They buy bundles of software (say 500 copies of FooBar ver 3.0 and 500 of BarFoo 1.0) at $20 a copy and sell them individually at $30 a copy. There is a (relatively large) market for this. Of course they don't open the packages.
How is this case different? Both companies have a business license, both can buy and sell products at prices they choose.
Alternatively, how do the software distribution houses (and Ye Olde Software Shoppe) get around the fact that they buy software packages and resell them, without going thru the EULA bull. If they can do it, so can anyone (assuming that one pays the sales tax on the sale...)
The BBC in the UK has no commercials, ever, and it's still hard to turn off (especially now). I'd say rather that the current topics fill many people's needs for visions of violence, suspense, drama, intrigue, paranoia, etc... They don't even have to pay Hollywood to produce it for them.
I wonder whether movie attendence is down, as people may not need to get their fix there...
Interesting that all 4 hijacked planes were Boeings, there were no Airbus planes hijacked. I know that in the US, Boeings are more common than Airbusses, but perhaps there is another reason:
I know that in Boeing aircraft, the pilot can override the airplane's automatic systems, i.e. he/she has the ultimate decision what to do in an emergency situation.
In Airbus aircraft, the automatic systems can override the pilot's decisions if the aircraft determines that these decisions are wrong. Does anyone know if an Airbus would (through some sort of proximity detection system) have avoided the WTC in this situation??
Even if Airbusses are not now capable of this, it shouldn't be that hard to implement such a system. Some robots already use something like this to avoid crashes. It would also avoid the occasional "plane hits mountain in heavy fog" disasters.
What about mines? The US is unwilling to sign the international ban on mines (unlike most other countries which have already signed it), because of the military usefulness of mines.
Other countries have shown compassion towards civilians (specifically children, who are after all the most innocent victims and are more likely to be affected by a mine as they do not recognize it for what it is). The US generals put pressure on the politicians not to sign it, even though they realize the collateral damage they are exposing non-American children to. If there were the possibility of some foreign army (no I don't mean terrorists) planting mines in the US, the gov't might be more thoughtful about the collateral damage. BTW, dum dum bullets and gas warfare were banned after WWI because of the terrible damage they did to everyone's soldiers.
The new American military strategy is to win a war without any American casualties. This, while admirable from the point of view of the American soldier, is not consistent with keeping civilians out of the conflict. Bombs and missiles are not THAT accurate, mistakes can be made (Chinese embassy in Belgrade...), civilians can be in the wrong place a the wrong time. What the US is saying here is that protecting the lives of American soldiers is more important than protecting the lives of enemy civilians, effectively targeting enemy civilians.
Troops on the ground are the only way to solve some conflicts. Do you think the Serbian paramilitaries could have done as much damage to Kosovo if NATO troops had gone in? Someone had to balance the likely Kosovar death toll with the likely NATO death toll, and I'm sure that someone did. I am also sure that the ratio of Kosovo lives saved to potential NATO losses was deemed inacceptable. Wonder what the ratio was??? Sick thoughts for sick times...
With recently uncovered facts, we now know how these deeds were perpetrated. No guns, no explosions. Simple hand implements and the knowledge of how to use them. Airline staff aren't combat trained, but what if they were? How could things have happened differently if people were better equipped, mentally and physically, to handle a hand to hand attack? Could you defend yourself against someone with a knife? Having studied some martial arts and sword fighting techniques, I'm glad I can say I could hold my own against an untrained attacker or even a slightly capable one.
Anything we can study (martial arts etc...), the hijackers could too. Banning knives is only part of the solution, given the human body's capability to act as a deadly weapon. Eliminating the terrorist threat calls for:
1. Elimination of the motives for terrorist recruitment - if they can't find desperate fanatic people, it will be a lot harder for them to recruit and train people.
2. Damage to the terrorist organizations themselves - economic, physical, head-hunting (get the leaders and the experts), moral (do not give them an excuse to attack us - if we treated the Arab world as fairly as we do the European world, this might never have happened).
3. I'm hung over (too?) and can't think of a good point 3, sorry.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Much of the money in the Middle East comes from exporting oil. Much of the oil that is exported from the Middle East goes to the US. The US has a great deal of domestic oil production, but it is not enough to fill demand.
Try to use less gasoline - bike to work, walk to the store, take a bus or train, turn down or off the air conditioning in the car, arrange your life so that you travel by car less.
Use less energy as a whole - turn off lights and computers when not needed, blah blah blah. Become more concious of using energy, you will be surprised how much is wasted. The less energy used, the less imported...
These things will also save you money, and help the greenhouse effect as well.
This could be a defining moment in world history if the great powers of the world united against terrorism. Every large nation (democratic or otherwise) has a very good reason to join the fight against international terrorism.
The US has Islamic terrorists and a few home-grown ones, and the Zapatistas in Mexico next door. The EU has the Northern Irish problem and the Basques in Spain/France, not to mention the Balkans. India has Kashmir and a nasty war next door in Sri Lanka. Russia has Chechnya and its brand of Islamic terrorism (not that I'm defending the Russian actions there), plus some problems in Uzbekistan and other ex-republics. China has been having problems recently with non-ethnic Chinese in North-West China.
If these countries and others with similar problems (South Africa, Columbia, Algeria, got together and really cooperated, world terrorism could be dealt a death blow. Economic sanctions against countries harbouring terrorists, limitations on training of non-military personnel, restrictions on munitions exports and production, intelligence-sharing, military facility usage, impartial arbitration of grieviences (this is actually the most important of all of the above, if you can eliminate marginalized people you go a long way toward eliminating the conditions that create fanatics and terrorists in the first place).
If it worked well, world-wide security could be enhanced and protected to the extent that mines could be outlawed (even in the US, one of the few countries not to sign the international ban on mines).
> Americans must demand an immediate end to our interventionist foreign policy, which exacted such a tragic price in American blood on this terrible day
Ending the interventionist policy is what has triggered this action, if indeed it was done by Islamic terrorists and the root cause is the Arab-Israeli conflict.
While the peace talks were going on under the Clinton administration, most Palestinians had little or no reason to upset the US, as their situation was improving had prospects of improving more. The Palestinians had something to gain by being nice and civil to the Americans, and other Arab states could help the Palestinians by toning down their rhetoric too.
Once the Bush administration started with it's "hands off" policy (and lets face it, Bush is not pushing the Israelis or Palestinians to come to the negotiating table anywhere near as hard as Clinton did), the situation in the Middle East heated up, Palestinians' situation worsened, other Arab states have more sympathy with the Palestinians, and the US is seen as the enemy rather than a potential ally.
So what you are saying is that it is OK to harm Afghani or Sudanese women, children, and innocent civilians but it is not OK to harm innocent US civilians.
Would I like to see your face when Bush determines that it was someone from (say) Dallas Texas and shoots a few cruise missiles into the town center to punish those responsible... Sure, there might be some collateral damage but THEY HAVE TO BE TAUGHT A LESSON!!!
Yeah, we don't need no stinking courts or judges or trials or anything. And if you happen to live in a building next to one where we think terrorists are, well it's your own fault for being born in that country.
Come on, people. If you want to lead the rest of the world, you cannot lead by this kind of example. Killing some foreigners will not solve the problem, their friends and relatives will be just as angry as you are now and will want to hit back, and some of them may.
Let's not be hasty about pointing fingers, according to BBC and others the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine is NOT (repeat NOT) claiming responsibility (the first call was apparenly anonymous, anyone could call the media and claim that they did it).
I agree with you wholeheartedly that bombing and terrorism is NOT the way for Palestinians to make their point. Israel should not be bombing either. You should not be advocating it (which you just did) any more than the Palestinians.
Bombing is not the way for ANYONE to make their point. NEITHER SHOULD THE USA BE BOMBING others. In recent memory, the US has bombed Iraq, Libya, Afganistan, and (IIRC) Sudan. The people there (who, after all, happened to be born there through no fault of their own, and have the right to live there) DO NOT LIKE TO BE BOMBED ANY MORE THAN AMERICANS DO. They will get JUST AS ANGRY. And, given that these countrys' education systems are less than objective anyway, and the level of international and cross-cultural understanding is less even than that of your average midwestern American, you have a breeding ground for fanatics.
Would you forgive and forget the bomber if a relative died in a bombing attack? Would it matter whether the bomber was a terrorist organization or a foreign government trying to hit a radar installation? I doubt it.
The tactile feedback devices needn't be attached to one's hand, nor need there be only one...
A series of devices mimicing various body parts (including sexual organs of all descriptions, feet, faces, etc...) combined with screen shots could change porn forever. Even a fully functioning human body replica! Think of the dolls that drink, spit up, pee, etc... made adult size with additional body functions. Prostitution could be practically eliminated...
Of course, the Russians would just use plastic blow ups and lubricants (analogous to the space ballpoint vs. pencil)
did they manage to spend an extra $12 million? This is on a spacecraft that is already in space, the only changes are in software and in the control equipment (which should still work...).
The software needs to be reprogrammed to redirect the spacecraft and aim the cameras, and of course all the fun trajectory math and so on, but $12 million is over 60 person-years!!
And being caught, and evidence being found (or manufactured), and prosecuted, and defended by probably inadequate lawyers unless they are rich...
They also go to jail for a long time for relatively minor crimes. IANAC(riminal), but from what I've read US jails concentrate on punishment as opposed to rehabilitation, so when they do get out they cannot function in society, they go back to drugs and gangs and get back in jail.
The point being that the people who run the jails have an interest in repeat offenders, so they do not rehabilitate the prisoners. Should I capitalize it for you so you can understand it better???
BTW, could you explain why you signed your statement "Ass" (is that your name or just a description?
$80,000 a year is (roughly) $40 an hour, and the expense of an employee is more than this (payroll tax, health insurance, office space, new chair, blah blah). I'd call it about $80 an hour.
The difference is computer cost is practically nil, as if the computer wasn't working on this it would spend it's time on NOPs (OK, maybe the next batch job would get done a second faster, but then it would be on NOPs...).
The exceptions to the above is where you have a program which is constantly working at close to machine capacity, or which takes a long time to complete and is time critical (must be done by 10PM..). In these cases, code speed takes precedence over readability.
Russia needs to build up her economy, what better way to invest in a field in which Russia is an acknowledged world leader - durable space station construction.
Just because NASA can't or won't build it doesn't mean that it won't be profitable. The only way I'm getting into space (and let's face it, many of us would like a shot at seeing the Earth from a new perspective) is as a paying customer, and there are enough people with enough money to afford it.
Russia needs capital to build it's economy. If they charge $10 million a trip (monopoly prices), they can send up a few tourists at a time and their profit margin is pretty high. Do you realize the quantity of vodka they have to export to earn that much foreign currency?
He doesn't need a math lesson, rather you need an English (as in England) lesson...
In Britain (and as far as I know the rest of Europe), a billion does not mean a thousand million as in the US, but a million million. A thousand million is called a milliard.
sig > 120...
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: the party of the first part (the AUTHOR) hereby disclaims any responsibility for any damages done to the party of the second part (the READER) during the process of the READER's reading this message written by the AUTHOR. The AUTHOR further does not warrant that this message is usable for any particular purpose, blah blah blah blah....
You are confusing standard of living with cost of living. A middle class Indian life-style is comparable* to a middle-slass American life-style in terms of the amenities (standard of living), but is much much cheaper to maintain.
I live in Prague and work for a US company, getting roughly an American salary (highly recommended).
* by comparable, I mean in terms of general comfort - things like drive a nice car, go out to dinner often, live in a sizeable house, educate your kids well, espresso machine, etc... I do not mean that they drive a Jeep Cherokee or send their kids to Yale, just like you do not aspire to drive an Indian car or send your kids to a university in Bombay...
Look at it from Russia's point of view. It is a brain drain, the Russian economy is benefitting from their salaries but not their productivity. The U.S. is making the profits from their work, even though the Russian gov't paid for the education of these people (who are probably "smarter than your average bear" -apologies to Yogi).
Slashdot Mirror
But can it lie down?
They buy bundles of software (say 500 copies of FooBar ver 3.0 and 500 of BarFoo 1.0) at $20 a copy and sell them individually at $30 a copy. There is a (relatively large) market for this. Of course they don't open the packages.
How is this case different? Both companies have a business license, both can buy and sell products at prices they choose.
Alternatively, how do the software distribution houses (and Ye Olde Software Shoppe) get around the fact that they buy software packages and resell them, without going thru the EULA bull. If they can do it, so can anyone (assuming that one pays the sales tax on the sale...)
The BBC in the UK has no commercials, ever, and it's still hard to turn off (especially now). I'd say rather that the current topics fill many people's needs for visions of violence, suspense, drama, intrigue, paranoia, etc... They don't even have to pay Hollywood to produce it for them.
I wonder whether movie attendence is down, as people may not need to get their fix there...
Interesting that all 4 hijacked planes were Boeings, there were no Airbus planes hijacked. I know that in the US, Boeings are more common than Airbusses, but perhaps there is another reason:
I know that in Boeing aircraft, the pilot can override the airplane's automatic systems, i.e. he/she has the ultimate decision what to do in an emergency situation.
In Airbus aircraft, the automatic systems can override the pilot's decisions if the aircraft determines that these decisions are wrong. Does anyone know if an Airbus would (through some sort of proximity detection system) have avoided the WTC in this situation??
Even if Airbusses are not now capable of this, it shouldn't be that hard to implement such a system. Some robots already use something like this to avoid crashes. It would also avoid the occasional "plane hits mountain in heavy fog" disasters.
What about mines? The US is unwilling to sign the international ban on mines (unlike most other countries which have already signed it), because of the military usefulness of mines.
Other countries have shown compassion towards civilians (specifically children, who are after all the most innocent victims and are more likely to be affected by a mine as they do not recognize it for what it is). The US generals put pressure on the politicians not to sign it, even though they realize the collateral damage they are exposing non-American children to. If there were the possibility of some foreign army (no I don't mean terrorists) planting mines in the US, the gov't might be more thoughtful about the collateral damage. BTW, dum dum bullets and gas warfare were banned after WWI because of the terrible damage they did to everyone's soldiers.
The new American military strategy is to win a war without any American casualties. This, while admirable from the point of view of the American soldier, is not consistent with keeping civilians out of the conflict. Bombs and missiles are not THAT accurate, mistakes can be made (Chinese embassy in Belgrade...), civilians can be in the wrong place a the wrong time. What the US is saying here is that protecting the lives of American soldiers is more important than protecting the lives of enemy civilians, effectively targeting enemy civilians.
Troops on the ground are the only way to solve some conflicts. Do you think the Serbian paramilitaries could have done as much damage to Kosovo if NATO troops had gone in? Someone had to balance the likely Kosovar death toll with the likely NATO death toll, and I'm sure that someone did. I am also sure that the ratio of Kosovo lives saved to potential NATO losses was deemed inacceptable. Wonder what the ratio was??? Sick thoughts for sick times...
With recently uncovered facts, we now know how these deeds were perpetrated. No guns, no explosions. Simple hand implements and the knowledge of how to use them. Airline staff aren't combat trained, but what if they were? How could things have happened differently if people were better equipped, mentally and physically, to handle a hand to hand attack? Could you defend yourself against someone with a knife? Having studied some martial arts and sword fighting techniques, I'm glad I can say I could hold my own against an untrained attacker or even a slightly capable one.
Anything we can study (martial arts etc...), the hijackers could too. Banning knives is only part of the solution, given the human body's capability to act as a deadly weapon. Eliminating the terrorist threat calls for:
1. Elimination of the motives for terrorist recruitment - if they can't find desperate fanatic people, it will be a lot harder for them to recruit and train people.
2. Damage to the terrorist organizations themselves - economic, physical, head-hunting (get the leaders and the experts), moral (do not give them an excuse to attack us - if we treated the Arab world as fairly as we do the European world, this might never have happened).
3. I'm hung over (too?) and can't think of a good point 3, sorry.
Much of the money in the Middle East comes from exporting oil. Much of the oil that is exported from the Middle East goes to the US. The US has a great deal of domestic oil production, but it is not enough to fill demand.
Try to use less gasoline - bike to work, walk to the store, take a bus or train, turn down or off the air conditioning in the car, arrange your life so that you travel by car less.
Use less energy as a whole - turn off lights and computers when not needed, blah blah blah. Become more concious of using energy, you will be surprised how much is wasted. The less energy used, the less imported...
These things will also save you money, and help the greenhouse effect as well.
This could be a defining moment in world history if the great powers of the world united against terrorism. Every large nation (democratic or otherwise) has a very good reason to join the fight against international terrorism.
The US has Islamic terrorists and a few home-grown ones, and the Zapatistas in Mexico next door. The EU has the Northern Irish problem and the Basques in Spain/France, not to mention the Balkans. India has Kashmir and a nasty war next door in Sri Lanka. Russia has Chechnya and its brand of Islamic terrorism (not that I'm defending the Russian actions there), plus some problems in Uzbekistan and other ex-republics. China has been having problems recently with non-ethnic Chinese in North-West China.
If these countries and others with similar problems (South Africa, Columbia, Algeria, got together and really cooperated, world terrorism could be dealt a death blow. Economic sanctions against countries harbouring terrorists, limitations on training of non-military personnel, restrictions on munitions exports and production, intelligence-sharing, military facility usage, impartial arbitration of grieviences (this is actually the most important of all of the above, if you can eliminate marginalized people you go a long way toward eliminating the conditions that create fanatics and terrorists in the first place).
If it worked well, world-wide security could be enhanced and protected to the extent that mines could be outlawed (even in the US, one of the few countries not to sign the international ban on mines).
I'd sleep better at night, anyway...
> Americans must demand an immediate end to our interventionist foreign policy, which exacted such a tragic price in American blood on this terrible day
Ending the interventionist policy is what has triggered this action, if indeed it was done by Islamic terrorists and the root cause is the Arab-Israeli conflict.
While the peace talks were going on under the Clinton administration, most Palestinians had little or no reason to upset the US, as their situation was improving had prospects of improving more. The Palestinians had something to gain by being nice and civil to the Americans, and other Arab states could help the Palestinians by toning down their rhetoric too.
Once the Bush administration started with it's "hands off" policy (and lets face it, Bush is not pushing the Israelis or Palestinians to come to the negotiating table anywhere near as hard as Clinton did), the situation in the Middle East heated up, Palestinians' situation worsened, other Arab states have more sympathy with the Palestinians, and the US is seen as the enemy rather than a potential ally.
So what you are saying is that it is OK to harm Afghani or Sudanese women, children, and innocent civilians but it is not OK to harm innocent US civilians.
Would I like to see your face when Bush determines that it was someone from (say) Dallas Texas and shoots a few cruise missiles into the town center to punish those responsible... Sure, there might be some collateral damage but THEY HAVE TO BE TAUGHT A LESSON!!!
Yeah, we don't need no stinking courts or judges or trials or anything. And if you happen to live in a building next to one where we think terrorists are, well it's your own fault for being born in that country.
Come on, people. If you want to lead the rest of the world, you cannot lead by this kind of example. Killing some foreigners will not solve the problem, their friends and relatives will be just as angry as you are now and will want to hit back, and some of them may.
It occurred to McVeigh...
Let's not be hasty about pointing fingers, according to BBC and others the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine is NOT (repeat NOT) claiming responsibility (the first call was apparenly anonymous, anyone could call the media and claim that they did it).
I agree with you wholeheartedly that bombing and terrorism is NOT the way for Palestinians to make their point. Israel should not be bombing either. You should not be advocating it (which you just did) any more than the Palestinians.
Bombing is not the way for ANYONE to make their point. NEITHER SHOULD THE USA BE BOMBING others. In recent memory, the US has bombed Iraq, Libya, Afganistan, and (IIRC) Sudan. The people there (who, after all, happened to be born there through no fault of their own, and have the right to live there) DO NOT LIKE TO BE BOMBED ANY MORE THAN AMERICANS DO. They will get JUST AS ANGRY. And, given that these countrys' education systems are less than objective anyway, and the level of international and cross-cultural understanding is less even than that of your average midwestern American, you have a breeding ground for fanatics.
Would you forgive and forget the bomber if a relative died in a bombing attack? Would it matter whether the bomber was a terrorist organization or a foreign government trying to hit a radar installation? I doubt it.
Link to the video of plane #2 crashing. Pretty scary, just like in the movies except it isn't.
w as hingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/msnbc/ms091101-2v.ht m
http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.
The tactile feedback devices needn't be attached to one's hand, nor need there be only one...
A series of devices mimicing various body parts (including sexual organs of all descriptions, feet, faces, etc...) combined with screen shots could change porn forever. Even a fully functioning human body replica! Think of the dolls that drink, spit up, pee, etc... made adult size with additional body functions. Prostitution could be practically eliminated...
Of course, the Russians would just use plastic blow ups and lubricants (analogous to the space ballpoint vs. pencil)
did they manage to spend an extra $12 million? This is on a spacecraft that is already in space, the only changes are in software and in the control equipment (which should still work...).
The software needs to be reprogrammed to redirect the spacecraft and aim the cameras, and of course all the fun trajectory math and so on, but $12 million is over 60 person-years!!
And being caught, and evidence being found (or manufactured), and prosecuted, and defended by probably inadequate lawyers unless they are rich...
They also go to jail for a long time for relatively minor crimes. IANAC(riminal), but from what I've read US jails concentrate on punishment as opposed to rehabilitation, so when they do get out they cannot function in society, they go back to drugs and gangs and get back in jail.
The point being that the people who run the jails have an interest in repeat offenders, so they do not rehabilitate the prisoners. Should I capitalize it for you so you can understand it better???
BTW, could you explain why you signed your statement "Ass" (is that your name or just a description?
and what (exactly) is 09 ???
$80,000 a year is (roughly) $40 an hour, and the expense of an employee is more than this (payroll tax, health insurance, office space, new chair, blah blah). I'd call it about $80 an hour.
The difference is computer cost is practically nil, as if the computer wasn't working on this it would spend it's time on NOPs (OK, maybe the next batch job would get done a second faster, but then it would be on NOPs...).
The exceptions to the above is where you have a program which is constantly working at close to machine capacity, or which takes a long time to complete and is time critical (must be done by 10PM..). In these cases, code speed takes precedence over readability.
Russia needs to build up her economy, what better way to invest in a field in which Russia is an acknowledged world leader - durable space station construction.
Just because NASA can't or won't build it doesn't mean that it won't be profitable. The only way I'm getting into space (and let's face it, many of us would like a shot at seeing the Earth from a new perspective) is as a paying customer, and there are enough people with enough money to afford it.
Russia needs capital to build it's economy. If they charge $10 million a trip (monopoly prices), they can send up a few tourists at a time and their profit margin is pretty high. Do you realize the quantity of vodka they have to export to earn that much foreign currency?
He doesn't need a math lesson, rather you need an English (as in England) lesson...
In Britain (and as far as I know the rest of Europe), a billion does not mean a thousand million as in the US, but a million million. A thousand million is called a milliard.
sig > 120...
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: the party of the first part (the AUTHOR) hereby disclaims any responsibility for any damages done to the party of the second part (the READER) during the process of the READER's reading this message written by the AUTHOR. The AUTHOR further does not warrant that this message is usable for any particular purpose, blah blah blah blah....
You mean one for each CPU, of course...
You are confusing standard of living with cost of living. A middle class Indian life-style is comparable* to a middle-slass American life-style in terms of the amenities (standard of living), but is much much cheaper to maintain.
I live in Prague and work for a US company, getting roughly an American salary (highly recommended).
* by comparable, I mean in terms of general comfort - things like drive a nice car, go out to dinner often, live in a sizeable house, educate your kids well, espresso machine, etc... I do not mean that they drive a Jeep Cherokee or send their kids to Yale, just like you do not aspire to drive an Indian car or send your kids to a university in Bombay...
Look at it from Russia's point of view. It is a brain drain, the Russian economy is benefitting from their salaries but not their productivity. The U.S. is making the profits from their work, even though the Russian gov't paid for the education of these people (who are probably "smarter than your average bear" -apologies to Yogi).