside, the current methods of non-lethal crowd control are all too ofter lethal or can cause serious injury. People have lost eyes or been killed by rubber bullets, tear gas and pepper spray can do nasty things to people with breathing problems and water cannons can seriously maim people. Is that your preference?
Police need something better (less lethal, less likely to cause serious injury) than what they use now. I'd say say the described zapper has the potential.
Cheers,
Dave
There are reasons for needing crowd control that have nothing to do with "civil discontent." You apparently have never seen some of the rioting after some sporting events or other triggers that have NOTHING to do with civil discontent.
Cheers,
Dave