All of the stuff you gripe about could be considered thoughts, though. What you had for breakfast and what you think about it, how the SO dresses, and what you think about that and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.
It has meaning to someone somewhere, at least one person, otherwise it wouldn't be out there. Let's face it,/. is just one big damn blog that a whole lot of people contribute to. If you consider it more intrinsically valuable than Jenny Doe's blog about high school life, only means it is comparitively more valuable to you. It has no greater intrinsic worth.
It's all information, and (shit, I hate to resort this tired-ass anthropomorphic argument) information wants to be out there.
States get Federal funding for Federal highways, interstates, that is, and larger state highways but the remainder are usually paid out of state budgets.
Part of the reason roads are so gd expensive is that highway contractors have the states over a barrel. One example: the budget is approved for a given stretch of highway and the contract is awarded. Contractor understate the amount of time necessary, due to "nature issues" but, oh crap, we need more money to pay the crews to keep working. So it goes back for budgeting.
Another trick is threatening a slowdown on a work in progress until another contract for some other job is awarded, thus assuring continuity of jobs after the current one is finished.
The only thing I can think of to say to you and your parent post is: call the fscking wahmbulance.
Seriously.
The internet is supposed to be many things to many people and one of those is a forum for expression of ideas and thought. Who appointed you the gatekeeper? Do you really have the gall to think that just because someone posts something of no interest to you, that it is somehow not worthy?
More elitist crap from the geek contingent is all I'm seeing.
The counter-argument is simple: personal results are not quantifiable.
1. Legislators want quantifiable results so they can have something to wave around at election time. 2. The people demand quantifiable results from the legislators for actions taken on their behalf. 3. Quantifiable results determine whether policy is effective or not, and therefore justifiable.
The change in mentality has to come from the public side before it can come from the university admin side, if for no other reason than legislatures will cut money as fast as possible if the colleges and universities aren't toeing the party line.
Additionally, businesses are increasingly results-oriented and require some sort of return for their donation dollar. We are well past the point where the majority of donors are going to do something just because it's a good thing, rather than it being a good thing for them.
I don't know where the mentality changed (probably started in the 60's - just about everything can be blamed on boomers in some way), but it definitely did.
I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong on this, but I don't really think I am. As time goes by, I think we're all going to have to learn the same game to survive. The days of altruism for it's own sake are fading as we become polarized into political camps.
---
When you say "focus on teaching": do you mean as in preparing students to be teachers, or do you mean teaching the students? Your syntax is a little unclear there.
Research is needed to establish the idea that the university is keeping up with current trends in various subject areas. Without it, they have no way of attracting top-tier students and no way to afford to stay in business at a reasonable cost, due to overhead from faculty and facilities.
What is needed is some way to siphon money from the football and basketball programs back into the academic areas, since these two sports are usually overfunded, in comparison to real academic disciplines.
I seriously doubt "the disabled" filed this lawsuit, but rather it was some idiot at the county who, in the same voice as "think of the children", uttered "think of the disabled".
This is one of those Hobson's choice things: security or convenience, convenience or security? Personally, I'd vote security, but they won't give me a printout.
If you go after Microsoft for past security lapses (by, say, throwing BG in jail), then what's to stop the government going after anyone who releases software with a security hole, intentionally or accidentally?
How do you draw the line when it's not necessarily educated or intelligent people doing the line drawing?
How do you determine the "seriousness" of the security hole, since there aren't really any standards?
How much of the load do you place on those who implement aforementioned software, either wittingly or unwittingly?
Which, of course, leads to: how do you determine whether a person is capable of handling a computer, given the high bar?
It's not like I'll ever have anything on my site that/. has a burning desire to see, but for reference sake - is there a way to put a limiter on traffic to mitigate, perhaps even stop the/. effect?
Corporations receive funds from investors who expect a return on their investment. If the corporation does not do what it can legally to return that investment plus whatever else is owed according to the contract, then that corporation is negligent and can be sued itself.
It becomes Apple's problem when they ship a copy of Apache with every copy of their OS.
Does it also become Debian's problem if they do the same thing?
Apple has little control over Apache, save including it or not, but the default OS X setup is to deny inbound requests from the world, so the security of the machine is not an issue at that point.
Another point - the only thing about the OS not available to those who are interested is the code for Quartz. Everything else is out there for those who want to try and fix these issues.
Scotland, England, Australia, New Zealand, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Canada, Switzerland. Not necessarily in that order.
In some cases, they're pretty much the same law-wise as here, but at least the newness of living there will keep me from being focused on some of the more underlying problems for a while.
the thing to make it easier would have been using LTSP and turn all machines out in the common area into X terminals and simply buy/use one decent server for the backroom and you are finished.
Conversely, if the main machine crashes for one reason or another, they're all out of luck.
Plus, there's that little comprehension gap between the installers and the librarians. It's not that they're incapable of understanding, but they've got a thousand little things bugging them and setting up individual PCs with the distro is the easiest solution.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
Finally, keeping the PC as individual workstations, each with it's own distro, is a much simpler solution than setting up terminals off of a main server. It may not be difficult, but it does add to the complexity of the installation.
I wonder how this is going to be affected by the government-mandated filters for sex information, science, art, and other governmentally-defined "objectionable material"?
I'd for sure buy a really fast computer with a lotta drive space for video editing, but I sure as hell won't run Longhorn on it. Hopefully, by the time it becomes necessary, there will be some good professional-grade Linux-based video editing and effects software.
Most of the stuff that's out there is OK, but nowhere near the speed and ease-of-use of Vegas (or even Premiere, for that matter).
Not meaning to leave out the Mac, but I've got all the Mac I can afford right now.
I want my operating system to be fast, stable, secure and to work with open standards and have an open set of application programming interfaces (APIs), so I can be sure that I'll have many software program choices.
Those things are what programmers want, not users, who'll be the majority consumers of Longhorn. Someone needs to do a reality check.
The large software companies will purchase the licenses necessary to do development.
I'd honestly just be scared witless to live there as a foreign national - one no longer has any obvious legal rights
The same applies if you are an American citizen in certain circumstances. Right now, I can think of about 10 countries I'd rather live in, if I could even afford to move.
After all, they resfue to take on ANY legal liability for the security of your systems. If they intentionally shipped you broken software, what recourse do you think you have?
Of course, one could say the same about Open Source.
Slashdot Mirror
Oral contracts are worth the paper they're written on.
Sure, an agreement with someone you've known for years is one thing, if the stakes are relatively low. But, otherwise, get it in writing.
It's hard to believe that people in charge of a corporation would be that stupid, but there it is.
All of the stuff you gripe about could be considered thoughts, though. What you had for breakfast and what you think about it, how the SO dresses, and what you think about that and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.
/. is just one big damn blog that a whole lot of people contribute to. If you consider it more intrinsically valuable than Jenny Doe's blog about high school life, only means it is comparitively more valuable to you. It has no greater intrinsic worth.
It has meaning to someone somewhere, at least one person, otherwise it wouldn't be out there. Let's face it,
It's all information, and (shit, I hate to resort this tired-ass anthropomorphic argument) information wants to be out there.
Fer chrissakes, get over yourself.
States get Federal funding for Federal highways, interstates, that is, and larger state highways but the remainder are usually paid out of state budgets.
Part of the reason roads are so gd expensive is that highway contractors have the states over a barrel. One example: the budget is approved for a given stretch of highway and the contract is awarded. Contractor understate the amount of time necessary, due to "nature issues" but, oh crap, we need more money to pay the crews to keep working. So it goes back for budgeting.
Another trick is threatening a slowdown on a work in progress until another contract for some other job is awarded, thus assuring continuity of jobs after the current one is finished.
It's kind of a scam.
The only thing I can think of to say to you and your parent post is: call the fscking wahmbulance.
Seriously.
The internet is supposed to be many things to many people and one of those is a forum for expression of ideas and thought. Who appointed you the gatekeeper? Do you really have the gall to think that just because someone posts something of no interest to you, that it is somehow not worthy?
More elitist crap from the geek contingent is all I'm seeing.
match at Fourth and Main. Beat y'all with one lobe tied behind ma' back, yo.
...
Oy. The humanity
The counter-argument is simple: personal results are not quantifiable.
1. Legislators want quantifiable results so they can have something to wave around at election time.
2. The people demand quantifiable results from the legislators for actions taken on their behalf.
3. Quantifiable results determine whether policy is effective or not, and therefore justifiable.
The change in mentality has to come from the public side before it can come from the university admin side, if for no other reason than legislatures will cut money as fast as possible if the colleges and universities aren't toeing the party line.
Additionally, businesses are increasingly results-oriented and require some sort of return for their donation dollar. We are well past the point where the majority of donors are going to do something just because it's a good thing, rather than it being a good thing for them.
I don't know where the mentality changed (probably started in the 60's - just about everything can be blamed on boomers in some way), but it definitely did.
I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong on this, but I don't really think I am. As time goes by, I think we're all going to have to learn the same game to survive. The days of altruism for it's own sake are fading as we become polarized into political camps.
---
When you say "focus on teaching": do you mean as in preparing students to be teachers, or do you mean teaching the students? Your syntax is a little unclear there.
Research is needed to establish the idea that the university is keeping up with current trends in various subject areas. Without it, they have no way of attracting top-tier students and no way to afford to stay in business at a reasonable cost, due to overhead from faculty and facilities.
What is needed is some way to siphon money from the football and basketball programs back into the academic areas, since these two sports are usually overfunded, in comparison to real academic disciplines.
I seriously doubt "the disabled" filed this lawsuit, but rather it was some idiot at the county who, in the same voice as "think of the children", uttered "think of the disabled".
This is one of those Hobson's choice things: security or convenience, convenience or security? Personally, I'd vote security, but they won't give me a printout.
The only other method I can think of would be scanning /. for any mention of one's personal site, and shutting it down if it's ever mentioned.
/. editors would kindly inform sites before they /. 'em.
Well, and perhaps if the
If you go after Microsoft for past security lapses (by, say, throwing BG in jail), then what's to stop the government going after anyone who releases software with a security hole, intentionally or accidentally?
How do you draw the line when it's not necessarily educated or intelligent people doing the line drawing?
How do you determine the "seriousness" of the security hole, since there aren't really any standards?
How much of the load do you place on those who implement aforementioned software, either wittingly or unwittingly?
Which, of course, leads to: how do you determine whether a person is capable of handling a computer, given the high bar?
Yes, but does he do anything useful these days like teach, do research, mentoring? Or is he the MIT Hollyfeld? What?
No kidding. Is there a way to prevent that?
/. has a burning desire to see, but for reference sake - is there a way to put a limiter on traffic to mitigate, perhaps even stop the /. effect?
It's not like I'll ever have anything on my site that
Basic redirection, perhaps?
Robot Hoouuusssseeee!
What can I say - I watch a lot of Futurama.
Why? Because it's an unpleasant truth?
Corporations receive funds from investors who expect a return on their investment. If the corporation does not do what it can legally to return that investment plus whatever else is owed according to the contract, then that corporation is negligent and can be sued itself.
It sucks, but that's life.
It becomes Apple's problem when they ship a copy of Apache with every copy of their OS.
Does it also become Debian's problem if they do the same thing?
Apple has little control over Apache, save including it or not, but the default OS X setup is to deny inbound requests from the world, so the security of the machine is not an issue at that point.
Another point - the only thing about the OS not available to those who are interested is the code for Quartz. Everything else is out there for those who want to try and fix these issues.
Scotland, England, Australia, New Zealand, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Canada, Switzerland. Not necessarily in that order.
In some cases, they're pretty much the same law-wise as here, but at least the newness of living there will keep me from being focused on some of the more underlying problems for a while.
the thing to make it easier would have been using LTSP and turn all machines out in the common area into X terminals and simply buy/use one decent server for the backroom and you are finished.
Conversely, if the main machine crashes for one reason or another, they're all out of luck.
Plus, there's that little comprehension gap between the installers and the librarians. It's not that they're incapable of understanding, but they've got a thousand little things bugging them and setting up individual PCs with the distro is the easiest solution.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
Finally, keeping the PC as individual workstations, each with it's own distro, is a much simpler solution than setting up terminals off of a main server. It may not be difficult, but it does add to the complexity of the installation.
it's about time for some good news.
I wonder how this is going to be affected by the government-mandated filters for sex information, science, art, and other governmentally-defined "objectionable material"?
I'd for sure buy a really fast computer with a lotta drive space for video editing, but I sure as hell won't run Longhorn on it. Hopefully, by the time it becomes necessary, there will be some good professional-grade Linux-based video editing and effects software.
Most of the stuff that's out there is OK, but nowhere near the speed and ease-of-use of Vegas (or even Premiere, for that matter).
Not meaning to leave out the Mac, but I've got all the Mac I can afford right now.
Yeah, I know, it's pedantic, but there's no sweeter act of pedantry than correcting a grammar pedant.
I think that second comma may be somewhat unnecessary.
jf
Capitalize your initials and use periods between them.
I want my operating system to be fast, stable, secure and to work with open standards and have an open set of application programming interfaces (APIs), so I can be sure that I'll have many software program choices.
Those things are what programmers want, not users, who'll be the majority consumers of Longhorn. Someone needs to do a reality check.
The large software companies will purchase the licenses necessary to do development.
I'd honestly just be scared witless to live there as a foreign national - one no longer has any obvious legal rights
The same applies if you are an American citizen in certain circumstances. Right now, I can think of about 10 countries I'd rather live in, if I could even afford to move.
After all, they resfue to take on ANY legal liability for the security of your systems. If they intentionally shipped you broken software, what recourse do you think you have?
Of course, one could say the same about Open Source.
*ducks*
Fuel cell that will run on coffee
Coffee? Why not a fuel cell that runs on urine? That way you don't have to share your precious caffeine until after you're already done with it.
1. Because all the military pilots capable of doing this are tied up elsewhere?
2. Because military pilots aren't trained to do crazy-ass stunt-type flying?
3. Liability issues?
4. PR?
5. Because stunt pilots log more flying hours than military pilots and are therefore slightly better trained?
6. Because no military pilot is stupid enough to do something like this?
Pick one. Or pull it out of your butt like I did. Personally, I think #2 is probably a good reason.