Are you sure on this? My copy of the section reads like so:
116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
I don't have anything about it being unconstitutional to question someone's claim to a faith or ask them to demonstrate their faith as proof. Maybe it's been amended and I have a really old version...
I never said putting down Jedi makes sense.:) I just think it's stupid to threaten fines for doing it.
The fine is for deliberately falsifying information on the census. You'd get the same fine for claiming to be an 80 year old when you were actually 20. Or for claiming to have 6 children when you actually have 2. It's just a rigid interpretation of the law.
Sure (assuming they would have put something down besides Jedi, of course). But I doubt the number of people would might actually do it would actually have much of a statistical affect, given the total size of the population - even assuming that they all put down their actual religion instead.
It could have an effect, as data is collected at a statistical divison level (roughly equivalent to one postcode and I haven't used the right term - can't remember what it is). A large number of people in that area claiming to be a jedi might not have a significant effect when examined nationally, but could screw up data at the divison level. For example, people who receive a lot of chain mail (like university students), can answer the census (like university students) and all live in roughly the same area (like university students) might be able to have a significant effect on their divison.
I couldn't really say that any one division of Christianity is in the majority. There are Anglican schools, Protestant schools and also non-denominational schools. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to go to any of these, but if the school follows a particular religion, you're normally expected to go to chapel (normally 15min a week) and attend religion, a class like any other.
While it sounds like indoctrination, the reality is most people really don't care. I attended a private Anglican school, and no-one I knew really took chapel or religion seriously. It was just something that you had to turn up to and be quiet. From what I've heard, the care factor in public schools is even lower. Your results from the religion class don't count towards University entrance unless you'll be going into Theology at a Christian college. So, most people don't bother.
Personally, it made no difference to my education. I don't think I lost anything (the overall quality of education being very low anyway), and it exposed me to a different way of life. If you don't want to attend a school that is run like this, there are many other non-denominational schools. It's up to the school how they decide to operate.
Other religions (such as Islam, Buddhism, etc) aren't represented as commonly, but that's more a factor of distribution of population than anything else. I don't claim to be an expert on this, it's just what I know from my limited experience. From what I understand, public funds go to projects aimed at building a sense of community, hence the religious organisations. As far as I know, the government doesn't have preference towards a particular religion. Whatever is in the majority may get some money. Also, religions are not the only thing assessed - many other factors are also taken into account when trying to apportion funds (culture, ethnicity, nationality, etc).
Insert the usual disclaimers here: YMMV, IANAL, ISFMEO (I speak from my experience only), etc.
Touche - I used a bad example. A better example would be extra funding going to an Anglican Public school due to a large number of people putting Anglican down as their religion.
Or, extra funding going to a Christian Youth Community Centre because there a large number of Christians in the immediate area. Places of worship is a bad example. The people who have input into the distribution of funds have more sense than that. Mea culpa.
Sorry, but read my post again. I said that you had to show:
a clear belief structure; and / or
that you live your life by those precepts.
No argument - formalised religions have got it easy here. But, you might also be able to argue succsessfully that Jedi has a formal belief structure. If you really believe it, give it a go.
The Jedi situation wouldn't have been an issue had it not been for the email circulating. The big problem is that the email encourages people to fuck with the system for the sole purpose of annoying people. If you're really a Jedi, then you get lumped in with the people who are doing it just to annoy. Sucks to be you. Think of it as profiling.:)
Your second point is correct, and what they'll likely do. They'll probably just drop the jedi responses and look at the remainder. However, it would be easier for them if they didn't have to do this, and it could actually improve the statistical robustness of the responses (greater sample size etc). Hence they're trying to encourage people not to do it.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that they'll actually try to enforce this. Still, I'm not keen enough to find out by getting a $1,000 fine. This isn't a fight with a purpose or a good outcome. It's just to piss the ABS off. Whee.
116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
This is true, but the Census and Statistics Act 1905-1973 doesn't prevent you from believing what you want. You have the right not to declare what religion you practice. However, if you choose to answer the question, you must answer it honestly. If you can honestly answer that you are a practicing Jedi (and show proof thereof), the ABS can't fine you.
This is confusing two issues - one is the freedom to practice religion, one is lying on a government form. You have the right to practice any religion you want, you don't have the right to lie to the government.
On a different note, S.52(xi) of the constitution gives the federal government the right to make laws concerning the census. Just a bit of trivia...
The ABS looks at the census data prior to anonymising to prevent people falsifying information and to make sure information has been entered correctly. Once all the data is confirmed, they strip all identifying information unless you specify that you're willing to have your personal details revealed after a waiting period (in the order of 100 years) to aid researchers and academics. If you're outside the ABS, you can't get access to the identifying information. Once the data has been confirmed, the identifying information is permantently stripped (unless you specify otherwise).
Unlike most people here, I actually contacted the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics, the organisation that does the census to ask about this. The $1,000 fine for putting false information on the census is an actual penalty. The key issue, though, is knowingly providing false or misleading information. You don't have to answer the religion question if you don't want to. However, if you do ansewr it, you must answer truthfully. Jedi would be a legitimate answer if you can demonstrate a clear belief structure or if you can show that you try to live your life according to those precepts.
The information about religion is used by the government for distribution of funds. For example, a area surveyed with a high number of Orthodox Jews will see a lot of community funding going to Orthodox Synagogues. People who deliberately falsify their religion interferes with this process (making it more difficult for the ABS, which is only trying to do their best).
This isn't a case of 'the man' trying to shut people down. It's a case of a bunch of idiots thinking they're protesting (because they received chain mail that's been circultating since the NZ census - duh) when all they're actually doing is screwing up funding for other people in their community. If you don't want to answer, don't. What's the point? It doesn't matter how many people put Jedi down, it's not recognised as a religion. Before the devil's advocates come out the woodwork, it is not a religion that people currently follow. People could probably build a belief structure around it, but I doubt you could show active Jedi belief. You might as well say Trekkies are religious.
For the record, the person I spoke to at the ABS was very helpful and friendly.
To strive to equal or excel, especially through imitation: an older pupil whose accomplishments and style I emulated.
To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with. See Synonyms at rival.
Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
The key phrase here is imitate the function. Native code is not imitating the function of another system, it is the same function implemented on a different platform. The system does not imitate or copy, it is on the same level. Think equivalent, not imitation.
Accenture is a new marketing name of Arthur Andersen consulting.
Andersen Consulting, not Arthur Andersen Consulting - Arthur Andersen (now called Andersen) now offers consultancy services as well. They compete against each other. Go figure. Oedipus would have a field day.
I wonder if this is a troll, but I'll reply anyway. My understanding is this (using a windows emulator on Linux and a native port on Linux and bearing in mind I'm not a professional programmer):
Windows Emuation
Windows programming call -> Windows emulator (translates call to Linux specific language) -> Linux API -> Hardware
Native Implementation
Windows programming call -> Linux implementation of Windows API - Hardware
The native implementation is one step less than emulation, hence (if both are optimised) it will always be faster. Wine is a native implementation, VMWare is an emulator. There's the difference.
I'm a bit late here, but your definition could be a little better. Industry collusion is only really feasible when the number of industry participants is quite low, similar to an oligopoly. Industry collusion isn't possible under perfect competition due to the number of agents needed. If you have an oligopoly, you don't have a monopoly.
If the oligopoly organises itself, it can become a cartel and exhibit monopolistic powers. However, it's still not a monopoly. A monopoly is a single seller of goods. The RIAA is an association of firms, and therefore fits more closely with the definition of a cartel.
I think anti-trust laws in the US still apply (I'm in Australia), but you're dealing with a different situation to what you described. And I think it's "copyright" not "copywrite". A copywriter is one who writes copy. A copyright is the legal right etc.
And I *know* it's lose, not loose. You loosen your tie to stop it cutting circulation to your head, you lose your wallet after a big night out. This seems to be one that most people on/. get wrong. People seem to spell by how they pronounce words here. Personal pet peeve of mine.
I would argue that in an ideal world, people would gain equal utility from spiritual and emotional benefits as from materialistic pleasures. However, I would also argue that most people in a capitalistic society, by definition, put high value on materialistic goods.
Preventing people from buying their DVD players is therefore reducing their quality of living. Also, please note I'm not saying what either yourself or I classify as defining our standard of living. Personally, I put more value on happiness and enjoying what I do than on my salary (I don't even own a DVD player). But, I think most people are highly concerned with what they can buy with their money.
Boycotting may work (as may unions), but do you want to take a cut in your standard of living? It's great when people say that they really want the quality of living in third world countries to improve, but I often wonder whether people are willing to take the cut in their quality of living in order to make it come true.
Think of it this way. You boycott, forcing the company in question to pay more for labour overseas, improving their quality of living. However, to do this they need to cover higher costs in the form of wages. They then pass on the additional costs to you, as you've clearly expressed that you do not approve of their current practices. So, prices have gone up. Now apply this across the board to all companies. Two things may happen. First, all companies apply this scenario and prices go up across the board. You now can't buy as much as you used to, making your standard of living decrease while their standard of living increases. You get a warm fuzzy feeling, but can't buy your DVD player.
Two, all companies but one decide to raise their prices due to market pressure. However, one company doesn't and is able to undercut all their competitors. A significant portion of the market would probably buy from them, simply because they're cheaper. So, other companies are forced to cut costs in order to effectively compete (or else go out of business). One way to cut costs is to move to where they can pay lower wages, taking you back to where you were in the first place.
Sweatshops are evil, but do you think the majority of western consumers (who have the money) would be willing to lower their standard of living to eliminate them? I may be cynical, but I think not. People really seem to love their DVD players, iPacs and other gadgets.
Yes, but convergence also gave us a touch screen on our fridge with the intention of having us surf the net in our kitchen while we cook. Convergence is all well and good, but I don't want a web interface and touch screen built into my sneakers, regardless of whether it's possible or not. It needs to be useful or in demand for convergence to be worthwhile. Having said that, I can see this market being saturated with younger teens using it to play MUSHs and the like.
Be assured, this is not a flame. I'd suggest you should read Foucalt's Pendulum by Umberto Eco though... it relates almost directly to what you're talking about.
This isn't in the book, but basically, if you have two sets of an infinite number of variables, you'll be able to find some amazing coincidences between them. For example:
My age is 23. Multiply my age by two, as I have a sister (so there are two siblings in my family). Two times my age is 46. Now subtract four, which the sum of my eyes and ears (representing all the knowledge I hear and see). That leaves my with 42. Which, amazingly enough, is the meaning of life (obligatory Douglas Adams reference).
On the note of the pyramids being the centre of land mass, I'm not quite sure how you work that out. But I'm also sure that if you pick any number of other locations on the face of the planet, a large number of things will be an equal distance away. For example, if you pick the statue of liberty, you might hypothetically find that paris, addis ababa and perth are all the same distance (approximately) away. Those cities probably don't work, but you get the idea.
Most of the stuff I've read about the pyramids is in the realm of numerology. The problem with numerology (or cabalism) is that you can get anything to mean anything if you look long enough. Anyway, enough blathering:)
Have a read of Foucalt's Pendulum, though - it's a good book.
Don't use monikers. Publish the bofh name, as well as Ws. If you are telling the truth, there's nothing to hide, right? And we'll know to avoid these guys in the future.
This is something that really gets my goat. IT is no different from any other industry. All industries are plagued with people who aren't as skillful as the top 10%, whether you're talking about hiring a secretary through to hiring a CEO. The people who are skillful are getting paid large amounts of money. So what? This is the same anywhere. Are you better than everyone else around you? Move to another company which will pay you more.
Where IT is currently different is that the people who aren't skillful are also getting paid large amounts of money. This will change. IT is a market in transition. Because of huge information asymetries, employers cannot currently tell how much a potential employee is worth. Because of this, low skilled employees will get paid amounts similar to highly skilled (and don't try to tell me that coding in HTML and JScript deserves 60k plus). BUT, I firmly believe that current salaries are unsustainable. The amount of people wanting to move into IT means that supply will increase, driving salaries down. An increase in overall supply will also mean an increase in the supply of quality workers. As IT gradually loses it's mystery to the average CEO / CFO, and as more CEOs and CFOs with some IT experience are promoted (which will happen... the current crop are mainly old economy), information asymetries will decrease, and along with them will salaries.
Knowing how difficult most IT jobs are, the salaries they attract are disproportinaly high in comparison to the skills and experience required. I mean really, do you think a person with two years real experience is worth 80k? I don't. It's just representative that people with 2 years good experience are hard to find and that people don't know what IT is about.
Give it ten years. If you're in the industry now, make your money and get out. If you're moving into the industry now, expect you salary in 10 years to be the same as that accountant next to you, not double his. If you're in it for the money, money can be found anywhere. Better to be in it for the love of the job. Just don't expect your current salary increases to continue. (As an example, the hourly rate for SAP developers around here has droped from $120 an hour to $60 an hour in the space of a year. It does happen).
IT is just the most recent goldmine. It's not sustainable, and I firmly believe that if you're in it for the money, make your money quick.</RANT>
Cost efficiency might not be the only concern consumers have. I know that recent surveys conducted here in Australia have indicated that quite a substantial number of consumers are willing to pay slightly higher rates for environmentally friendly electrcity / gas / whatever. I'm pretty sure that up in Queensland, you can nominate to pay 9c per kilowatt hour compared to 7c per kilowatt hour if you want to use environmentally friendly power sources.
This is a bigger issue where most power sources are environmetally unfriendly, such as coal fired electricity plants. Not sure on this, so don't flame me, but I remember reading somewhere that a coal fired plant puts out more harmful radiation operating normally than an equivalent nuclear power station. I know it's less friendly than hyrdo or solar power. I think it depends significantly on where you're located and what alternative power sources are available.
So Transmeta is buying back it's licenses. This means they have a bucket of cash & would like more control of thier own future.
It doesn't mean that Toshiba or IBM are dropping them as a supplier - just that they'll be a supplier like any other supplier.It doesn't mean Transmeta's technology is any better or worse then it was or seemed to be when IBM & Toshiba bought the licenses awhile ago - it just means that the financial folks at those companies wanted the cash more then the licenses & their supply folks felt comfortable with not having production in-house.This doesn't mean that IBM won't continue to build Transmeta's chips in their plants. IBM builds lots of chips for many companies as a simple supplier. IBM has the foundry capacity & the manufacturing technology to build chips for any number of clients & it brings them a good profit.This does mean that Transmeta will have more freedom in selecting manufacturers and setting prices & directly controlling production.
It doesn't mean that Transmeta won't turn around next year and sell licenses again for either the current set of chips, for a next generation, or for third-party implementations.
Firstly, I think this does not bode well for Transmeta. The fact that Transmeta was able to buy back their licenses means that neither IBM nor Toshiba sees Transmeta as a good return on investment. If the technology was as impressive as the hype would have you believe, Transmeta would have only been able to get the licenses back from Toshiba and IBM by prying them out of their cold, dead hands. Sure, IBM and Toshiba will likely continue to supply devices using the Transmeta chip... but considering they're some of the few firms that have actually seen the thing, it's not a good sign that they want to get rid of their licenses.
I would agree that the technology is no better or worse than when they first bought the licenses. However, I would argue that IBM and Toshiba bought into the hype somewhat too much. While Transmeta may be a great chip, IBM and Toshiba apparently don't see enough return in their investment to prevent them from selling their licenses. Ignoring this is choosing to close your eyes. Transmeta may still be the "killer-app" of chips. But I wouldn't hold your breath.
This isn't flamebait, it's just my opinion. I could easily be wrong. BUT, I think that on a fundamental level it indicates that the hype overtook the actual product.
On a different note, it's "Not much effect", not affect... I can affect your decisions, but my actions will have an effect on you.
I realise that this is probably going to get me flamed all the way to hell, but I'm getting a real sense of frustration at some of the opinions here. Before I being, I want to say that I'm not an MS zealot. I have an MCSE, but also have Caldera on my home machine. I've installed and supported NT and BackOffice, but have also done the same with a few distros / Apache / Sendmail / Samba, etc. I don't feel that I am the be all end all expert in any of the above, but I feel that I have enough experience to comment. I also have a background in economics and government policy, so I can appreciate the MS competition arguments being thrown around. On the fun stuff now...
It seems a lot of the/. audience feels that people should not own or operate computers unless they know how to use them. Having done support on and off for a few years (including home training and phone support), I can understand where this frustration comes from. But don't you think your mechanic feels the same way every time someone takes their car in to be fixed and he / she discovers that the car hasn't been serviced for 15 years? And don't you think your plumber feels the same way when he / she comes to your house to fix your pipes after you pour foodstuffs down your sink?
What I'm trying to say is that it's a fact of life that people prioritise what they want to learn. It's also true that most people do not want to know how their computer / OS works. Given that most of the people on/. (myself included) love technology and enjoy being geeks, this concept seems foreign and possibly even distasteful. It's reality, though. Now is it fair to argue that these people should never use computers, because they don't know how to use them to a high standard? Do you know fully how your car works? I don't. Do you know how your house is wired? I don't. Do you know how your pipes work? I don't. But I still like to use all of them. I'm not sure that I'll ever learn how they work fully... I can use them as much as I want to. When my pipes break, I call a plumber.
Bringing it back to MS now, how many companies in the world do you know that are completely altruistic? The basic truth is that 99% of companies out there are there to make a profit, not to further society. If you want to judge MS because they acted unfairly in the market, fair enough. If you want to judge them because they produce buggy software, that's not fair. They have no obligation to produce perfect software. In fact, they have no obligation to produce anything at all. They produce it because they can sell it and make a profit. Comments that say MS should be broken up because they produce bad software miss the point. It can be argued that MS should be broken up because of their unfair market advantage, but there's not enough space to go fully through all the possible arguments here. However, arguing that they do not innovate is not a fair argument. How MS is run is up the Ballmer, Gates, and the rest of the admin at MS. Making a judgement that MS should be broken up because it isn't altruistic of because it doesn't innovate is unfair. Where MS went wrong is when it started buying out its competitors. By doing so, in my opinion it crossed the line into unfair market practices. Directly hating MS for not producing perfect / innovative products is not fair. There's nothing that says they have to.
MS might not have been the first company to produce a GUI. They might not have been a perfect company. However, I would seriously argue that if it weren't for MS producing an easy to use GUI, computers would never have become as mainstream as they have. Apple did well. In many ways, Apple did better. But Apple blew off their market base when they kept changing their designs and eliminating backwards compatability in hardware. And before someone brings this up, yes I know MS doesn't make the hardware, and yes I know software was compatible between all of the Apple II series. But let's see you run a program from the Lisa on an iMac. I can still run programs from Dos 1.0 on my Win 98 machine. MS has always tried to keep backwards compatability and so keep their market.
Some of the posts I've read say that Linux is an alternative for Grandma to use. This is true, as long as her grandson is an IT guru. For the rest, who have no family support, Windows is going to win every time. Not only that, but seeing as how Windows and computers are so common now, many other technological offshoots such as email, web sites, and instant messaging to name a few, are also common. Yes, these may have grown up without MS. But if MS weren't there, we'd be dealing with a monopoly from Apple. And if IBM didn't get hit with an Anti-trust suit, we'd be dealing with an IBM monopoly now. What I'm trying to say is that MS did bring the industry forward. Maybe another company could have done the same. But, they didn't. Gates is a brilliant businessman (by saying that, I can already see the flames being generated). If you disagree, read a bit more about his history. He's not perfect, but he sure can turn a profit. Anyone who feels differently only has to look at the size of MS now. He may not be the worlds best coder, and he may not be the biggest altruist, but he managed to make his company the industry giant. You have to respect that. And in becoming the industry giant and making computers look easier to use, computers have become mainstream. If it weren't for that, IT wouldn't be as big as it is now. And no, I don't work for MS;)
I don't agree with how MS has taken over their competitors and by doing so, stifled competition and innovation. However, I do appreciate how they made computers mainstream, partly through massive advertising campaigns and partly through making an OS that's easy to use. Anyone who argues that a newbie can sit down at a blank computer and install linux and understand what is going on is kidding themselves. Windows isn't much better, but it is a little better.
I use linux, I like linux, but my productivity is higher using Windows. I get small problems, but they're easy to fix. Every time I've ever had a problem with linux, it's taken me minimum 30 min to fix, sometimes a few days. While I love learning, the time that I'm learning is unproductive. Computers / OSs / applications / languages are only tools, and it's important to keep that in mind. If another tool lets you do the job quicker, you should use that tool. If the investment in time is greater than the potential payout, don't use that tool. For the majority of computer users, linux fits in that category (at the moment, anyway). Anyone can sit down at a windows machine and use it. Not everyone can sit down at a linux machine and use it. And there's the difference.
I love linux because it challenges me and lets me control my computer. I use windows because I can be productive.
It seems Dvorak has missed the point yet again... it's partly the lack of choice that has seen Microsoft in the hot seat with the DOJ. A lack of competition leads to market dominance, leads to a lack of dynamic efficiency and a loss of innovation, and eventually leads to products which stagnate. What reason is there to improve on your product if there's no-one to compete with? Might as well keep re-releasing the same product, just with different version numbers....
The fact that Linux has so many window managers is an advantage, rather than a limitation. It ensures competition, and ensures that development will continue to happen.
I think the general opinion is that Dvorak writes not out of knowledge, but out of sensationalism. Look at the reaction he's got out of us;)
"No silicon heaven? But where would all the calculators go?!"
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure on this? My copy of the section reads like so:
116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
I don't have anything about it being unconstitutional to question someone's claim to a faith or ask them to demonstrate their faith as proof. Maybe it's been amended and I have a really old version ...
Could you post your version of the section?
I never said putting down Jedi makes sense. :) I just think it's stupid to threaten fines for doing it.
The fine is for deliberately falsifying information on the census. You'd get the same fine for claiming to be an 80 year old when you were actually 20. Or for claiming to have 6 children when you actually have 2. It's just a rigid interpretation of the law.
Sure (assuming they would have put something down besides Jedi, of course). But I doubt the number of people would might actually do it would actually have much of a statistical affect, given the total size of the population - even assuming that they all put down their actual religion instead.
It could have an effect, as data is collected at a statistical divison level (roughly equivalent to one postcode and I haven't used the right term - can't remember what it is). A large number of people in that area claiming to be a jedi might not have a significant effect when examined nationally, but could screw up data at the divison level. For example, people who receive a lot of chain mail (like university students), can answer the census (like university students) and all live in roughly the same area (like university students) might be able to have a significant effect on their divison.
I couldn't really say that any one division of Christianity is in the majority. There are Anglican schools, Protestant schools and also non-denominational schools. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to go to any of these, but if the school follows a particular religion, you're normally expected to go to chapel (normally 15min a week) and attend religion, a class like any other.
While it sounds like indoctrination, the reality is most people really don't care. I attended a private Anglican school, and no-one I knew really took chapel or religion seriously. It was just something that you had to turn up to and be quiet. From what I've heard, the care factor in public schools is even lower. Your results from the religion class don't count towards University entrance unless you'll be going into Theology at a Christian college. So, most people don't bother.
Personally, it made no difference to my education. I don't think I lost anything (the overall quality of education being very low anyway), and it exposed me to a different way of life. If you don't want to attend a school that is run like this, there are many other non-denominational schools. It's up to the school how they decide to operate.
Other religions (such as Islam, Buddhism, etc) aren't represented as commonly, but that's more a factor of distribution of population than anything else. I don't claim to be an expert on this, it's just what I know from my limited experience. From what I understand, public funds go to projects aimed at building a sense of community, hence the religious organisations. As far as I know, the government doesn't have preference towards a particular religion. Whatever is in the majority may get some money. Also, religions are not the only thing assessed - many other factors are also taken into account when trying to apportion funds (culture, ethnicity, nationality, etc).
Insert the usual disclaimers here: YMMV, IANAL, ISFMEO (I speak from my experience only), etc.
Touche - I used a bad example. A better example would be extra funding going to an Anglican Public school due to a large number of people putting Anglican down as their religion.
Or, extra funding going to a Christian Youth Community Centre because there a large number of Christians in the immediate area. Places of worship is a bad example. The people who have input into the distribution of funds have more sense than that. Mea culpa.
Sorry, but read my post again. I said that you had to show:
a clear belief structure; and / or
that you live your life by those precepts.
No argument - formalised religions have got it easy here. But, you might also be able to argue succsessfully that Jedi has a formal belief structure. If you really believe it, give it a go.
The Jedi situation wouldn't have been an issue had it not been for the email circulating. The big problem is that the email encourages people to fuck with the system for the sole purpose of annoying people. If you're really a Jedi, then you get lumped in with the people who are doing it just to annoy. Sucks to be you. Think of it as profiling. :)
Your second point is correct, and what they'll likely do. They'll probably just drop the jedi responses and look at the remainder. However, it would be easier for them if they didn't have to do this, and it could actually improve the statistical robustness of the responses (greater sample size etc). Hence they're trying to encourage people not to do it.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that they'll actually try to enforce this. Still, I'm not keen enough to find out by getting a $1,000 fine. This isn't a fight with a purpose or a good outcome. It's just to piss the ABS off. Whee.
116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
This is true, but the Census and Statistics Act 1905-1973 doesn't prevent you from believing what you want. You have the right not to declare what religion you practice. However, if you choose to answer the question, you must answer it honestly. If you can honestly answer that you are a practicing Jedi (and show proof thereof), the ABS can't fine you.
This is confusing two issues - one is the freedom to practice religion, one is lying on a government form. You have the right to practice any religion you want, you don't have the right to lie to the government.
On a different note, S.52(xi) of the constitution gives the federal government the right to make laws concerning the census. Just a bit of trivia ...
The ABS looks at the census data prior to anonymising to prevent people falsifying information and to make sure information has been entered correctly. Once all the data is confirmed, they strip all identifying information unless you specify that you're willing to have your personal details revealed after a waiting period (in the order of 100 years) to aid researchers and academics. If you're outside the ABS, you can't get access to the identifying information. Once the data has been confirmed, the identifying information is permantently stripped (unless you specify otherwise).
No problems with confidentiality.
Unlike most people here, I actually contacted the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics, the organisation that does the census to ask about this. The $1,000 fine for putting false information on the census is an actual penalty. The key issue, though, is knowingly providing false or misleading information. You don't have to answer the religion question if you don't want to. However, if you do ansewr it, you must answer truthfully. Jedi would be a legitimate answer if you can demonstrate a clear belief structure or if you can show that you try to live your life according to those precepts.
The information about religion is used by the government for distribution of funds. For example, a area surveyed with a high number of Orthodox Jews will see a lot of community funding going to Orthodox Synagogues. People who deliberately falsify their religion interferes with this process (making it more difficult for the ABS, which is only trying to do their best).
This isn't a case of 'the man' trying to shut people down. It's a case of a bunch of idiots thinking they're protesting (because they received chain mail that's been circultating since the NZ census - duh) when all they're actually doing is screwing up funding for other people in their community. If you don't want to answer, don't. What's the point? It doesn't matter how many people put Jedi down, it's not recognised as a religion. Before the devil's advocates come out the woodwork, it is not a religion that people currently follow. People could probably build a belief structure around it, but I doubt you could show active Jedi belief. You might as well say Trekkies are religious.
For the record, the person I spoke to at the ABS was very helpful and friendly.
emulate
v. tr. emulated, emulating, emulates.
To strive to equal or excel, especially through imitation: an older pupil whose accomplishments and style I emulated.
To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with. See Synonyms at rival.
Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.
The key phrase here is imitate the function. Native code is not imitating the function of another system, it is the same function implemented on a different platform. The system does not imitate or copy, it is on the same level. Think equivalent, not imitation.
Accenture is a new marketing name of Arthur Andersen consulting.
Andersen Consulting, not Arthur Andersen Consulting - Arthur Andersen (now called Andersen) now offers consultancy services as well. They compete against each other. Go figure. Oedipus would have a field day.
I wonder if this is a troll, but I'll reply anyway. My understanding is this (using a windows emulator on Linux and a native port on Linux and bearing in mind I'm not a professional programmer):
Windows Emuation
Windows programming call -> Windows emulator (translates call to Linux specific language) -> Linux API -> Hardware
Native Implementation
Windows programming call -> Linux implementation of Windows API - Hardware
The native implementation is one step less than emulation, hence (if both are optimised) it will always be faster. Wine is a native implementation, VMWare is an emulator. There's the difference.
I'm a bit late here, but your definition could be a little better. Industry collusion is only really feasible when the number of industry participants is quite low, similar to an oligopoly. Industry collusion isn't possible under perfect competition due to the number of agents needed. If you have an oligopoly, you don't have a monopoly.
/. get wrong. People seem to spell by how they pronounce words here. Personal pet peeve of mine.
If the oligopoly organises itself, it can become a cartel and exhibit monopolistic powers. However, it's still not a monopoly. A monopoly is a single seller of goods. The RIAA is an association of firms, and therefore fits more closely with the definition of a cartel.
I think anti-trust laws in the US still apply (I'm in Australia), but you're dealing with a different situation to what you described. And I think it's "copyright" not "copywrite". A copywriter is one who writes copy. A copyright is the legal right etc.
And I *know* it's lose, not loose. You loosen your tie to stop it cutting circulation to your head, you lose your wallet after a big night out. This seems to be one that most people on
I would argue that in an ideal world, people would gain equal utility from spiritual and emotional benefits as from materialistic pleasures. However, I would also argue that most people in a capitalistic society, by definition, put high value on materialistic goods.
Preventing people from buying their DVD players is therefore reducing their quality of living. Also, please note I'm not saying what either yourself or I classify as defining our standard of living. Personally, I put more value on happiness and enjoying what I do than on my salary (I don't even own a DVD player). But, I think most people are highly concerned with what they can buy with their money.
Boycotting may work (as may unions), but do you want to take a cut in your standard of living? It's great when people say that they really want the quality of living in third world countries to improve, but I often wonder whether people are willing to take the cut in their quality of living in order to make it come true.
Think of it this way. You boycott, forcing the company in question to pay more for labour overseas, improving their quality of living. However, to do this they need to cover higher costs in the form of wages. They then pass on the additional costs to you, as you've clearly expressed that you do not approve of their current practices. So, prices have gone up. Now apply this across the board to all companies. Two things may happen. First, all companies apply this scenario and prices go up across the board. You now can't buy as much as you used to, making your standard of living decrease while their standard of living increases. You get a warm fuzzy feeling, but can't buy your DVD player.
Two, all companies but one decide to raise their prices due to market pressure. However, one company doesn't and is able to undercut all their competitors. A significant portion of the market would probably buy from them, simply because they're cheaper. So, other companies are forced to cut costs in order to effectively compete (or else go out of business). One way to cut costs is to move to where they can pay lower wages, taking you back to where you were in the first place.
Sweatshops are evil, but do you think the majority of western consumers (who have the money) would be willing to lower their standard of living to eliminate them? I may be cynical, but I think not. People really seem to love their DVD players, iPacs and other gadgets.
Yes, but convergence also gave us a touch screen on our fridge with the intention of having us surf the net in our kitchen while we cook. Convergence is all well and good, but I don't want a web interface and touch screen built into my sneakers, regardless of whether it's possible or not. It needs to be useful or in demand for convergence to be worthwhile. Having said that, I can see this market being saturated with younger teens using it to play MUSHs and the like.
Be assured, this is not a flame. I'd suggest you should read Foucalt's Pendulum by Umberto Eco though ... it relates almost directly to what you're talking about.
:)
This isn't in the book, but basically, if you have two sets of an infinite number of variables, you'll be able to find some amazing coincidences between them. For example:
My age is 23. Multiply my age by two, as I have a sister (so there are two siblings in my family). Two times my age is 46. Now subtract four, which the sum of my eyes and ears (representing all the knowledge I hear and see). That leaves my with 42. Which, amazingly enough, is the meaning of life (obligatory Douglas Adams reference).
On the note of the pyramids being the centre of land mass, I'm not quite sure how you work that out. But I'm also sure that if you pick any number of other locations on the face of the planet, a large number of things will be an equal distance away. For example, if you pick the statue of liberty, you might hypothetically find that paris, addis ababa and perth are all the same distance (approximately) away. Those cities probably don't work, but you get the idea.
Most of the stuff I've read about the pyramids is in the realm of numerology. The problem with numerology (or cabalism) is that you can get anything to mean anything if you look long enough. Anyway, enough blathering
Have a read of Foucalt's Pendulum, though - it's a good book.
Quoth the poster:
Why then, pray tell, have you posted as an AC? ;)
This is something that really gets my goat. IT is no different from any other industry. All industries are plagued with people who aren't as skillful as the top 10%, whether you're talking about hiring a secretary through to hiring a CEO. The people who are skillful are getting paid large amounts of money. So what? This is the same anywhere. Are you better than everyone else around you? Move to another company which will pay you more.
... the current crop are mainly old economy), information asymetries will decrease, and along with them will salaries.
Where IT is currently different is that the people who aren't skillful are also getting paid large amounts of money. This will change. IT is a market in transition. Because of huge information asymetries, employers cannot currently tell how much a potential employee is worth. Because of this, low skilled employees will get paid amounts similar to highly skilled (and don't try to tell me that coding in HTML and JScript deserves 60k plus). BUT, I firmly believe that current salaries are unsustainable. The amount of people wanting to move into IT means that supply will increase, driving salaries down. An increase in overall supply will also mean an increase in the supply of quality workers. As IT gradually loses it's mystery to the average CEO / CFO, and as more CEOs and CFOs with some IT experience are promoted (which will happen
Knowing how difficult most IT jobs are, the salaries they attract are disproportinaly high in comparison to the skills and experience required. I mean really, do you think a person with two years real experience is worth 80k? I don't. It's just representative that people with 2 years good experience are hard to find and that people don't know what IT is about.
Give it ten years. If you're in the industry now, make your money and get out. If you're moving into the industry now, expect you salary in 10 years to be the same as that accountant next to you, not double his. If you're in it for the money, money can be found anywhere. Better to be in it for the love of the job. Just don't expect your current salary increases to continue. (As an example, the hourly rate for SAP developers around here has droped from $120 an hour to $60 an hour in the space of a year. It does happen).
IT is just the most recent goldmine. It's not sustainable, and I firmly believe that if you're in it for the money, make your money quick.</RANT>
There. I feel better now.
Cost efficiency might not be the only concern consumers have. I know that recent surveys conducted here in Australia have indicated that quite a substantial number of consumers are willing to pay slightly higher rates for environmentally friendly electrcity / gas / whatever. I'm pretty sure that up in Queensland, you can nominate to pay 9c per kilowatt hour compared to 7c per kilowatt hour if you want to use environmentally friendly power sources.
This is a bigger issue where most power sources are environmetally unfriendly, such as coal fired electricity plants. Not sure on this, so don't flame me, but I remember reading somewhere that a coal fired plant puts out more harmful radiation operating normally than an equivalent nuclear power station. I know it's less friendly than hyrdo or solar power. I think it depends significantly on where you're located and what alternative power sources are available.
Still, time will tell.
Quoth the poster:
Firstly, I think this does not bode well for Transmeta. The fact that Transmeta was able to buy back their licenses means that neither IBM nor Toshiba sees Transmeta as a good return on investment. If the technology was as impressive as the hype would have you believe, Transmeta would have only been able to get the licenses back from Toshiba and IBM by prying them out of their cold, dead hands. Sure, IBM and Toshiba will likely continue to supply devices using the Transmeta chip ... but considering they're some of the few firms that have actually seen the thing, it's not a good sign that they want to get rid of their licenses.
I would agree that the technology is no better or worse than when they first bought the licenses. However, I would argue that IBM and Toshiba bought into the hype somewhat too much. While Transmeta may be a great chip, IBM and Toshiba apparently don't see enough return in their investment to prevent them from selling their licenses. Ignoring this is choosing to close your eyes. Transmeta may still be the "killer-app" of chips. But I wouldn't hold your breath.
This isn't flamebait, it's just my opinion. I could easily be wrong. BUT, I think that on a fundamental level it indicates that the hype overtook the actual product.
On a different note, it's "Not much effect", not affect ... I can affect your decisions, but my actions will have an effect on you.
I realise that this is probably going to get me flamed all the way to hell, but I'm getting a real sense of frustration at some of the opinions here. Before I being, I want to say that I'm not an MS zealot. I have an MCSE, but also have Caldera on my home machine. I've installed and supported NT and BackOffice, but have also done the same with a few distros / Apache / Sendmail / Samba, etc. I don't feel that I am the be all end all expert in any of the above, but I feel that I have enough experience to comment. I also have a background in economics and government policy, so I can appreciate the MS competition arguments being thrown around. On the fun stuff now ...
/. audience feels that people should not own or operate computers unless they know how to use them. Having done support on and off for a few years (including home training and phone support), I can understand where this frustration comes from. But don't you think your mechanic feels the same way every time someone takes their car in to be fixed and he / she discovers that the car hasn't been serviced for 15 years? And don't you think your plumber feels the same way when he / she comes to your house to fix your pipes after you pour foodstuffs down your sink?
/. (myself included) love technology and enjoy being geeks, this concept seems foreign and possibly even distasteful. It's reality, though. Now is it fair to argue that these people should never use computers, because they don't know how to use them to a high standard? Do you know fully how your car works? I don't. Do you know how your house is wired? I don't. Do you know how your pipes work? I don't. But I still like to use all of them. I'm not sure that I'll ever learn how they work fully ... I can use them as much as I want to. When my pipes break, I call a plumber.
;)
It seems a lot of the
What I'm trying to say is that it's a fact of life that people prioritise what they want to learn. It's also true that most people do not want to know how their computer / OS works. Given that most of the people on
Bringing it back to MS now, how many companies in the world do you know that are completely altruistic? The basic truth is that 99% of companies out there are there to make a profit, not to further society. If you want to judge MS because they acted unfairly in the market, fair enough. If you want to judge them because they produce buggy software, that's not fair. They have no obligation to produce perfect software. In fact, they have no obligation to produce anything at all. They produce it because they can sell it and make a profit. Comments that say MS should be broken up because they produce bad software miss the point. It can be argued that MS should be broken up because of their unfair market advantage, but there's not enough space to go fully through all the possible arguments here. However, arguing that they do not innovate is not a fair argument. How MS is run is up the Ballmer, Gates, and the rest of the admin at MS. Making a judgement that MS should be broken up because it isn't altruistic of because it doesn't innovate is unfair. Where MS went wrong is when it started buying out its competitors. By doing so, in my opinion it crossed the line into unfair market practices. Directly hating MS for not producing perfect / innovative products is not fair. There's nothing that says they have to.
MS might not have been the first company to produce a GUI. They might not have been a perfect company. However, I would seriously argue that if it weren't for MS producing an easy to use GUI, computers would never have become as mainstream as they have. Apple did well. In many ways, Apple did better. But Apple blew off their market base when they kept changing their designs and eliminating backwards compatability in hardware. And before someone brings this up, yes I know MS doesn't make the hardware, and yes I know software was compatible between all of the Apple II series. But let's see you run a program from the Lisa on an iMac. I can still run programs from Dos 1.0 on my Win 98 machine. MS has always tried to keep backwards compatability and so keep their market.
Some of the posts I've read say that Linux is an alternative for Grandma to use. This is true, as long as her grandson is an IT guru. For the rest, who have no family support, Windows is going to win every time. Not only that, but seeing as how Windows and computers are so common now, many other technological offshoots such as email, web sites, and instant messaging to name a few, are also common. Yes, these may have grown up without MS. But if MS weren't there, we'd be dealing with a monopoly from Apple. And if IBM didn't get hit with an Anti-trust suit, we'd be dealing with an IBM monopoly now. What I'm trying to say is that MS did bring the industry forward. Maybe another company could have done the same. But, they didn't. Gates is a brilliant businessman (by saying that, I can already see the flames being generated). If you disagree, read a bit more about his history. He's not perfect, but he sure can turn a profit. Anyone who feels differently only has to look at the size of MS now. He may not be the worlds best coder, and he may not be the biggest altruist, but he managed to make his company the industry giant. You have to respect that. And in becoming the industry giant and making computers look easier to use, computers have become mainstream. If it weren't for that, IT wouldn't be as big as it is now. And no, I don't work for MS
I don't agree with how MS has taken over their competitors and by doing so, stifled competition and innovation. However, I do appreciate how they made computers mainstream, partly through massive advertising campaigns and partly through making an OS that's easy to use. Anyone who argues that a newbie can sit down at a blank computer and install linux and understand what is going on is kidding themselves. Windows isn't much better, but it is a little better.
I use linux, I like linux, but my productivity is higher using Windows. I get small problems, but they're easy to fix. Every time I've ever had a problem with linux, it's taken me minimum 30 min to fix, sometimes a few days. While I love learning, the time that I'm learning is unproductive. Computers / OSs / applications / languages are only tools, and it's important to keep that in mind. If another tool lets you do the job quicker, you should use that tool. If the investment in time is greater than the potential payout, don't use that tool. For the majority of computer users, linux fits in that category (at the moment, anyway). Anyone can sit down at a windows machine and use it. Not everyone can sit down at a linux machine and use it. And there's the difference.
I love linux because it challenges me and lets me control my computer. I use windows because I can be productive.
Hope that wasn't too confusing.
It seems Dvorak has missed the point yet again
The fact that Linux has so many window managers is an advantage, rather than a limitation. It ensures competition, and ensures that development will continue to happen.
I think the general opinion is that Dvorak writes not out of knowledge, but out of sensationalism. Look at the reaction he's got out of us
"No silicon heaven? But where would all the calculators go?!"