One thing many people forget is that the reason that the economy is crappy is that it is too hard to start companies. The amount of taxes, insurance, and paperwork required to start a small business with any employees is massive.
In addition, the education system is gearing people to work in companies, not start sole proprietorships. Therefore, we have fewer small businesses starting, and THAT is what is killing our economy.
If you want to fix the economy, start a business. You can spare the hassle of having employees by outsourcing (in-country, too!) many of the services. Call centers, fulfillment, and a lot of other standard business functions can be easily outsourced.
" there can't be some balance between individual achievement and people coming together to support those who have fallen on bad luck"
There is. It's called charity. It's also called Church in my neck of the woods.
"Strangely enough, a generation ago people actually could save up and buy a home and have kids not long after they were married"
You should be able to do this with an income of $25,000 pretty easily, unless you live in a state like California.
"And heaven forbid you want one parent to actually stay home and raise the kids (possibly working part-time once the kids are in school). For most people that just isn't possible."
Honestly this is because most people spend their money on useless crap. There are a few hard-luck cases, but it's mostly people thinking that beer and movies is more important than their spouse staying at home.
Actually, Brad Henry is a democrat. The democratic party is the one who does not want any voter identification at the poles, and is vigorously opposing all legislation of the kind.
Steve Largent would have been a great governor (someone who actually says what he believes and means without regard to political expediency). However, at the last minute, Brad Henry made up a big lie about Steve Largent's position on education, and Steve Largent did not have a chance to respond, and he barely lost. Plus you have all of those fake voters, except we don't really know whose side they are on for sure.
Actually, in Oklahoma we have a much better way of rigging the vote - we don't require any form of identification to vote. In addition, we don't do any particular kind of checking to register a voter. In a district where the incumbent won by only three votes, there have been at least 5 empty lots that had never been inhabited found who were registered voters and voted in that election. Our governor was elected by less than 3 votes per precinct.
Of course, America's current lawsuit-hungriness makes the corporate veil a near-necessity when doing business. Thus it is in a vicious cycle.
Although I've identified some of the problems, I have no idea what would be a fair and equitable way to introduce a solution. Perhaps a loosening of the corporate veil over a 30-year period? I don't know.
You are assuming that stealing equally applies to ideas as to physical objects. See what Thomas Jefferson says on the topic:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
In addition, tangible property and intellectual property as mutually exclusive rights. If I am to have full use of an object, it can only be done if there are not hindrances from intellectual property.
Copyright is very artificial, and is brand-new in the world arena. The great philosophers and scientists of the world long have understood that ideas, while they came up with them, are not truly their own.
However, the system was not capitalistic to begin with, because the government was enforcing copyright, which is itself a monopoly. Therefore, since Microsoft was under the protection of the government for the copyright monopoly on Windows, they should also be under the governments watch for abuse of that monopoly.
As for the dependency issue, it isn't really a Linux problem per se. Windows has the same dependency problems, they just have a lot of third-party developers who fix them for you. InstallShield and WISE being the two main examples.
If you package your program correctly or statically link it, you have none of these problems. This is why Mathematica works for every known distribution out there - they just package their code correctly.
Not really disagreeing with you (although I see no reason to replace C with C++ - might as well go to a real language like LISP or Python), but the real reason that most companies switched to C++ is Microsoft. COM is only documented well in C++. Since Microsoft's compiler is essentially a C++ compiler (it may have a C-mode, can't remember), people code with the C++ extensions. So, some people claim to be writing C++ code, but it's really just spiffed up C.
Very cool! I've been into functional programming a lot, but have never been able to get my mind fully around monads. All of the documentation available seems to assume that you already know what they are.
Is there any good stuff on monads for beginners on the web?
Actually there's a lot of things you can do with C++ that just aren't possible with Java. They are ugly with C++, and perhaps someday someone will come up with ideas for LISP macros to make them cleaner.
Read "Modern C++ Design" by Alexandrescu. It's great, and will open your eyes to several new possibilities.
Re:Can't build security on a weak foundation
on
Exploiting Software
·
· Score: 1
But in this case it was created and sent to two DIFFERENT entities, neither of which contained it during construction. It outlives the object which actually constructed it.
Smart pointers work okay, but do not work perfectly. They are especially bad when dealing with legacy code.
Garbage Collection takes care of all of this, without having to have lots of overly-strict resource allocation/deallocation rules.
Re:Can't build security on a weak foundation
on
Exploiting Software
·
· Score: 1
But which destructor? If X is passed as a pointer into two different data structures, how does each one know when they should kill X?
Previous link is cut off. Most of the useful info is gone. I'll try to find a backup copy and repost.
Re:The other half of the problem
on
Exploiting Software
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
"The interface is too cluttered! Hide file name extensions!"
A little OT rant - file extensions are a horrid beast which should never have been allowed to surface. The MacOS method is much better. In fact, computer designers really need to rethink metadata handling from the ground up. I did a short thinking exercise on this here:
This is true. I've also found that if you over-validate the _form_ of input, then the customer service reps and business entities are going to assume that the _value_ of the input is also correct.
For example, in places where I have validated that phone numbers follow a proper form, the customer service reps assumed that the phone numbers were definitely correct - becuase they were all properly formulated.
It's easier on them if they get a few orders where the phone number is just plain wrong so that they know that this is a USER-generated field and that USERs can lie as much as they want to. It makes it obvious just who is responsible for verifying the validity of the information presented. If you make sure the _form_ is fully prim and proper, people are going to assume that you verified the content as well.
"The purpose of a textbook is to instruct a wide range of readers on a particular topic, not to provide an outlet for the author's free expression"
However, when an author exercises their free expression you learn more. There's several reasons:
1) the author is communicating in a tone that is more natural both for him and for his audience
2) the student can see some more of the thinking and philosophy behind the subject.
3) sharing free expression is the same as sharing passion. public schools definitely need more passion in learning, and if that can come from textbook authors, great!
Honestly, dry, technical knowledge doesn't help hardly anyone.
One of the biggest misconceptions today is that philosophy is an add-on. Actually, it underlies everything. If you think that you _can_ remove biases from writing, you have fallen into what I call "The Secular Humanist Trap", which is that the phrase "removal of bias" is really a codephrase for "the insertion of a secular humanist bias" in modern society, even by those who know nothing about secular humanism.
Slashdot Mirror
Documented != Open.
One thing many people forget is that the reason that the economy is crappy is that it is too hard to start companies. The amount of taxes, insurance, and paperwork required to start a small business with any employees is massive.
In addition, the education system is gearing people to work in companies, not start sole proprietorships. Therefore, we have fewer small businesses starting, and THAT is what is killing our economy.
If you want to fix the economy, start a business. You can spare the hassle of having employees by outsourcing (in-country, too!) many of the services. Call centers, fulfillment, and a lot of other standard business functions can be easily outsourced.
" there can't be some balance between individual achievement and people coming together to support those who have fallen on bad luck"
There is. It's called charity. It's also called Church in my neck of the woods.
"Strangely enough, a generation ago people actually could save up and buy a home and have kids not long after they were married"
You should be able to do this with an income of $25,000 pretty easily, unless you live in a state like California.
"And heaven forbid you want one parent to actually stay home and raise the kids (possibly working part-time once the kids are in school). For most people that just isn't possible."
Honestly this is because most people spend their money on useless crap. There are a few hard-luck cases, but it's mostly people thinking that beer and movies is more important than their spouse staying at home.
Actually, Brad Henry is a democrat. The democratic party is the one who does not want any voter identification at the poles, and is vigorously opposing all legislation of the kind.
Steve Largent would have been a great governor (someone who actually says what he believes and means without regard to political expediency). However, at the last minute, Brad Henry made up a big lie about Steve Largent's position on education, and Steve Largent did not have a chance to respond, and he barely lost. Plus you have all of those fake voters, except we don't really know whose side they are on for sure.
Actually, in Oklahoma we have a much better way of rigging the vote - we don't require any form of identification to vote. In addition, we don't do any particular kind of checking to register a voter. In a district where the incumbent won by only three votes, there have been at least 5 empty lots that had never been inhabited found who were registered voters and voted in that election. Our governor was elected by less than 3 votes per precinct.
Scary, huh?
The whole "corporate veil" idea is ludicrous.
Of course, America's current lawsuit-hungriness makes the corporate veil a near-necessity when doing business. Thus it is in a vicious cycle.
Although I've identified some of the problems, I have no idea what would be a fair and equitable way to introduce a solution. Perhaps a loosening of the corporate veil over a 30-year period? I don't know.
You are assuming that stealing equally applies to ideas as to physical objects. See what Thomas Jefferson says on the topic:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
In addition, tangible property and intellectual property as mutually exclusive rights. If I am to have full use of an object, it can only be done if there are not hindrances from intellectual property.
Copyright is very artificial, and is brand-new in the world arena. The great philosophers and scientists of the world long have understood that ideas, while they came up with them, are not truly their own.
However, the system was not capitalistic to begin with, because the government was enforcing copyright, which is itself a monopoly. Therefore, since Microsoft was under the protection of the government for the copyright monopoly on Windows, they should also be under the governments watch for abuse of that monopoly.
Amen!
r oblemsOfCorporations.xml
c te dSystemicEvil.xml
I had the same sentiment myself - http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/spiritual/EthicalP
and also
http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/spiritual/Undire
I think you said it better, though.
As for the dependency issue, it isn't really a Linux problem per se. Windows has the same dependency problems, they just have a lot of third-party developers who fix them for you. InstallShield and WISE being the two main examples.
If you package your program correctly or statically link it, you have none of these problems. This is why Mathematica works for every known distribution out there - they just package their code correctly.
The release notes for Gtk2.4 indicate that they have solved many of these problems.
Not really disagreeing with you (although I see no reason to replace C with C++ - might as well go to a real language like LISP or Python), but the real reason that most companies switched to C++ is Microsoft. COM is only documented well in C++. Since Microsoft's compiler is essentially a C++ compiler (it may have a C-mode, can't remember), people code with the C++ extensions. So, some people claim to be writing C++ code, but it's really just spiffed up C.
This looks really good! I'm printing it off right now.
Very cool! I've been into functional programming a lot, but have never been able to get my mind fully around monads. All of the documentation available seems to assume that you already know what they are.
Is there any good stuff on monads for beginners on the web?
Actually there's a lot of things you can do with C++ that just aren't possible with Java. They are ugly with C++, and perhaps someday someone will come up with ideas for LISP macros to make them cleaner.
Read "Modern C++ Design" by Alexandrescu. It's great, and will open your eyes to several new possibilities.
But in this case it was created and sent to two DIFFERENT entities, neither of which contained it during construction. It outlives the object which actually constructed it.
Smart pointers work okay, but do not work perfectly. They are especially bad when dealing with legacy code.
Garbage Collection takes care of all of this, without having to have lots of overly-strict resource allocation/deallocation rules.
But which destructor? If X is passed as a pointer into two different data structures, how does each one know when they should kill X?
Don't follow my link -
Previous link is cut off. Most of the useful info is gone. I'll try to find a backup copy and repost.
"The interface is too cluttered! Hide file name extensions!"
r mation.html
A little OT rant - file extensions are a horrid beast which should never have been allowed to surface. The MacOS method is much better. In fact, computer designers really need to rethink metadata handling from the ground up. I did a short thinking exercise on this here:
http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/computers/MetaInfo
"Ressources are allocated only in a constructor, and deallocated only in the corresponding destructor."
That is not a 100% solution, especially since knowing when to call a destructor is often difficult as well.
All C++ compilers should have Garbage Collection turned on by default.
I have an exploit:
/dev/null /dev/null
rm -f
touch
This is true. I've also found that if you over-validate the _form_ of input, then the customer service reps and business entities are going to assume that the _value_ of the input is also correct.
For example, in places where I have validated that phone numbers follow a proper form, the customer service reps assumed that the phone numbers were definitely correct - becuase they were all properly formulated.
It's easier on them if they get a few orders where the phone number is just plain wrong so that they know that this is a USER-generated field and that USERs can lie as much as they want to. It makes it obvious just who is responsible for verifying the validity of the information presented. If you make sure the _form_ is fully prim and proper, people are going to assume that you verified the content as well.
C++ is only usable when used in conjunction with a garbage collector.
Spy vs Spy was a good one, too.
"The purpose of a textbook is to instruct a wide range of readers on a particular topic, not to provide an outlet for the author's free expression"
However, when an author exercises their free expression you learn more. There's several reasons:
1) the author is communicating in a tone that is more natural both for him and for his audience
2) the student can see some more of the thinking and philosophy behind the subject.
3) sharing free expression is the same as sharing passion. public schools definitely need more passion in learning, and if that can come from textbook authors, great!
Honestly, dry, technical knowledge doesn't help hardly anyone.
One of the biggest misconceptions today is that philosophy is an add-on. Actually, it underlies everything. If you think that you _can_ remove biases from writing, you have fallen into what I call "The Secular Humanist Trap", which is that the phrase "removal of bias" is really a codephrase for "the insertion of a secular humanist bias" in modern society, even by those who know nothing about secular humanism.