I think the kind of people we're talking about who ship hard drives and entire units around aren't really concerned with latency. If you read the article, Gray does a very good job explaining that postage is actually cheaper than bandwidth for his specific usage.
For your everyday user, this is unthinkable, but we're talking several terabytes per day of data, every day, combined with the fact that they're re-using the hard drives and machines.
Part of the problems is that people that work for these companies are inside the problem. They themselves may not go out and hire child labor - they just call a company in Malaysia or wherever and make some enquiries about production cost and machine equipment, etc. It's very likely that the though never even crosses their mind that the company may hire child labor. This goes on day after day all over the country. The other side of this is that the company in Malaysia or wherever doesn't perceive it as wrong and so the issue of the age of employees never comes up.
I think the people in charge of businesses, as a general rule, try to be ethical and honest and all of that, but they do not have absolute control at all levels of production. Then you have a couple of bad characters who spoil it for the whole bunch. Enron was one such example. Most of the Enron employees probably had no idea what was going on at the time. They did their jobs, got their paychecks and all was right with the world. Then Fastow and Lay come along and screw the gig for everyone. It's easy to claim "well, they should have known!" but it's also very naive. It's even entirely possible that Enron execs were within specific laws because sometimes there's not one law that says "thou shalt not do X-and-such".
At any rate, I agree that absolute focus on profit and nothing else is not right, but there's no law against it. And ultimately, that is all we have to work with. Until our canon of laws is so firmly embedded in our psyche that we become aware of any potential action that might break any law, then we will not be able to get past this problem. Or until someone makes it illegal not to think of the surrounding community, then we're stuck.
Some of that even comes down to varying definitions of community. As an example, I do not feel a particular sense of community with anyone here at at/. simply because I've never met them. Now, I would have to really think about to come up with a way to directly harm/. and the community, but at the same time, how do I know that an action I committed earlier in the day hasn't harmed them in some way?
The first thing I'd be afraid of is an idiot like you shooting me on the basis that I might have a gun then checking the corpse to see if I had a gun.
See, what we're attempting to do is build a civilized society where discourse and reason are used to settle disputes rather than who has the bigger piece. That means something has to give, and in this case, it's the gun. Just because you have to walk away from a fight (or more likely run) does NOT mean you've lost the fight. It means you've avoided it. You may choose then to fight on your own terms at your own leisure or not at all.
By carrying a gun, how many fights do you avoid? All of them but one.
Vectorworks has had a Mac-based CAD solution since the mid-90's. It started with Minicad and now it's called Vectorworks. No, it's not free, but it's also not 2D and it is a native Carbon/Cocoa app.
And what, specifically, is wrong with prostitution per se? You have a demand and a supplier. I'd say that pretty much meets the definition of capitalism. Legalize it, regulate it, and you've pretty much settled the issue.
And how many emails a day do you suppose Apple receives that start out with a crank-like salutation? After a while the auto-filter goes on and you learn to ignore them. It probably would have been better for the guy to contact Apple Portugal and have them kick it up the ladder. At least then the English would be "more official" and not sounding like a script kiddie.
I'm not saying he's not right, just that the letter itself leaves a lot to be desired from a grammar and construction standpoint.
I would argue that millionaires DO NOT represent humanity and sending them out into space would only allow for the complete commercialization of space at the hands of a few unscrupulous privateers.
At least by using publicly funded sources for space travel, we can get a better guarantee that the results of the work will be held in the public interest, whereas by commercialization of space exploration and travel, we guarantee that the results will be held for private interests only.
As long we are pretending to give a damn about our fellow man, we might as well make a good show of it and keep the funding for exploration public. It could easily be funded by cutting the military back to basic killing-and-maiming stuff like guns and bullets instead of pie-in-the-sky advanced weaponry that's only 50% effective (Patriot missile system, for one).
You have to remember who pays your senator (not you) but you have a good point. You'd have a better point if you owned stock in SCO, but nonetheless a good point.
Now that you mention that, there's literally no way for SCO to win, even if they do win.
1. If they win, they've violated copyright. 2. If they lose, the investor lawsuits will eat them alive, hopefully.
So, I guess we should all go stand in front of SCO HQ and yell "Who's the bitch, now?!"
Re:They're all just a bunch of reverse engineers!
on
Pentaquarks
·
· Score: 1
Ponder it? I don't even know what the hell you just said! Spoke... typed... AAARRRGGGHHH!
Hey, remember to put some screen doors in the submarine so it's easy to tell if you're underwater or not. And so you can step outside for a whizz and a smoke.
But someone still has to take them to court over it. If they win their case with IBM (again, a hypothetical - don't get too froggy just yet), they have about a billion or so to fight with. Does anyone (FSF included) have the cojones to go up against that kind of cash funding?
We are talking a copyright trial here - not something the politicians are liable to pay a whole lot of attention to in the upcoming election year, when you consider that RIAA has managed to get almost all of their attention for the past year or so.
Again, I think SCO's on shaky legal ground here at best, and at worst, lying like bad rug, but IF they win, how automatic is it? I seriously doubt armed Feds in black helos are going to swarm the SCO hideout and demand the immediate incarceration of Darl McBride and Co. Someone has to show some sack and actually press charges.
Since huge portions of the Linux kernel are apparently NOT copied from the original source code, assuming the inverse of SCO's statements, is it possible to revoke the right to use or distribute those portions of the code covered under GPL?
If this is possible it would, in effect, leave SCO with about 100 or so lines of working code, nothing surrounding it.
No one has used such a death sentence yet that I am aware of, but does such a "weapon" exist (provided the judge has a stroke and sides with SCO on this one)? If so, it would certainly be challenged in court, but huge portions of the code are on solid legal ground here and not open to any sort of question at all about its provenance (I'm assuming).
Designers try to give the client what they need AND what they asked for, but many times the client is not clear on the concept because they don't have time to think through ALL the issues associated with a given design field.
Most clients are NOT stupid - they lack vocabulary and understanding, and any designer that fails to understand that IS stupid.
As for "watered-down designs" - that's natural. Most designers want to be visionary, to create something unique, a design that is both communicative and an enduring work of art. It's just not possible - so many things have an accepted form that is quite difficult to redesign because the public accepts that standard form. As a general rule - humans do not like extreme changes. So a lot of design work must, by definition, be an evolutionary process.
The primary agency to sue SCO would be the FSF, since Stallman wrote the GPL. I really doubt that Linux dev's would see a cent from this, but Stallman would be incredibly rich all of a sudden.
Damn, I need a few more acronyms to make that totally incomprehensible.
So does Mariner Write (it's not free - but really, really inexpensive). When Open Office is native to OSX, then I'll consider switching. Until then, I'll stick with non-free.
It brings skills into the country and stops the export of programming jobs.
No - that is a separate issue from actual software purchases. There is nothing that restricts a company from hiring lower-cost foreign workers to modify the same software. I would say it's a safe bet that software written primarily in first-world countries will be modified by third-world programmers, simply because the cost of the former is so much higher than the cost of the latter, despite the other resources available to first-world companies and personnel.
Now I have an excuse to encrypt everything AND stop doing business with California!
The first - just because. The second because this will benefit California lawyers more than any consumer. It means they can sue a Michigan company just because they sold something to someone in California once, and lawyers just love to jump on a case like that and bust someone for millions.
And since there is no effective prosecution of hackers, the company winds up getting screwed both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Go read some history and sociology. The definition of wealth has changed since then, as well as the means of accumulation and production.
I think the kind of people we're talking about who ship hard drives and entire units around aren't really concerned with latency. If you read the article, Gray does a very good job explaining that postage is actually cheaper than bandwidth for his specific usage.
For your everyday user, this is unthinkable, but we're talking several terabytes per day of data, every day, combined with the fact that they're re-using the hard drives and machines.
Part of the problems is that people that work for these companies are inside the problem. They themselves may not go out and hire child labor - they just call a company in Malaysia or wherever and make some enquiries about production cost and machine equipment, etc. It's very likely that the though never even crosses their mind that the company may hire child labor. This goes on day after day all over the country. The other side of this is that the company in Malaysia or wherever doesn't perceive it as wrong and so the issue of the age of employees never comes up.
/. simply because I've never met them. Now, I would have to really think about to come up with a way to directly harm /. and the community, but at the same time, how do I know that an action I committed earlier in the day hasn't harmed them in some way?
I think the people in charge of businesses, as a general rule, try to be ethical and honest and all of that, but they do not have absolute control at all levels of production. Then you have a couple of bad characters who spoil it for the whole bunch. Enron was one such example. Most of the Enron employees probably had no idea what was going on at the time. They did their jobs, got their paychecks and all was right with the world. Then Fastow and Lay come along and screw the gig for everyone. It's easy to claim "well, they should have known!" but it's also very naive. It's even entirely possible that Enron execs were within specific laws because sometimes there's not one law that says "thou shalt not do X-and-such".
At any rate, I agree that absolute focus on profit and nothing else is not right, but there's no law against it. And ultimately, that is all we have to work with. Until our canon of laws is so firmly embedded in our psyche that we become aware of any potential action that might break any law, then we will not be able to get past this problem. Or until someone makes it illegal not to think of the surrounding community, then we're stuck.
Some of that even comes down to varying definitions of community. As an example, I do not feel a particular sense of community with anyone here at at
It's not shades of gray - it's not even a color.
Carry a gun, then you won't be afriad of anything
The first thing I'd be afraid of is an idiot like you shooting me on the basis that I might have a gun then checking the corpse to see if I had a gun.
See, what we're attempting to do is build a civilized society where discourse and reason are used to settle disputes rather than who has the bigger piece. That means something has to give, and in this case, it's the gun. Just because you have to walk away from a fight (or more likely run) does NOT mean you've lost the fight. It means you've avoided it. You may choose then to fight on your own terms at your own leisure or not at all.
By carrying a gun, how many fights do you avoid? All of them but one.
And if you're going to use a three-dollar word, learn to spell it correctly (i.e., 'diminutive').
Vectorworks has had a Mac-based CAD solution since the mid-90's. It started with Minicad and now it's called Vectorworks. No, it's not free, but it's also not 2D and it is a native Carbon/Cocoa app.
If you want to do serious work, get real tools.
And what, specifically, is wrong with prostitution per se? You have a demand and a supplier. I'd say that pretty much meets the definition of capitalism. Legalize it, regulate it, and you've pretty much settled the issue.
And how many emails a day do you suppose Apple receives that start out with a crank-like salutation? After a while the auto-filter goes on and you learn to ignore them. It probably would have been better for the guy to contact Apple Portugal and have them kick it up the ladder. At least then the English would be "more official" and not sounding like a script kiddie.
I'm not saying he's not right, just that the letter itself leaves a lot to be desired from a grammar and construction standpoint.
Hey, what's the ping time using an average Estonian wife as the packet carrier?
I can see it now - an RFC on WifeNet or WiFi!
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
I would argue that millionaires DO NOT represent humanity and sending them out into space would only allow for the complete commercialization of space at the hands of a few unscrupulous privateers.
At least by using publicly funded sources for space travel, we can get a better guarantee that the results of the work will be held in the public interest, whereas by commercialization of space exploration and travel, we guarantee that the results will be held for private interests only.
As long we are pretending to give a damn about our fellow man, we might as well make a good show of it and keep the funding for exploration public. It could easily be funded by cutting the military back to basic killing-and-maiming stuff like guns and bullets instead of pie-in-the-sky advanced weaponry that's only 50% effective (Patriot missile system, for one).
Ah, you must mean Cut-Me-Own-Ethernet Dibbler, King of all Suspiciously "Sausage-Like" Vendors everywhere.
You have to remember who pays your senator (not you) but you have a good point. You'd have a better point if you owned stock in SCO, but nonetheless a good point.
Now that you mention that, there's literally no way for SCO to win, even if they do win.
1. If they win, they've violated copyright.
2. If they lose, the investor lawsuits will eat them alive, hopefully.
So, I guess we should all go stand in front of SCO HQ and yell "Who's the bitch, now?!"
Ponder it? I don't even know what the hell you just said! Spoke ... typed ... AAARRRGGGHHH!
My brain just exploded.
Hey, remember to put some screen doors in the submarine so it's easy to tell if you're underwater or not. And so you can step outside for a whizz and a smoke.
But someone still has to take them to court over it. If they win their case with IBM (again, a hypothetical - don't get too froggy just yet), they have about a billion or so to fight with. Does anyone (FSF included) have the cojones to go up against that kind of cash funding?
We are talking a copyright trial here - not something the politicians are liable to pay a whole lot of attention to in the upcoming election year, when you consider that RIAA has managed to get almost all of their attention for the past year or so.
Again, I think SCO's on shaky legal ground here at best, and at worst, lying like bad rug, but IF they win, how automatic is it? I seriously doubt armed Feds in black helos are going to swarm the SCO hideout and demand the immediate incarceration of Darl McBride and Co. Someone has to show some sack and actually press charges.
This could be the test case for the GPL.
Since huge portions of the Linux kernel are apparently NOT copied from the original source code, assuming the inverse of SCO's statements, is it possible to revoke the right to use or distribute those portions of the code covered under GPL?
If this is possible it would, in effect, leave SCO with about 100 or so lines of working code, nothing surrounding it.
No one has used such a death sentence yet that I am aware of, but does such a "weapon" exist (provided the judge has a stroke and sides with SCO on this one)? If so, it would certainly be challenged in court, but huge portions of the code are on solid legal ground here and not open to any sort of question at all about its provenance (I'm assuming).
Just a thought. Don't shoot the messenger.
Designers try to give the client what they need AND what they asked for, but many times the client is not clear on the concept because they don't have time to think through ALL the issues associated with a given design field.
Most clients are NOT stupid - they lack vocabulary and understanding, and any designer that fails to understand that IS stupid.
As for "watered-down designs" - that's natural. Most designers want to be visionary, to create something unique, a design that is both communicative and an enduring work of art. It's just not possible - so many things have an accepted form that is quite difficult to redesign because the public accepts that standard form. As a general rule - humans do not like extreme changes. So a lot of design work must, by definition, be an evolutionary process.
The primary agency to sue SCO would be the FSF, since Stallman wrote the GPL. I really doubt that Linux dev's would see a cent from this, but Stallman would be incredibly rich all of a sudden.
Damn, I need a few more acronyms to make that totally incomprehensible.
So does Mariner Write (it's not free - but really, really inexpensive). When Open Office is native to OSX, then I'll consider switching. Until then, I'll stick with non-free.
If anyone "corrupts" Java so it can't pass the conformance tests ... it's not Java.
You're right. It's called evolution. If Java fails to evolve then it should be dumped on the trash-heap with all the other dead languages.
For every website in Europe that essentially says "America sucks" ...
Force them to post a reply of "No, you suck!"
That'll make them change the law real quick.
It brings skills into the country and stops the export of programming jobs.
No - that is a separate issue from actual software purchases. There is nothing that restricts a company from hiring lower-cost foreign workers to modify the same software. I would say it's a safe bet that software written primarily in first-world countries will be modified by third-world programmers, simply because the cost of the former is so much higher than the cost of the latter, despite the other resources available to first-world companies and personnel.
Why the hell would Apple want to pick up that albatross? It wouldn't net them any more respect or market share.
If there's any possibility of a security hole, someone is going to try and take advantage of it.
And probably will succeed.
And probably get their wrist slapped.
Now I have an excuse to encrypt everything AND stop doing business with California!
The first - just because. The second because this will benefit California lawyers more than any consumer. It means they can sue a Michigan company just because they sold something to someone in California once, and lawyers just love to jump on a case like that and bust someone for millions.
And since there is no effective prosecution of hackers, the company winds up getting screwed both ways.