Do you have examples of forceful tactics being employed? If not, I don't think the analogy holds.
In fact, if it's only words and pictures, it seems like mostly valid criticism. Of course we don't want anyone to resort to harassment (or worse), but I see no evidence of that yet.
Many political groups do engage in various forms of harassment, such as posting names/addresses online to encourage a barrage of hate mail upon the person. However, that's not happening here, unless you have information to the contrary.
You're arguing from the perspective of the professors after they are already there.
Let's say that someone wanted to change the hiring practices of the public universities to create a more ideologically diverse set of professors. You still have teachers teaching Marxism and they are still thinking freely and expressing themselves. However, they are balanced by other professors that have a different perspective.
I think our goal should be ideologically diverse professors, and they should be allowed to express themselves freely. Another goal should be to encourage the professors to stay on the topic of the course and not rant about something tangentially related. Public universities have a responsibility to provide many viewpoints. If it's heavily slanted to the left, students are not able to form meaningful opinions.
My "perfect world" comment was weak, I'll agree with that.
If taxpayer money goes somewhere, it's open to criticism. And if it's criticized by a taxpayer, you cannot make a valid "take it or leave it" argument, because the "leave it" option still means the taxpayer in question is paying for it.
It's sort of like if the cashier takes your money and gives you defective merchandise. They can't hold onto your money and then hand you the broken product and say "take it or leave it".
The choice you're offering is: (a) Continue paying for the service that they don't entirely like, and get some education. (b) Continue paying for the service that they don't entirely like, and fend for themselves.
I'm sure I disagree with O'Reilly as often as you do. However, he's not useless, and I think a lot of people miss the point of his show. He conducts a lot of polls and follows what people care about. He tries to ask the questions that everyone at home wishes that they could ask. He tries to be the "regular guy" with simple, straightforward questions. And he doesn't forget about stories, like so many reporters do.
For example, he never really addresses the separation of powers of government, not because he doesn't understand, but because that's not how regular people think. If regular people want something done, they say it loudly, and let the lawyers figure out how to do it within our governmental structure.
So sure, if you're truly interested in political structure, he's gonna drive you crazy most of the time.
That statement assumes that those who teach are the best and the brightest...
Agreed. Some are the best and brightest, but usually they teach apolitical subjects such as engineering, physics, math, &c., and are teaching only after some major accomplishments. The ones preaching for an ideology often have no qualifications aside from accolades by their fellow professors, a.k.a. "systemic bias".
Public universities use taxpayer money. In a perfect world, taxpayer money would not be used to advance one ideology over another. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to criticize that behaviour when it happens.
You can't tax away someone's money and spend it on something they don't want, and then use the "take it or leave it, you have a choice" argument.
Conservative is an ideology. Republican is a political party.
Since a political party is made up of people (I use the word "people" in the loosest sense possible), it is flawed, and many of those peoplee sell out the party's values for power and money.
So they aren't really different groups of people. Many conservatives are Republicans out of a feeling of necessity.
Has anyone done any research on the plot overlaps between the two shows?
- Marge & Lois both shoplifted - Marge and lois both had a gambling problem - Both shows incorporated a joke about ancient jews building the pyramids and getting their opression out of the way early on in history
And lots more stuff that I saw in family guy and thought "This plot seems familiar".
So you're telling me that Java3D doesn't use the GPU? How could it possibly get any performance at all if it doesn't use the routines in the graphics card?
Java's JVM is on the RISC side of the spectrum, whereas languages like Ruby are not.
Typically a Ruby program will have fewer lines of actual Ruby code, and the rest of the work will be done in a C library. So, Ruby has less work to actually do.
Typically a Java program will be written in Java to much lower levels, and so have more actual Java code, so the JVM has to do more work.
In your example, the JVM isn't doing the 3D processing, so it's kind of irrelevent how fast the JVM is.
One of the strengths of languages like perl/python/ruby is that they have simple interfaces to C, and many libraries are already written in C. So, a few simple lines of ruby code can do a lot of calculation very fast, even if Ruby itself is slow.
Implementing libraries in C is seemingly much less common in Java.
So let me get this straight: if you have your own money invested in a company, and it's stock price is going down, and they were spending all their money on network upgrades, you wouldn't ask why?
It sounds great as an outside observer. But at some point you have to ask what the real gain is, and when it's going to happen. And that's not stupid at all.
For most businesses now, the cost of IPv6 will be high, and the cost of migration later may very well be less than it is now.
Just because a technology is an inevitability does not necessarily mean that people who wait are short-sighted.
The concepts are orthogonal. Bribes exist in capitalism and socialism alike.
To answer your question, America is not a pure capitalist country. Take for example the practice of using eminent domain to take private property from one private individual to give it to another private individual (or group).
Capitalism to Socialism is a spectrum, and no country is completely to one side.
more children of the cold war equate communism with totalitairianism
The reason people associate communism with totalitarianism (even though they are different) is because a centrally-planned economy (like communism) necessitates a very strong central government. And market forces can be very strong, leading to black markets and so forth. To eliminate the black markets, governments often turn to very harsh tactics. Therefore, totalitarianism is often the result of attempts at large scale communism or socialism.
Small scale socialist systems usually work much better. For instance, a family is a very small economic unit and usually run much like a centrally-planned economy.
No, it's not. China intervenes in the economy far too much to call it capitalism. It's got a strong central planning component, which makes it not capitalism.
You could say that the government is corrupt and accepts lots of bribes from industry, but that's not capitalism at all.
When America is in the wrong, it's the patriotic duty of all Americans to criticize America that she might right herself.
You're absolutely right. However, it's wise to put things in perspective. We should compare ourselves against the ideal, and also compare ourselves against the successes and failures in other countries.
If we compare ourselves only against the ideal, that might suggest that we need to radically change things, which can lead to a much worse situation. We should highlight not only the failures, but the many successes as well, so that we remember what's worth keeping.
I was referring to the security aspect. mpm_perchild runs each virtualhost as a separate user, which solves a lot of web security problems.
If you use mod_php or mod_perl without the mpm_perchild (which doesn't really exist or work), then anyone who can upload a script can also read any other script on the machine (and get database passwords). There are a few kludges, like php's safe_mode which blocks some actions, but it's not really the right place for that kind of security, which should be in the webserver itself.
I'm very interested in the mpm-perchild module. It seems to be the security solution in place of the php safe_mode kludge.
There are other possibilities like fastcgi, but those require rewriting application code, and are more difficult to administer (unless I'm mistaken, in which case please inform me).
Does anyone know anything about that module or why it was discontinued?
The problem is that, if they GPL java, anybody on the planet can claim their own version of java "with just a few nifty new features". The presumption is that it must work, because it's based on Sun's code. However, if it's built from scratch on the open java specifications, the burden of proof is on the new developer to prove to his customers that it really has the same quality as Sun's java.
The standard is open. It's not like trying to build on top of Microsoft's "shifting sands" formats. It's a clear specification. Sun is competing on the merits of it's implementation, and it's clearly winning.
It's one thing to create GPL/BSD software yourself, or to ask for open standards so that you or someone else might be able to compete fairly.
However, I really think free software advocates go overboard when they demand specific licensing from a corporation which is already one of the leaders in open source contributions (surpassed only by IBM, if at all). And Sun is a powerful leader when it comes to open standards. And they do a good job of implementation.
One wonders whether the people demanding GPL jvm (and the 100 derivitive implementations that are sure to follow) are really Sun's customers.
Granted, part of that price is subsidized (1 penny per percent of biodiesel), but realistically dino fuels are subsidized too, at a cost of about $100 billion a year. Assuming you aren't naive enough to think Iraq is about freedom.
I read that to mean that the subsidy is $1/gallon for 100% biodiesel. Does that include the farm subsidies for the necessary ingredients?
I understand your point about gasoline being subsidized. However, I suspect that if we crunch the numbers, gasoline will still be more economical.
For the US anyway, you're talking about reworking the entire electrical grid.
Why? We use nuclear power already.
I'm a proponent of both nuclear and hydrogen power. But we need to be realistic.
Hydrogen is not a source of energy (well, not a source of chemical energy, perhaps a source of nuclear energy), it's just a way to store energy. A hydrogen fuel-cell car is still an electric car in my opinion.
I would like to see new sources of energy, but I don't see much promise out of biodiesel myself. The only way for that to work is if it's more economical to produce than gasoline, and it's still a long way from that as far as I can tell. Solar seems to me to be a dead end also.
Anything linked to Jimmy Carter is unlikely to be considered positive.
That comment is as valid as it is contoversial.
Don't blame the parent for "flamebait" when the submitter is the one who brought American presidents in general, and Jimmy Carter in particular, into this thread.
The way I understand it, nuclear power and electric cars are the solution.
Get a workable electric car going (or fuel cell, which is just an electric car with a hydrogen-powered battery), and get out of the way of nuclear power, and we're set. It actually seems quite close, aside from the infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have examples of forceful tactics being employed? If not, I don't think the analogy holds.
In fact, if it's only words and pictures, it seems like mostly valid criticism. Of course we don't want anyone to resort to harassment (or worse), but I see no evidence of that yet.
Many political groups do engage in various forms of harassment, such as posting names/addresses online to encourage a barrage of hate mail upon the person. However, that's not happening here, unless you have information to the contrary.
You're arguing from the perspective of the professors after they are already there.
Let's say that someone wanted to change the hiring practices of the public universities to create a more ideologically diverse set of professors. You still have teachers teaching Marxism and they are still thinking freely and expressing themselves. However, they are balanced by other professors that have a different perspective.
I think our goal should be ideologically diverse professors, and they should be allowed to express themselves freely. Another goal should be to encourage the professors to stay on the topic of the course and not rant about something tangentially related. Public universities have a responsibility to provide many viewpoints. If it's heavily slanted to the left, students are not able to form meaningful opinions.
My "perfect world" comment was weak, I'll agree with that.
Your point is valid, but you missed my point.
If taxpayer money goes somewhere, it's open to criticism. And if it's criticized by a taxpayer, you cannot make a valid "take it or leave it" argument, because the "leave it" option still means the taxpayer in question is paying for it.
It's sort of like if the cashier takes your money and gives you defective merchandise. They can't hold onto your money and then hand you the broken product and say "take it or leave it".
The choice you're offering is:
(a) Continue paying for the service that they don't entirely like, and get some education.
(b) Continue paying for the service that they don't entirely like, and fend for themselves.
Not exactly a choice.
[O'Reilly] is a stupid douche.
I'm sure I disagree with O'Reilly as often as you do. However, he's not useless, and I think a lot of people miss the point of his show. He conducts a lot of polls and follows what people care about. He tries to ask the questions that everyone at home wishes that they could ask. He tries to be the "regular guy" with simple, straightforward questions. And he doesn't forget about stories, like so many reporters do.
For example, he never really addresses the separation of powers of government, not because he doesn't understand, but because that's not how regular people think. If regular people want something done, they say it loudly, and let the lawyers figure out how to do it within our governmental structure.
So sure, if you're truly interested in political structure, he's gonna drive you crazy most of the time.
That statement assumes that those who teach are the best and the brightest...
Agreed. Some are the best and brightest, but usually they teach apolitical subjects such as engineering, physics, math, &c., and are teaching only after some major accomplishments. The ones preaching for an ideology often have no qualifications aside from accolades by their fellow professors, a.k.a. "systemic bias".
Public universities use taxpayer money. In a perfect world, taxpayer money would not be used to advance one ideology over another. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to criticize that behaviour when it happens.
You can't tax away someone's money and spend it on something they don't want, and then use the "take it or leave it, you have a choice" argument.
Conservative is an ideology. Republican is a political party.
Since a political party is made up of people (I use the word "people" in the loosest sense possible), it is flawed, and many of those peoplee sell out the party's values for power and money.
So they aren't really different groups of people. Many conservatives are Republicans out of a feeling of necessity.
Has anyone done any research on the plot overlaps between the two shows?
- Marge & Lois both shoplifted
- Marge and lois both had a gambling problem
- Both shows incorporated a joke about ancient jews building the pyramids and getting their opression out of the way early on in history
And lots more stuff that I saw in family guy and thought "This plot seems familiar".
So you're telling me that Java3D doesn't use the GPU? How could it possibly get any performance at all if it doesn't use the routines in the graphics card?
Java's JVM is on the RISC side of the spectrum, whereas languages like Ruby are not.
Typically a Ruby program will have fewer lines of actual Ruby code, and the rest of the work will be done in a C library. So, Ruby has less work to actually do.
Typically a Java program will be written in Java to much lower levels, and so have more actual Java code, so the JVM has to do more work.
In your example, the JVM isn't doing the 3D processing, so it's kind of irrelevent how fast the JVM is.
One of the strengths of languages like perl/python/ruby is that they have simple interfaces to C, and many libraries are already written in C. So, a few simple lines of ruby code can do a lot of calculation very fast, even if Ruby itself is slow.
Implementing libraries in C is seemingly much less common in Java.
So let me get this straight: if you have your own money invested in a company, and it's stock price is going down, and they were spending all their money on network upgrades, you wouldn't ask why?
It sounds great as an outside observer. But at some point you have to ask what the real gain is, and when it's going to happen. And that's not stupid at all.
For most businesses now, the cost of IPv6 will be high, and the cost of migration later may very well be less than it is now.
Just because a technology is an inevitability does not necessarily mean that people who wait are short-sighted.
The concepts are orthogonal. Bribes exist in capitalism and socialism alike.
To answer your question, America is not a pure capitalist country. Take for example the practice of using eminent domain to take private property from one private individual to give it to another private individual (or group).
Capitalism to Socialism is a spectrum, and no country is completely to one side.
more children of the cold war equate communism with totalitairianism
The reason people associate communism with totalitarianism (even though they are different) is because a centrally-planned economy (like communism) necessitates a very strong central government. And market forces can be very strong, leading to black markets and so forth. To eliminate the black markets, governments often turn to very harsh tactics. Therefore, totalitarianism is often the result of attempts at large scale communism or socialism.
Small scale socialist systems usually work much better. For instance, a family is a very small economic unit and usually run much like a centrally-planned economy.
China is a capitalist economy
No, it's not. China intervenes in the economy far too much to call it capitalism. It's got a strong central planning component, which makes it not capitalism.
You could say that the government is corrupt and accepts lots of bribes from industry, but that's not capitalism at all.
When America is in the wrong, it's the patriotic duty of all Americans to criticize America that she might right herself.
You're absolutely right. However, it's wise to put things in perspective. We should compare ourselves against the ideal, and also compare ourselves against the successes and failures in other countries.
If we compare ourselves only against the ideal, that might suggest that we need to radically change things, which can lead to a much worse situation. We should highlight not only the failures, but the many successes as well, so that we remember what's worth keeping.
I was referring to the security aspect. mpm_perchild runs each virtualhost as a separate user, which solves a lot of web security problems.
If you use mod_php or mod_perl without the mpm_perchild (which doesn't really exist or work), then anyone who can upload a script can also read any other script on the machine (and get database passwords). There are a few kludges, like php's safe_mode which blocks some actions, but it's not really the right place for that kind of security, which should be in the webserver itself.
I'm very interested in the mpm-perchild module. It seems to be the security solution in place of the php safe_mode kludge.
There are other possibilities like fastcgi, but those require rewriting application code, and are more difficult to administer (unless I'm mistaken, in which case please inform me).
Does anyone know anything about that module or why it was discontinued?
The problem is that, if they GPL java, anybody on the planet can claim their own version of java "with just a few nifty new features". The presumption is that it must work, because it's based on Sun's code. However, if it's built from scratch on the open java specifications, the burden of proof is on the new developer to prove to his customers that it really has the same quality as Sun's java.
The standard is open. It's not like trying to build on top of Microsoft's "shifting sands" formats. It's a clear specification. Sun is competing on the merits of it's implementation, and it's clearly winning.
It's one thing to create GPL/BSD software yourself, or to ask for open standards so that you or someone else might be able to compete fairly.
However, I really think free software advocates go overboard when they demand specific licensing from a corporation which is already one of the leaders in open source contributions (surpassed only by IBM, if at all). And Sun is a powerful leader when it comes to open standards. And they do a good job of implementation.
One wonders whether the people demanding GPL jvm (and the 100 derivitive implementations that are sure to follow) are really Sun's customers.
Granted, part of that price is subsidized (1 penny per percent of biodiesel), but realistically dino fuels are subsidized too, at a cost of about $100 billion a year. Assuming you aren't naive enough to think Iraq is about freedom.
I read that to mean that the subsidy is $1/gallon for 100% biodiesel. Does that include the farm subsidies for the necessary ingredients?
I understand your point about gasoline being subsidized. However, I suspect that if we crunch the numbers, gasoline will still be more economical.
For the US anyway, you're talking about reworking the entire electrical grid.
Why? We use nuclear power already.
I'm a proponent of both nuclear and hydrogen power. But we need to be realistic.
Hydrogen is not a source of energy (well, not a source of chemical energy, perhaps a source of nuclear energy), it's just a way to store energy. A hydrogen fuel-cell car is still an electric car in my opinion.
I would like to see new sources of energy, but I don't see much promise out of biodiesel myself. The only way for that to work is if it's more economical to produce than gasoline, and it's still a long way from that as far as I can tell. Solar seems to me to be a dead end also.
price ceiling => shortage => long lines at pump
Anything linked to Jimmy Carter is unlikely to be considered positive.
That comment is as valid as it is contoversial.
Don't blame the parent for "flamebait" when the submitter is the one who brought American presidents in general, and Jimmy Carter in particular, into this thread.
The way I understand it, nuclear power and electric cars are the solution.
Get a workable electric car going (or fuel cell, which is just an electric car with a hydrogen-powered battery), and get out of the way of nuclear power, and we're set. It actually seems quite close, aside from the infrastructure.
I don't think the energy market has a concept of "too late" at all. New technology is becoming more important, not less important, as time goes on.
Ruby is a strongly typed, late binding language (dynamic binding, but at a later point than java).
Consider:
PHP (weakly typeed, late binding):
$x = 1;
$y = '2';
echo $x+$y;
# prints 3
Ruby (strongly typed, late binding):
x = 1
y = '2'
puts x + y
# ERROR