"Unless you think that *all* of them are going to decide that there's no market for a family station, then that argument doesn't really stand."
Not really. The fact is that, by definition, control lies in the hands of the few. It's not about having "a family station", but having worthwhile content on a medium that is monopolized (or really, oligopolized). When you are showing a show on subject A, that means that there is less time to show a show on subject B. It is a finite media, and it makes sense to have controls. In addition, non-cable TV is an even more scarce resource, and likewise is susceptible to even greater government control.
"Honestly, yes. I believe that people should be allowed to broadcast what they want."
The problem with this is:
a) broadcast medium is a monopoly, not a market
b) there is a limited amount of broadcast bandwidth
Therefore, having some controls on broadcast media seems like a good idea to me, in order to keep a public good acting on at least some of the lines that the public wishes.
"Boobs are bad, because we must protect children from sexual images. (Despite no scientific proof that such images are actually harmful.)"
Actually, _harmful_ cannot be deduced scientifically. Harmful implies a value judgment, which science does not make.
Note that the problem wasn't necessarily with the boobs, it was that it was in a circumstance where people were expecting much cleaner activity (in fact, if you watch the video, the boobs were the _least_ offensive part).
"Swearwords are bad, because we must protect children from scatological talk, lest they grow up to be Howard Stern."
The definition of foul language (or any sort of obscenity, for that matter) is in the hands of the majority. And they do, in fact, have a right to make such judgements. The libertarian idea that nothing you do individually affects anyone else plain isn't true.
And no, inhibitting against obscenity is NOT a violation of free speech, at least as it is conceived in the U.S. Free speech is talking about the expression of ideas. Any idea can be expressed in obscene or non-obscene manners.
"Pointing out flaws in national security is bad, because we must protect children from terrorist attack."
???? Haven't seen this happening. In certain contexts its true, and in certain contexts its false.
"Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure is bad, because we must protect children from policies we do not agree with."
Haven't seen this either, except from an extreme standpoint. I.e. being extremely negative against the current power structure is bad, because it undermines everything we could do as a nation. This is a little different, though, because although many think it is bad noone thinks that this is a point of government censorship.
For example, it's good to have open disagreements, it's bad (but not and should not be censored) to villify an entire branch of government. What's really bad is when that villification is supported by lies and half-truths (see Michael Moore for this).
Actually, what that link says is that if you count all conceivable votes, Bush wins, but if you only count clear votes, Gore wins. It says nothing about local-vs-statewide.
SFU still includes a lot of GPL utilities (like GCC). It even _sold_ this under the name of Services for UNIX, and they also _sold_ the GPL sources (which is valid - you are allowed to charge a "reasonable copying fee").
It doesn't matter if utilities do or don't include a GPL license, as you are free to make use of them no matter what (see the source license).
Why does having GPL utilities matter to developers? I can't think of a single reason.
Anyone who carries a significant number of books has to be able to do EAN barcodes, because that's the standard for books. Book EANs are simply their ISBN's with a 978 prefix and a different check digit.
Actually, the lamest arguments are those that refuse to believe any eyewitness account, because obviously their explanation is much better than anyone who saw what happened.
The interesting thing about OKC is that congress had received in the months previous to OKC information about a terrorist attack in the heartland by middle easterners being led by "lily whites" (white guys to hang the blame on).
In addition, Richard Clark said in the 9/11 hearings that he certainly hasn't ruled out that Nichols learned bomb-making from Ramzi Youssef while they were both in the Phillipines.
In addition, Hussain Al-Hussany sued the author of the book for libel. The case was decided against him because the judge says that all of her material was either factual or opinion - nothing counterfactual in there.
Oh yeah, and there's a security video, too.
Instead of putting money down for the book, why not just check it out of your local library?
"The only people in the world who believe there is a connection are a few million deluded Americans."
And congress.
And there's the fact that John Doe #2 from the OKC bombing happened to be Hussein Al-Hussany - a member of Iraq's Republican Guard living in the US. After the OKC bombing he went to... Logan National Airport. This is the subject of the next round of congressional investigations.
You should read the book "The Third Terrorist", which details some of the middle-eastern involvement in the OKC bombing, and how Clinton ordered the connection be ignored, and links it to Iraq -- all of this information was put together BEFORE 9/11.
I don't disagree with the Senate findings. They don't contradict anything I've said. Some people (like the person writing that article) don't take into account the actual scope of the hearings, and lead them to wrong conclusions.
Remember when the papers had the headlines "9/11 commission finds no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda"? Well, the 9/11 commission was right, but the papers were wrong. In fact, the 9/11 commission specifically found links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. It just didn't find them for September 11th. If you remember correctly, the war on terrorism is not just a war on those who committed the 9/11 attacks. It is a war on international terrorism itself, with Al-Qaeda being the primary focus.
"That $27 stake in MSFT, purchased in 1980 would have only cost a few cents, if that. $27 invested in Microsoft in 1980 would be worth a shitload today."
You are correct. However, we aren't talking about reverting time and buying stock in 1980. We're talking about buying stock today. That information is only useful if you think Microsoft can grow as much as it has since 1980. My contention is that it has seen it's peak size/profit, and that expecting it to make more than it has in the last 24 years is unrealistic. It stopped being a growth company many years ago, but it is still valuated as one.
It also sells my own material. One month I made $8,000, so don't knock it. It's not huge, but it's a whole lot more than my mutual funds made over 4 years.
Kind of like "init" works on Linux - you specify at boot time a trusted program to be your scheduler, which the kernel runs. As long as your scheduler is well-behaved there are no problems (and it will be well-behaved because YOU wrote it -- or your vendor, as the case may be).
Perhaps I'm not understanding the issues you're raising.
In that case, it seems to be pretty easy to do so:
you: Honey, do you want to come home and see my new scheduler?
wife: Can you show it to me while I eat the leftover pizza, I'm hungry!
you: Sure, but please pay attention this time, it's really really cool and neat!
wife: That's what you said about your new Perl program, but it just looked like you banged on the keyboard for a couple of hours and held down the shift key.
I'm talking about a share you buy today. I think some people mistook what I was saying and thought I was saying that if you bought MSFT a loooong time ago, you weren't making money.
What I was saying is that Microsoft has so diluted it's stock that 1 share of today's $27 MSFT stock has only reaped $6 in its lifetime. If you bought a share a long time ago, you did quite well. My contention is that Microsoft does not have the future potential that it had in the past, so it's unlikely that the share of stock that has only made $6 in its lifetime will be able to make much more than that in the future.
"Actually, you don't read it right. Microsoft's stock has split 9 times, and 1 share in 1987 would give you 288 today. The value of one share on Sept 18, 1987 was $114.50, and the value of one share on Feb 14, 2003 was $24.96. Given that you would have 288 shares, your beginning value of $114.50 would have ended up at $7,188.48."
I agree with you that Microsoft used to be a great stock to own. I would also agree that, if Microsoft could persue the same growth that it has over the past 30 years, it would also be a great stock.
My contention is simply that Microsoft will not see the growth it had in the past, and therefore its _current_ stock price is unjustifiable.
"Conclusion - MSFT may not be a great stock to own now, but it was a great stock to own for 16 years or more."
"Have you never put money or time into something knowing that you'll get it back in spades later?"
Yes, that's why I run my own business. The difference is that I don't see the Microsoft investment coming back in spades later.
"But it's a pretty fucking stable stock, and if all you're saying is "I think MS has future prospects so poor that it will fail to make even half of $27 per share on a discounted cash flow basis," I think you'll be proven wrong."
Slashdot Mirror
Or what's even better is when you have a rock-solid high-grade SSL connection, but the server just puts the data in a publicly accessible text file.
"Unless you think that *all* of them are going to decide that there's no market for a family station, then that argument doesn't really stand."
Not really. The fact is that, by definition, control lies in the hands of the few. It's not about having "a family station", but having worthwhile content on a medium that is monopolized (or really, oligopolized). When you are showing a show on subject A, that means that there is less time to show a show on subject B. It is a finite media, and it makes sense to have controls. In addition, non-cable TV is an even more scarce resource, and likewise is susceptible to even greater government control.
"Honestly, yes. I believe that people should be allowed to broadcast what they want."
The problem with this is:
a) broadcast medium is a monopoly, not a market
b) there is a limited amount of broadcast bandwidth
Therefore, having some controls on broadcast media seems like a good idea to me, in order to keep a public good acting on at least some of the lines that the public wishes.
"Boobs are bad, because we must protect children from sexual images. (Despite no scientific proof that such images are actually harmful.)"
Actually, _harmful_ cannot be deduced scientifically. Harmful implies a value judgment, which science does not make.
Note that the problem wasn't necessarily with the boobs, it was that it was in a circumstance where people were expecting much cleaner activity (in fact, if you watch the video, the boobs were the _least_ offensive part).
"Swearwords are bad, because we must protect children from scatological talk, lest they grow up to be Howard Stern."
The definition of foul language (or any sort of obscenity, for that matter) is in the hands of the majority. And they do, in fact, have a right to make such judgements. The libertarian idea that nothing you do individually affects anyone else plain isn't true.
And no, inhibitting against obscenity is NOT a violation of free speech, at least as it is conceived in the U.S. Free speech is talking about the expression of ideas. Any idea can be expressed in obscene or non-obscene manners.
"Pointing out flaws in national security is bad, because we must protect children from terrorist attack."
???? Haven't seen this happening. In certain contexts its true, and in certain contexts its false.
"Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure is bad, because we must protect children from policies we do not agree with."
Haven't seen this either, except from an extreme standpoint. I.e. being extremely negative against the current power structure is bad, because it undermines everything we could do as a nation. This is a little different, though, because although many think it is bad noone thinks that this is a point of government censorship.
For example, it's good to have open disagreements, it's bad (but not and should not be censored) to villify an entire branch of government. What's really bad is when that villification is supported by lies and half-truths (see Michael Moore for this).
Actually, what that link says is that if you count all conceivable votes, Bush wins, but if you only count clear votes, Gore wins. It says nothing about local-vs-statewide.
SFU still includes a lot of GPL utilities (like GCC). It even _sold_ this under the name of Services for UNIX, and they also _sold_ the GPL sources (which is valid - you are allowed to charge a "reasonable copying fee").
It doesn't matter if utilities do or don't include a GPL license, as you are free to make use of them no matter what (see the source license).
Why does having GPL utilities matter to developers? I can't think of a single reason.
"For Bush to be re-elected he must first be elected"
In case you didn't notice, all Florida recounts done after the election pointed to Bush as the winner.
Anyone who carries a significant number of books has to be able to do EAN barcodes, because that's the standard for books. Book EANs are simply their ISBN's with a 978 prefix and a different check digit.
Are you sure about that? The +5 used on books is a price extension, not an item designation. Can it be used for item designation?
Actually, the lamest arguments are those that refuse to believe any eyewitness account, because obviously their explanation is much better than anyone who saw what happened.
The interesting thing about OKC is that congress had received in the months previous to OKC information about a terrorist attack in the heartland by middle easterners being led by "lily whites" (white guys to hang the blame on).
In addition, Richard Clark said in the 9/11 hearings that he certainly hasn't ruled out that Nichols learned bomb-making from Ramzi Youssef while they were both in the Phillipines.
In addition, Hussain Al-Hussany sued the author of the book for libel. The case was decided against him because the judge says that all of her material was either factual or opinion - nothing counterfactual in there.
Oh yeah, and there's a security video, too.
Instead of putting money down for the book, why not just check it out of your local library?
"The only people in the world who believe there is a connection are a few million deluded Americans."
And congress.
And there's the fact that John Doe #2 from the OKC bombing happened to be Hussein Al-Hussany - a member of Iraq's Republican Guard living in the US. After the OKC bombing he went to... Logan National Airport. This is the subject of the next round of congressional investigations.
You should read the book "The Third Terrorist", which details some of the middle-eastern involvement in the OKC bombing, and how Clinton ordered the connection be ignored, and links it to Iraq -- all of this information was put together BEFORE 9/11.
I don't disagree with the Senate findings. They don't contradict anything I've said. Some people (like the person writing that article) don't take into account the actual scope of the hearings, and lead them to wrong conclusions.
Remember when the papers had the headlines "9/11 commission finds no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda"? Well, the 9/11 commission was right, but the papers were wrong. In fact, the 9/11 commission specifically found links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. It just didn't find them for September 11th. If you remember correctly, the war on terrorism is not just a war on those who committed the 9/11 attacks. It is a war on international terrorism itself, with Al-Qaeda being the primary focus.
HURD is close, but I don't think it goes quite as far as having the scheduler outside the kernel. Haven't looked at it in years, though.
"That $27 stake in MSFT, purchased in 1980 would have only cost a few cents, if that. $27 invested in Microsoft in 1980 would be worth a shitload today."
You are correct. However, we aren't talking about reverting time and buying stock in 1980. We're talking about buying stock today. That information is only useful if you think Microsoft can grow as much as it has since 1980. My contention is that it has seen it's peak size/profit, and that expecting it to make more than it has in the last 24 years is unrealistic. It stopped being a growth company many years ago, but it is still valuated as one.
It also sells my own material. One month I made $8,000, so don't knock it. It's not huge, but it's a whole lot more than my mutual funds made over 4 years.
Kind of like "init" works on Linux - you specify at boot time a trusted program to be your scheduler, which the kernel runs. As long as your scheduler is well-behaved there are no problems (and it will be well-behaved because YOU wrote it -- or your vendor, as the case may be).
Perhaps I'm not understanding the issues you're raising.
'Dude, They have $6/7 per share in cash right now. That's not "the amount of money they've made in 30 years".'
Yes, it is. They have only issued dividends in the last two years, and those have just been paltry sums.
If you never give dividends, then the assets you have right now IS the amount of money you've made in 30 years.
The scheduler can be a privileged/trusted process without being a part of the kernel.
In that case, it seems to be pretty easy to do so:
you: Honey, do you want to come home and see my new scheduler?
wife: Can you show it to me while I eat the leftover pizza, I'm hungry!
you: Sure, but please pay attention this time, it's really really cool and neat!
wife: That's what you said about your new Perl program, but it just looked like you banged on the keyboard for a couple of hours and held down the shift key.
But, honestly, almost every large software project has a "kernel". It's not very unique to Mathematica, although they try to sell it that way.
Are you sure? I was pretty sure that the book value took into account most of these things. Maybe not.
I'm talking about a share you buy today. I think some people mistook what I was saying and thought I was saying that if you bought MSFT a loooong time ago, you weren't making money.
What I was saying is that Microsoft has so diluted it's stock that 1 share of today's $27 MSFT stock has only reaped $6 in its lifetime. If you bought a share a long time ago, you did quite well. My contention is that Microsoft does not have the future potential that it had in the past, so it's unlikely that the share of stock that has only made $6 in its lifetime will be able to make much more than that in the future.
"Actually, you don't read it right. Microsoft's stock has split 9 times, and 1 share in 1987 would give you 288 today. The value of one share on Sept 18, 1987 was $114.50, and the value of one share on Feb 14, 2003 was $24.96. Given that you would have 288 shares, your beginning value of $114.50 would have ended up at $7,188.48."
I agree with you that Microsoft used to be a great stock to own. I would also agree that, if Microsoft could persue the same growth that it has over the past 30 years, it would also be a great stock.
My contention is simply that Microsoft will not see the growth it had in the past, and therefore its _current_ stock price is unjustifiable.
"Conclusion - MSFT may not be a great stock to own now, but it was a great stock to own for 16 years or more."
I agree with that wholeheartedly.
"Have you never put money or time into something knowing that you'll get it back in spades later?"
Yes, that's why I run my own business. The difference is that I don't see the Microsoft investment coming back in spades later.
"But it's a pretty fucking stable stock, and if all you're saying is "I think MS has future prospects so poor that it will fail to make even half of $27 per share on a discounted cash flow basis," I think you'll be proven wrong."
That is what I'm saying. Time will tell.
"What is affecting Microsoft is that they are moving from a growth company to a value company."
IMO, the real problem is that they should have moved from a growth company to a value company about 10 years ago or more.