*Bush Snr, in comparison with that snit of a son, is a paragon of virtue. At the time, he seemed a bit of a preppy idiot. In retrospect, he chose his war-policy wisely. Action in WW2 may well have tempered his policy. And for the better.
While they (and I use the 'they' widely, from the Administration down to it's lackeys) call the rest of us cowards and unpatriotic, even by implication, for not toeing *their* party line, the large majority of the neocons themselves stepped smartly around their call-up when they could have gone to war, done their duty.
Most, no, *all* of the current US Administration have never experienced war, even with conscription. Bush? Didn't Bush sit his time out in a Texas Air National Guard unit? Indeed, Dick Cheney did all he could *not* to go to Vietnam. Not a good example of giving your all for your country. If Kerry shows us nothing else, then having fought for your country means diddly-squat if you aren't on the right side. And I thought Republicans considered patriotism teh win? I mean, even the Canadia^H^H^HAustralians fought in 'Nam.
These are good points. Amongst the insurgents are ex-members of the Iraqi armed forces: they know every inch of the buildings. Plus, the Iraqi services to those building have been infiltrated. It's their territory, they were born there, they know every inch. Just read the stories about the US snipers. The Iraqis have the home advantage here, plus plenty of foreign militia to waste.
As to the mortar fire, practice makes perfect (^_^)
This foundation is a nice little earner, net investment income:
2004: 1,421,334 2005: 2,632,002
That's almost doubled in 2 years - is that Buffet's (or his people's)input? Where do I sign up? +1 for accounts (I note they depart from the GAAP), -1 for any legal structure.
Part of this "trust fund" is definitely an investment club which I would say is mutually exclusive to a philanthropic organisation. As I said, BillG and WarrenB are definitely trying to have their cake and eat it.
Dearie dear. Ad hominem attacks for asking something reasonable? Astroturfing for Gate/Buffet per chance. Or do you live Multi-Millionaires row? GTFO.
The problem with your little scenario is that there is no legal structure to the Bill Gates "Foundation". Zippo. None. Da nada. Please tell me, I'm interested. I notice that you don't refute this point.
In the UK, charities have to account for what comes in and what goes out. In fact, the last time I was on a charity board, we had to file accounts with both the UK Treasuries Commission and we had to be a limited company, with the books balanced by a properly certified accountant and accounts filed with Companies house. We also had to conform with the Charities Law.
Now Bill Gates can do WTF he wants with his money, but if he wants to tell me that he's doing good, 100%, gorblimey, then publish the books. If he or Buffet has nothing to hide, then the Foundation should publish their books, have independant auditors look over their books, show us where the money is going, how much is spent on administration, on junkets etc etc. Keep a good man honest. It's good governance - the sort of thing that we the First World have been preaching to the Third World for a while now. If everything is above board, then I really will call Gates a good man.
Reading the Gates Foundation website, it would appear that all is hunky-dory. Lots of feel-good stories about funding various feel-good projects. It does read as if the Gates have turned over a new leaf. Yet their guiding principles leave a lot to be desired. For example, "philanthropy" is only part of their aim, and they report only those parts of their operation that *are philanthopic. Could it be that reporting "oh we invest in " would tarnish their fledgling's reputation? If the two aims did not conflict, why not report their operations in toto? Why not adopt a legal framework for their operations which would go some way to clarifying their operations? What have they got to hide? Even ENRON gave a better account of their operations than this. So now, when I read articles like this, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It smacks of being under-hand. Bill Gates - and I believe it is he who sets the tenor of the foundation - is, in my eyes, trying to have his cake and eat it. That's the crux of the problem.
FWIW. I don't particularly mind investment in big multinationals - my morals aren't that high-minded and occasionally they do good - but don't multinationals receive enough Gubmint aid already? The long list includes Aribus, British Aerospace, ELF, Boeing etc etc etc etc. Each sit at the tax-trough day-in-day-out. The only reason for the Gates Foundation to invest in these big companies *is* profit. Now their "guiding principles" don't preclude this but, really, they - and no one else - shouldn't be surprised if others look askance at the grand total of their operations. Currently, it looks like to me that the Foundation is their to make the Gates and Buffet look good. Nothing more.
This seems to be a speicies of troll crying out that Microsoft "are being punished for being successful". No, they're being punished for being a monopoly, for rigging the market, for making dubious deals.
As in "too successful"... when have Americans started liking monopolies? I thought that was an anathema to the free-market. But, hey, it's your market. I just wish the Imperialists wouldn't thrust their idea of a "free market" onto the rest of us.
I take the opposing view. The markets are moral, and we have regulators to make sure the markets behave themselves within limits. Microsoft is an object lesson for regulators, o'wise they'll find some shit monopoly clogging up the pathways of business, demanding tax from all and sundry, holding back the reins of what America wants to be. *AA and Microsoft, they're made from the same cloth.
Yes, they got into trouble for bundling but it misses the point every time. The secret sauce that Microsoft uses is to strong-arm the OEMs into bundling windows with PCs, espeicially for consumers. I'm also thinking that the Windows Tax is levied even if you buy Linux on a Dell. This is the lynch-pin of Microsoft domination, without it all their other strategies whither on the vine. Without bundling of windows with new pcs, the bundling of IE (and all the other sofware), the resistance against inter-operability, the mysterious file formats etc wither on the vine. I've been disappointed that *none of the investigations I've read about have gone after the OEM-Microsoft link. Break that, and you'll have a free-market again.
I think the Office XML format style is a play straight out of IBM's hand-book: make the standard complex and incomprehensible, and the little players - that's you - will find it hard to compete. In a way, that's a good sign: Microsoft is now lumbering into middle-age, hoist on their own evermore complex petard.
The other thing about middle-age is that every little technological step away from their established base-line is treated as a revolution. In reality, it's no such thing, just a small stepping stone to shouting "pesky kids. Get off my lawn." Or maybe they've reached that stage already.
I know most people regard HR as a waste of space, but at least they do provide a safety net for whinging about yr boss. There's nothing to say that *they won't tattle-tale, still, I've found them fairly safe. I work for a company that reduced it's HR dept to 0:-/
By the same token, they should also ban the HR person from marrying the team leader:-/
The company I work for does this. Development is done along the trunk. Releases are built from branches, and each distribution has a different set of XML that controls what components go with each distribution. Branches get patched, the distribution get built. In theory, we have a release manager for each project. The main product can have 2 or 3 versions in the same distribution.
We currently build something like 70 releases per night.
We're also testing distribution smoke-testing with the distribution installation process tested every night. This is in addition to automated unit testing. We want to track the changes as well, so that release notes are produced automatically.
None of this is as complex as a Linux distribution; we're only a small company which is why we've automated the process.
those statements should be engraved on the mess that is the O'Reilly book of Perl. And on CPAN.
The problem with the first statement is that "my" was introduced *after local, so when faced with suck-arse code written under 4, you have no choice but to resign.
My advice to any programmer tempted to write a "quick script" (particularly in Perl): Don't Fucking Do It. Go read a book, go learn VBscript. Anything. Just think of the poor bastard who has to maintain the crap you are about to perpetrate.
The "I-have-too-many-ways-to-do-one-thing" that is perl philosophy leaves the programmer with a load of synonyms to remember - so, yeah it's harder to maintain than say python. Oh, and what about
local and my
2 keywords whose function seem to be similar, but which are not.
Oh yeah, and the $_. Was this language written to be obtuse? I think it was.
I know of more than one pile-of-shit 30,000 line programs written in perl.
fix OTHER people's code. It may not be glamorous, it may not bring in the big payola but hey, it has it's own charms. And it makes you write more robust code as well.
The US-UK "speicial relationship" is pretty much a walking shell. We have no influence with the US. The UK may have something like "favoured client status" with the USA but little more. There have been precious few times in the past 20 years when the UK has pursued it's interest *against the interest of the USA, or indeed, pursuaded the USA to act in favour of the UK's interests against it's own. 1982 is probably the only significant event in the last 50 years that this happened. The invasion of Grenada by the USA is nice little counter-example where Reagan rode rough-shod over the wishes and interests of the UK - Thatcher only found out about the invasion on the morning of the invasionb. Vietnam is one of the few occasions when a British PM went against US interests - Wilson refused to send British troops to support US forces in Vietnam. Blair has not changed or altered USA policy in a significant manner. Rather, as in "Yo Blair", he's acted as a courtier for the Bush regime. Indeed, it could be argued that Blair's delusion is that there is a "speicial relationship", allowing the UK to have an illusory place at the Big Table when it's clear that US Foreign Policy proceeds un-hindered by the UK or any other influence. It is bad for us that we have this illusion of influence - the UK ambassador to washington in the 90's/00s banned the phrase "speicial relationship " because of the delusions of grandeur and influence it fostered.
The point of the Suez, in "speicial relationship" terms was that the US was not going to forgo it's interests for that of the UK and France, even though the wiki article says (without support) that Eisenhower regretted his postition later. In contrast, and interestingly the only nation to come out "clean" from Suez crisis, the Israeli relationship with the US *is* a speicial relationship. It can be argued that Israel has convinced the US to act against it's own interests and for Israel. The US supply of military technology goes unchecked. This is the mark of a true relationship.
As for Da Bomb, in 1946, the British were denied access to US atomic secrets, even though we had helped develop the bomb. The subsequent treaties of cooperation have more than a little element of US control. For example, the UK *leases* the Trident delivery vehicles from the US Navy, and the war-heads are made from US designs. I wonder how the EULA on those missles reads?
Slashdot Mirror
*Bush Snr, in comparison with that snit of a son, is a paragon of virtue. At the time, he seemed a bit of a preppy idiot. In retrospect, he chose his war-policy wisely. Action in WW2 may well have tempered his policy. And for the better.
While they (and I use the 'they' widely, from the Administration down to it's lackeys) call the rest of us cowards and unpatriotic, even by implication, for not toeing *their* party line, the large majority of the neocons themselves stepped smartly around their call-up when they could have gone to war, done their duty.
Most, no, *all* of the current US Administration have never experienced war, even with conscription. Bush? Didn't Bush sit his time out in a Texas Air National Guard unit? Indeed, Dick Cheney did all he could *not* to go to Vietnam. Not a good example of giving your all for your country. If Kerry shows us nothing else, then having fought for your country means diddly-squat if you aren't on the right side. And I thought Republicans considered patriotism teh win? I mean, even the Canadia^H^H^HAustralians fought in 'Nam.
These are good points. Amongst the insurgents are ex-members of the Iraqi armed forces: they know every inch of the buildings. Plus, the Iraqi services to those building have been infiltrated. It's their territory, they were born there, they know every inch. Just read the stories about the US snipers. The Iraqis have the home advantage here, plus plenty of foreign militia to waste.
As to the mortar fire, practice makes perfect (^_^)
That'll be the Saudis who planned and executed 9/11. So who are we invading? Oh, hang on ...
Where is the hunt for Bin Ladin now?
Nothing more. Marketing to make themselves appear green, after all where's the problem?
This goes for Ford too, although bankruptcy looms as they sink into complacency.
This foundation is a nice little earner, net investment income:
2004: 1,421,334
2005: 2,632,002
That's almost doubled in 2 years - is that Buffet's (or his people's)input? Where do I sign up? +1 for accounts (I note they depart from the GAAP), -1 for any legal structure.
Part of this "trust fund" is definitely an investment club which I would say is mutually exclusive to a philanthropic organisation. As I said, BillG and WarrenB are definitely trying to have their cake and eat it.
Dearie dear. Ad hominem attacks for asking something reasonable? Astroturfing for Gate/Buffet per chance. Or do you live Multi-Millionaires row? GTFO.
The problem with your little scenario is that there is no legal structure to the Bill Gates "Foundation". Zippo. None. Da nada. Please tell me, I'm interested. I notice that you don't refute this point.
In the UK, charities have to account for what comes in and what goes out. In fact, the last time I was on a charity board, we had to file accounts with both the UK Treasuries Commission and we had to be a limited company, with the books balanced by a properly certified accountant and accounts filed with Companies house. We also had to conform with the Charities Law.
Now Bill Gates can do WTF he wants with his money, but if he wants to tell me that he's doing good, 100%, gorblimey, then publish the books. If he or Buffet has nothing to hide, then the Foundation should publish their books, have independant auditors look over their books, show us where the money is going, how much is spent on administration, on junkets etc etc. Keep a good man honest. It's good governance - the sort of thing that we the First World have been preaching to the Third World for a while now. If everything is above board, then I really will call Gates a good man.
Reading the Gates Foundation website, it would appear that all is hunky-dory. Lots of feel-good stories about funding various feel-good projects. It does read as if the Gates have turned over a new leaf. Yet their guiding principles leave a lot to be desired. For example, "philanthropy" is only part of their aim, and they report only those parts of their operation that *are philanthopic. Could it be that reporting "oh we invest in " would tarnish their fledgling's reputation? If the two aims did not conflict, why not report their operations in toto? Why not adopt a legal framework for their operations which would go some way to clarifying their operations? What have they got to hide? Even ENRON gave a better account of their operations than this. So now, when I read articles like this, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It smacks of being under-hand. Bill Gates - and I believe it is he who sets the tenor of the foundation - is, in my eyes, trying to have his cake and eat it. That's the crux of the problem.
FWIW. I don't particularly mind investment in big multinationals - my morals aren't that high-minded and occasionally they do good - but don't multinationals receive enough Gubmint aid already? The long list includes Aribus, British Aerospace, ELF, Boeing etc etc etc etc. Each sit at the tax-trough day-in-day-out. The only reason for the Gates Foundation to invest in these big companies *is* profit. Now their "guiding principles" don't preclude this but, really, they - and no one else - shouldn't be surprised if others look askance at the grand total of their operations. Currently, it looks like to me that the Foundation is their to make the Gates and Buffet look good. Nothing more.
This seems to be a speicies of troll crying out that Microsoft "are being punished for being successful". No, they're being punished for being a monopoly, for rigging the market, for making dubious deals.
Apple don't have OEMs.
Oh, MS is a monopoly all right. It's written there in Judge Jackson's statement; something that's *never been overturned. Ever tried to buy a bare PC? Seems you can't. It's Windoze or Nodoze. So, pre-loaded it is and not a choice in sight.
... when have Americans started liking monopolies? I thought that was an anathema to the free-market. But, hey, it's your market. I just wish the Imperialists wouldn't thrust their idea of a "free market" onto the rest of us.
As in "too successful"
I take the opposing view. The markets are moral, and we have regulators to make sure the markets behave themselves within limits. Microsoft is an object lesson for regulators, o'wise they'll find some shit monopoly clogging up the pathways of business, demanding tax from all and sundry, holding back the reins of what America wants to be. *AA and Microsoft, they're made from the same cloth.
Yes, they got into trouble for bundling but it misses the point every time. The secret sauce that Microsoft uses is to strong-arm the OEMs into bundling windows with PCs, espeicially for consumers. I'm also thinking that the Windows Tax is levied even if you buy Linux on a Dell. This is the lynch-pin of Microsoft domination, without it all their other strategies whither on the vine. Without bundling of windows with new pcs, the bundling of IE (and all the other sofware), the resistance against inter-operability, the mysterious file formats etc wither on the vine. I've been disappointed that *none of the investigations I've read about have gone after the OEM-Microsoft link. Break that, and you'll have a free-market again.
I think the Office XML format style is a play straight out of IBM's hand-book: make the standard complex and incomprehensible, and the little players - that's you - will find it hard to compete. In a way, that's a good sign: Microsoft is now lumbering into middle-age, hoist on their own evermore complex petard.
The other thing about middle-age is that every little technological step away from their established base-line is treated as a revolution. In reality, it's no such thing, just a small stepping stone to shouting "pesky kids. Get off my lawn." Or maybe they've reached that stage already.
then I'll listen. Hell, who wouldn't?
thankyou thankyou, I'll be here all week. Try the meatballs.
I know most people regard HR as a waste of space, but at least they do provide a safety net for whinging about yr boss. There's nothing to say that *they won't tattle-tale, still, I've found them fairly safe. I work for a company that reduced it's HR dept to 0 :-/
:-/
By the same token, they should also ban the HR person from marrying the team leader
Indiana Jones and the Zimmerframe of Destiny
The company I work for does this. Development is done along the trunk. Releases are built from branches, and each distribution has a different set of XML that controls what components go with each distribution. Branches get patched, the distribution get built. In theory, we have a release manager for each project. The main product can have 2 or 3 versions in the same distribution.
We currently build something like 70 releases per night.
We're also testing distribution smoke-testing with the distribution installation process tested every night. This is in addition to automated unit testing. We want to track the changes as well, so that release notes are produced automatically.
None of this is as complex as a Linux distribution; we're only a small company which is why we've automated the process.
MS don't know what will be in Vienna, because Apple haven't invented it yet. This means nothing to me.
tch, this is the way Main Stream Media work; I thought the blogosphere was above this ... fluffing.
those statements should be engraved on the mess that is the O'Reilly book of Perl. And on CPAN.
The problem with the first statement is that "my" was introduced *after local, so when faced with suck-arse code written under 4, you have no choice but to resign.
My advice to any programmer tempted to write a "quick script" (particularly in Perl): Don't Fucking Do It. Go read a book, go learn VBscript. Anything. Just think of the poor bastard who has to maintain the crap you are about to perpetrate.
The "I-have-too-many-ways-to-do-one-thing" that is perl philosophy leaves the programmer with a load of synonyms to remember - so, yeah it's harder to maintain than say python. Oh, and what about
local
and
my
2 keywords whose function seem to be similar, but which are not.
Oh yeah, and the $_. Was this language written to be obtuse? I think it was.
I know of more than one pile-of-shit 30,000 line programs written in perl.
The real problem is the loner hacker getting off with ally sheedy. Mind you, she later turned out to gay: http://imdb.com/title/tt0139362/ ("High Art") http://imdb.com/title/tt0337717/ ("Shelter").
fix OTHER people's code. It may not be glamorous, it may not bring in the big payola but hey, it has it's own charms. And it makes you write more robust code as well.
You've never used Notesmail
The US-UK "speicial relationship" is pretty much a walking shell. We have no influence with the US. The UK may have something like "favoured client status" with the USA but little more. There have been precious few times in the past 20 years when the UK has pursued it's interest *against the interest of the USA, or indeed, pursuaded the USA to act in favour of the UK's interests against it's own. 1982 is probably the only significant event in the last 50 years that this happened. The invasion of Grenada by the USA is nice little counter-example where Reagan rode rough-shod over the wishes and interests of the UK - Thatcher only found out about the invasion on the morning of the invasionb. Vietnam is one of the few occasions when a British PM went against US interests - Wilson refused to send British troops to support US forces in Vietnam. Blair has not changed or altered USA policy in a significant manner. Rather, as in "Yo Blair", he's acted as a courtier for the Bush regime. Indeed, it could be argued that Blair's delusion is that there is a "speicial relationship", allowing the UK to have an illusory place at the Big Table when it's clear that US Foreign Policy proceeds un-hindered by the UK or any other influence. It is bad for us that we have this illusion of influence - the UK ambassador to washington in the 90's/00s banned the phrase "speicial relationship " because of the delusions of grandeur and influence it fostered.
The point of the Suez, in "speicial relationship" terms was that the US was not going to forgo it's interests for that of the UK and France, even though the wiki article says (without support) that Eisenhower regretted his postition later. In contrast, and interestingly the only nation to come out "clean" from Suez crisis, the Israeli relationship with the US *is* a speicial relationship. It can be argued that Israel has convinced the US to act against it's own interests and for Israel. The US supply of military technology goes unchecked. This is the mark of a true relationship.
As for Da Bomb, in 1946, the British were denied access to US atomic secrets, even though we had helped develop the bomb. The subsequent treaties of cooperation have more than a little element of US control. For example, the UK *leases* the Trident delivery vehicles from the US Navy, and the war-heads are made from US designs. I wonder how the EULA on those missles reads?