"If you could push a button and kill the person without getting caught, would you do it for a million dollars?' 'For them, it was yes, in a heartbeat.'"
The CNN article says: " The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state. "
Which is false.
First Amendment ("Article the Third): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If you read the brief, the court's findings were based more on "free exercise thereof" part of the first amendment, and not so much on the "law respecting an establishment" part.
According to the brief:
"Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter. The mere enactment of the 1954 Act in its particular context constitutes a religious recitation policy that interferes with Newdow's right to direct the religious education of his daughter. Accordingly, we hold that Newdow has standing to challenge the 1954 Act."
Of course this finding enforces an individuals right to practice religion as he/she sees fit... and not so much so this "anti-Christian" slant that CNN printed:
"I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."
Ironically, the court found that Newdow's ability to religiously educate his daughter in the ways of Atheism were being infringed by the pledge.
The word "fail isn't even mentioned in the article
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 1
No kidding.
Do a quick Search > Find in This Page CTRL+F (you're using Mozilla right?)
Can't find "fail?" That's because the article ISN'T saying that Linux has failed. In fact it discussed Linux's successes as being mild in real world business terms.
The entire first paragraph sets the tone of the discussion:
"But after attracting widespread attention and generating several moonshot initial public offerings during the tech boom, purveyors of Linux software and support have fallen back to earth -- along with their stocks."
So what? Who in the/. community ever graded Linux's successes based on stock value? Most of us debated whether or not standard business models would even work with Open Source.
"Linux is now the second most popular operating system for servers...Numbers like those have caught the attention of computer hardware makers. Last year...Linux server sales jumped by more than 50 percent to $400 million, with IBM leading the pack... Linux is becoming more mainstream every day."
Where the hell are you reading "Linux failed!"
Actually, it was a very mild article. For MSNBC to say ANYTHING favorable about Linux is amazing. No matter how small. Really the only negative comments are with the desktop implementation:
"But Linux has hardly made a dent in the desktop and home user markets."
That's just the truth. Linux's chief failing is that there is no reason to convert most users' desktop to it. In a typical business environment (believe it or not, most businesses aren't computer-centric), Win9X handles everything better than Linux. In a world where 95% of computer apps are either MSWord or MSExcel, I can't give my boss any good reason to convert over to Linux.
(Because it's free?! Not really. Most computers are using "borrowed" copies of MS... liberal licensing interpretation as we call it. You can get all in a huff if you like about "piracy"... all I can say is welcome to the real world.)
There's no reason to knee jerk to this article... there is nothing in it that isn't either the truth or subject to perspective.
we're passing each other going opposite ways in our trains of thought here...
I was thinking that copyrights had evolved into this "misuse" where people gain ownership of ideas. And that's not my understanding of the original intent of copyrights.
Copyrights were to give holders protection from competition. Not exclusive rights to something intangible.
It makes sense to me that when profit is involved, the government grants TEMPORARY monopoly status to an inventor/publisher in order to protect said idea from pre-established competitive forces. Too many times "those who were here first" will squash a new idea simply to avoid competition. So from a business aspect, it aids the economy for the federal government to protect the more general "free trade environment" by granting specific temporary restrictions on it. A sort of culling the herd of freedom as it were.
But outside of the business world, copyrights should have abolutely no meaning. Let's look at the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8): "(The Congress shall have Power) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
I've described in detail my interpretation of "promote the Progress of...", which is not necessarily the only or the correct interpretation, but is OPEN for discussion. However, notice that the article does not mention the words trademark or patent. Both concepts are implementations by the legislative branch and reinforced interpretations of the judicial.
Of course there is the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; "
Amendments take precedence over the main body of the constitution. There should be no question then that congress CAN NOT restrict the free movement of ideas. The creation of the trademark office (which is in itself an interpretation of Article I and NOT a direct implementation) is unconstitutional wherein it conflicts with the free expression of ideas amongst the general poulace. Of course the supreme court has the final say on the constitutionality of legislation, not myself. But it seems to me to be an OBVIOUS argument.
As to the ownership of ideas, I often make the comparison to the mid 1800s and the Sioux indians. The white man came across the Mississippi and said, "we own this land." And the indigenous people were completely bewildered by this concept. I'm sure you've heard the story before... owning the land was like owning the sky, the air, the summer...
I find it humorous that people have evolved the concept into ownership of even less tangible things like "ideas."
So that being said, I see the GPL as a way to use copyrights themselves in such a fashion as to protect source code from the worse misinterpretations of copyright law. You use this "ownership" idea against itself... in effect filling in the owner field in the application before someone else can, but never intending to use it for anything.
On the other hand, I'm not naive... I understand everyone has their own interpretations.
Copyright imples ownership. GPL pretty much makes the question of ownership moot. You can still claim that the software is yours, but who cares? Other than credit from your peers and the ability to change the license in the future (unless your source code contains someone else's GPL stuff), what exactly does your copyright give you?
"Were you able to figure out how good the car was before buying it just by opening the hood?"
pretty much so... yeah. (Of course it helps if the car is running.)
the way software welds the hood shut, you can't even tell if there's an engine inside... let alone how well it runs! For all you know there's a chipmunk in an exercise wheel and tape recorded engine noise under there!
I would be interested in finding out from where copyright law originally came. It's in the constitution... so perhaps the Federalist papers have some insight as to how copyright law was originally intended to be implemented?
BUT, freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are AMENDMENTS! Therefore, they take PRECEDENCE over any and all constituional law that came before them. There is nothing wrong with copyright and patent law EXCEPT where it conflicts with these amendments. When conflicts occur, copyrights need to take the back seat.
And I guarantee you that somewhere in history this discussion took place between the Federalists and Anti-federalists. There must be SOME evidence of correspondence between the two on this subject. But where?
An essay on historical freedom vs copyright would make intersting reading. (hint, hint)
you're looking at it from the perspective of the publisher... which may or may not be the correct way to interpret copyright law.
For instance, "what went into creating it" shouldn't have anything to do with the copyrighted material itself. You're not copyrighting the effort or the services... you copyright the product: a tangible item that can be touched, felt, sniffed... etc...
The publisher's efforts prior to product is completely meaningless. Copyright doesn't cover any of that. It's not "protected," at least not directly. I'm not sure why you think that anything outside the actual printed word of the book is copyrightable.
"Users don't care...infringe upon copywrite." That's not the point. The ability for ANYBODY to determine whether one book infringes on another's copyright is not the same as whether or not the typical user cares.
Copyrighted software (99% of the time is CLOSED software) claims copyright infringement and then places the burden of proof on the judicial system itself. Not so with books (or music or architecture, etc...) Are these companies required to submit a copy of their copyrighted source code to the government? I have no idea, but I'd bet that the answer is no. So companies are able to accuse people of copyright infringement WITHOUT HAVING ANY PROOF! Not to mention that the closed system allows companies to hide behind copyright when users demand quality. They don't produce source code because they are protected by law! Current interpretation of copyrighted source code is that it's illegal to distribute without the owner's permission. That's crazy! Copyright law should only forbid unauthorized production for profit... but should allow for open recognition of who's product is who's. Like the branding of cattle.
Obviously, I believe that if the government is going to give "protected status" to anybody, that it should get something back in return. And there is no way that the "welded hood" system benifits anybody but the software companies... it is government sponsored and it allows for very crappy programming without any accountability.
um... yeah. The GPL is a way of using copyright laws against themselves. Exploiting a loophole as it were. It is in no way the TYPICAL use of copyrights in software.
My interpretation of the GPL is "to copyright something in such a fashion that it can't be copyrighted."
perhaps this is why software is bad moreso than anything else?
When you copyright a book: anyone can pick it up, read a few paragraphs and compare it to another book. The reader can decide for themselves whether one book infringes on another's copyright, which one is "better" and can add that information to his/her accumulated knowledge. It's an OPEN copyright!
But when you copyright software: you get a (collection of) function(s) that you can run on your machine. A tool that you use. There's very little learning here... no using it as a foundation to the next level (like learning to add is a step towards learning to multiply). The user can't compare the program to other programs except through the GUI. He/she can't tell whether it infringes on another progam's copyright, and all (comparable) programs pretty much look the same. Not to mention that when it crashes... no one knows why.
Yes this is basically the open software vs closed debate. BUT, I don't understand this "welding the hood closed" approach that software copyrights are allowed to take. You don't see many books on Amazon with their pages glued together?!
"Your post wasn't interesting. Several of the replies were. Deal with it."
What the fuck are you talking about? There were a dozen replies within a half ah hour. It had been moderated up to 3 for most of the day before some moron moderated it as troll. (Which will most likely get meta-moderated as unfair). It just goes to show that most of the newcomers with moderation points don't even understand what they're moderating. How can it be a troll when most of the replies agreed with my original post. Most of the replies themselves were ALSO moderated up AFTER my post was.
So somebody came along and didn't agree with my point... and instead of discussing it, moderated it down. Which is typical of/. these days. There isn't any intellectual discussion like a few years ago. It's all a bunch of wet behind the ears kids and their ignorant "march in line" opinions screaming at each other.
Newcomers have ruined/. Now it's just an opinion page for pre-pubescents. No one has any reading comprehension skills here anymore. All of the replies are a perfect example of that fact. My point WAS interesting. And it had 12 replies to that fact within the hour. But ONE reply had the "popular opinion" one liner...and had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which it was posted... and POOF, moderated up! That's such crap.
I'm tired of the public school drones and their inability to think out of the box. A characteristic, I might add, that exemplifies true geeks. These "newcomers" are late to the game. They all have the same uninformed knee-jerk reaction to posts... and they all have the moderation points. A system that rewards a poster for being "in line" with the rest is inherently flawed... and when/. was controlled by only a handful of people ALL SIDES WERE HEARD! It was interesting as hell!
THAT WAS MY POINT! Re-read the first line: "Before we get 100 posts telling us that stem cell research is being held up by whacko Chrisitian right wing bible thumpers..."
the god damn title of the thread is POLITICAL DEBATE
So to go off on some knee-jerk tangent about something I never said is typical of/. these days. But the fact that it got moderated up just goes to show that the moderators don't even read the threads... they just find the ideas that voice their own opinions and they turn them up!
THAT ISN'T WHAT MODERATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE. Once again, read the guidelines.
God I hate teenagers. Get your head out of your ass.
"You posted an argument or statement that most people disliked - end of story"
oh and by the way... my original post had only one point modded as troll. The other points were modded up for interesting. If you're not even going to check your facts or read the entire thread, please don't waste our time.
You're not supposed to moderate based on whether you agree with the post! You're supposed to moderate based on whether it's interesting or not.
That's the problem with/. these says: you people don't even know how to moderate correctly.
Ironically your rant proves my point.
BTW, "his" point had nothing to do with my post. He was completely off-topic for my post. So he shouldn't have even bothered replying to it... but instead should have started a new thread. For moderators to award points for being "out of left field" IS POOR MODERATION. Whether you think so or not is completely irrelevant.
Finally, don't bother posting if you're not going to log-in. No one reads anonymous coward posts (other than the parent poster). And your user number typically indicates if you're a newcomer to/. and it makes it easier to ignore the uninformed.
Somehow I don't consider the works of
H.G. Wells
Isacc Asimov
Aldous Huxley (just to name a few) to be mind-numbing television shows.
The point of the exercise was to get a few people to add some various Sci-Fi works to the list. Preferably ones that tout the HORRORS of cloning and genetic manipulation... but I'd settle for robot underlings as well.
My point was that there are enough anxieties about Frankenstein's monster (hey! there's another one) being promoted through the last 100 years that we don't need to turn this into a political bashing. (I'm so tired of the public school drones spouting "it's a Christian right conspiracy" everytime somebody takes an opposing stance.)
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You don't seem to be quoting me. Therefore, your post is one big incorrect assumption.
What's weird is that you got moderated up! Hell my first post got moderated as "troll" even though most of the supplementary replies got moderated as interesting. Just goes to show how bad the/. moderation system is these days...
Before we get 100 posts telling us that stem cell research is being held up by whacko Chrisitian right wing bible thumpers...
May I remind you that there are hundreds of Sci-Fi stories (books, TV, movies, etc...) debating the creation of an UNDERCLASS! Whether this be robots, animals, races or CLONES!!!
Space - Above and Beyond (FOX TV) "Tanks," human clones and "AIs" Star Trek TNG: Data/Lor. And those stupid mouse looking robots that could synthesis their own tools. Asimov I, Robot: self-explanatory Max Headroom: body harvesters Brave New World: alphas.
Any others? Feel free to add a few if you can think of them... I don't have time (I'm at work) to list all of the ones that I can think of, so please help out.
Anyway, I hate the idea of stem cell research. And I'm a self-proclaimed atheist. It's only a matter of time before somebody connects "test tube baby" technology with "cloning" technologies and grows their own stem cells from human fetuses.
Isn't this the creation of an underclass of humans whos purpose it is to serve the higher classes?
"Automated backup systems on each workstation can go a long way in helping this."
At my company we don't actually back up each machine... more like back up the network itself.
Each Win client will have a folder shared with user level security. These folders are to be backed up. We have one server running Linux and BRU. This server has each clients' shared directory mounted (-t smbfs), and backed up each afternoon. We of course stagger the backup routine to save one client at a time. Nightly backups are no good since most users shut their machines down before they leave.
So far it has been working pretty well. We only lose information if the user saves data in non-shared folders (very rare since we typically share the DEFAULT folders for each application)... or the hard drive crashes prior to the daily backup.
The only problem is backing up more than half a dozen clients to one tape can chew up a lot of tape.
First off you have to keep your analysis simple when posting
here... have you read some of the anonymous coward
replies?
Secondly, I am only speaking from experience. I sat
at a meeting with the president of Medusa cement here in the states
(I assume that you are not a US citizen from your spelling of the
word "labor"). We were implementing a CEM (continuos
emissions monitor) system such that they were able to burn "hazardous
wastes" as replacement for sulfur high coal. These wastes are
typically left over chemicals or oil by-products from other
industries such as plastics, paints, steel manufacturing and such.
They burn much cleaner and more efficiently than sulfur high coal.
(In the eighties the big environmental scare was "acid rain"...
now it's "greenhouse gases.")
These CEMs were
required for the cement plant to burn such materials under the 40
CFR. The federal government insists that if you are to burn any
hazardous materials that you record (to the pound... or smaller
depending on the material) all materials (including non hazardous)
that go in and out of the kiln. Therefore emissions, being an
exhaust, must be monitored to the parts per million.
The CEMs
would save the plant money in at least 3 ways:
1. Burning hazardous waste is cheaper
than burning coal. Waste generators pay us to dispose of the
material, thus they are virtually paying us for our fuel. 2. The
CEMs provide a tool to which we can monitor the efficiency of kiln
combustion. A tool that the plant did not have before. Higher
efficiency typically means lower costs in this case. 3. It enabled
us to better monitor already existing restrictions on other emissions
prior to burning hazardous wastes. Thus avoiding permit violations
and the associated fines...
So as far as costs go, it was a "can't lose" situation
for the company. However, the president looked me straight in the
eyes and said:
"our primary goal here is to make
cement... NOT burn hazardous wastes. We make money when we make
cement."
Your post seems a bit like an economics major. Someone who perhaps
studies economics in books... but is not actually exposed to "real
world" economics. Or perhaps your industries behave differently
than ours.
In my country, middle management is assigned the
task of perpetually cutting costs. There is no finish line for these
people. Which in my mind is just insane... at some point the laws of
diminishing returns should apply and these people would simply run
out of places to cut. But of course if they can't find costs to cut,
then their positions are no longer necessary. Thus, middle management
will ALWAYS find some place to cut.
It is in my
experience that human resources are the most expensive of the
industrial tools. For every worker you eliminate, you save the
company millions of dollars over what would have been that worker's employment term.
There is almost no other area that when eliminated has that high of a
cost savings return.
So
let's go back over your post:
"Job losses tend to happen at times of crisis."
No. Job losses happen whenever management requires a boost in
the profit margin... or an increase in stock value. Crisis has very
little to do with it.
Secondly, "The potential for
automation will already have been there beforehand as a result of the
steady stream of new technology and processes." No.
The implementation of any new technology will always be fought by
both "manual labor" and management. Training costs are
typically prohibitive, and new technology typically replaces manual
labor. The only time any new technology ever gets implemented is
when it's 4-5 months too late. Perhaps this is similar to what your
are saying, but it is my experience that companies attempt to
maintain the existing production system until it is painfully obvious
that a change is required.
Third, "suggesting that an
increase in the cost of using energy and machines is going to reduce
a firm's demand for labour is a little peculiar." No.
Typically when analyzing whether or not a new capital project is
acceptable, we must prove that there will be a reduction in our
production costs that we can reclaim within 5 years. This
reclamation is to offset the initial capital investment. Typically,
the only way that you can get this quick of a return is to eliminate
jobs. It is unfortunate, but true. Your analysis does not seem to
account for this real world time limitation.
"Finally
you shouldn't forget that most economies are heavily biased against
using labour because of the tendency to levy high taxes on income for
reasons of fairness or income redistribution." Huh?
Taxes doesn't typically enter into any calculation on new equipment.
Capital venture is typically handled by a separate department from
accounting. (Accounting/Finance handles all tax issues). Capital is
given a budget for the year, and are allowed to spend that money
however they feel is appropriate (within certain engineering
guidelines) as long as they show a certain decrease in production
costs every year. I have submitted thousands of RFP
(requests for purchase), thousands of projections and
thousands of budgets... and taxes never EVER came up in
my calculations. Again, you sound like an economist... but it is my
experience that economics has little to do with business decisions.
If you really want to understand how American Business works read
The Dilbert Principle by Scott Adams. If it helps, I minored in
Economics in college... and was distressed to find out what a
complete waste of time it was.
- Project manager installing/designing CEMs since 1991
Let's add a few factors: 1. CO2 production. This is not a bad thing in and of itself. CO2 is not pollution. It has yet to be scientifically determined what effect an increase in CO2 will have on our environment. It is very easy to say "greenhouse! greenhouse!" But the fact is NO ONE KNOWS! Combined with the devestation of vegetation PLANET WIDE... all we can say is that it will probably have an effect. Good or bad... who knows? 2. Non-emission pollution. I would rather drink the water from a U.S. river than from a third world country. Why is that? Because "pound for pound" the United States is one of the cleanest in the world. By focusing on emissions only, you really don't see the big picture. 3. U.S. environmental laws. I have met the man that was primarily responsible for the 40 CFR... and worked with him for several years. He (and a few other environmental engineers) sat around for a few months and worked out what they thought to be "acceptable regulations" within the guidelines presented to them by the Fed. These laws were pretty much passed carte blanche without any modification from the government... because after all, these engineers are experts. Then the engineers turned around and made lots of money hiring themselves out as consultants to companies. They made $300/hr instructing corporations how to circumvent these laws. 4. Lost jobs. If you have ever worked in industry, you'd realize that the first cost cut is with lost jobs. "Robots don't get benefits." Any increase in costs will result in the loss of unskilled jobs. These new jobs that you speak of will be very few and far between... not to mention drawn from the skilled labor pool. 5. Your "formulae." Is sparse at best. It's a bunch of unconnected reasoning. By themselves each point seems pretty clear... but let's look at what happens when you combine them all together:
Third world countries don't produce emissions higher than the United States, they make up for it by poisoning their only water supplies, cutting down vast stretches of rain forest and by having the highest unemployment (=poverty) rate in the world.
We are free to make our laws anyway we like, but there are only a handful people in the country that have experience in both environmental and industry... and when called on as "experts" there will be no one to look over their shoulders.
As costs increase, the use of energy will decrease as plants close and corporation presidents retire a few years earlier than the typical baby boomer. Without demand for energy at power plant dictated prices, power plants will also close down. As people lose their expensive union jobs, there will be no money for expensive solar and H2 cells.
And the funny thing is, if you remove the CO2 from the emissions, where exactly does it go?
The documentary said that cats don't purr to each other, only to humans. (It then went on to say that there were in fact a few times that cats purred within their own social structure, but it was very very rare).
This was that discovery channel documentary series, one hour long, that focused on one (typically domesticated) species at a time. I've also seen the episode on horses and the one on dogs.
My male cat meows all the time to other cats. I can't tell you how many times he's woken me up at 3 am making that stupid "me-OW? me-OW?" call. He wanders the house looking for the female (someone needs to tell him that he's been neutered.)
enough of the anonymous coward postings... if you have something to say, post your name with it.
I'm putting Anonymous Coward on my ignore list, so don't bother replying if you aren't going to have the courtesy of using a nickname.
" If you were to hear about every miscarriage and abortion that happens and to express the appropriate amount of grief for the death of the child (or as you said before, the grief of not even getting to see your child), you'd be put into such a depression that you wouldn't be able to function."
congratualtions, you've just described perfectly how most people react to ONE miscarriage. Again, because you are able to describe EXACTLY how it feels to have a miscarriage and characterize it as an example of what DOESN'T happen demonstrates that you've never experienced one up close and personal. For you to be so callous as to continue forcing your ignorant opinion down the throats of we who have seen the devastation personally, marks you as an unfeeling little bug. Deep down you know that you have no experience to draw from, so you don't really KNOW what it's like personally. But to continue an argument to which you are ill-equipped just for the sake of arguing is sick. How is it that you have missed such an obvious and typical reaction? Why do you NEED to believe that people react cold and unfeeling? Is that your reaction? Do you feel ashamed and need to excuse your inhuman response by proving that it's "normal?"
As to my "absurd claims":
You have said: "A murder gets media attention, a miscarriage doesn't." "Does every abortion in the world make you stop..." "A miscarriage... just doesn't hit most people the same way."
So what am I missing here? How exactly does what you've said NOT imply the media? How are we supposed to hear about every abortion in the world? Are you omniscient and can HEAR everyone's thoughts? The fact that YOU brought up the media first and then continued with the discussion in GLOBAL context binds us to information distributed via the media. I was just continuing your points. To blame this media connection on me, as if I pulled it out of thin air, marks you as the type who argues just to argue. Otherwise, you're an idiot or a liar. Take your pick. Either way, you are obviously misinformed and not worthy of my continuing this discussion.
I do agree with you 100% on one thing: You do tie your innermost feelings to what you've experience in the world. And it is obvious from this discussion that you have little or no experiences. To me you seem like a naive teenager. You speak using your logic skills only, but you've no experiences on which to build them. You state things as fact when all they are are just exercises in logic. Without a foundation that you can easily prove, your argument will fail. Yours is based on this idea that the world is a cold unfeeling place... and that's simply not true. There are 6 billion people, so there is no "the world is _______" statement that is actually true. It's DIFFERENT for everyone. So the best that you can hope for is to ASK someone who's actually experienced it themselves. To try and "logic out" something like this is just stupid. That is why the best writers "speak from what they know."
if you would like to get the last word in, feel free... but I'm not going to be bothered with you anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Music CD: $15
Video DVD: $22
Do the math!
Isn't this a Twilight Zone episode:
BUTTON, BUTTON
Doesn't TV teach us anything?
The CNN article says:
" The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state. "
Which is false.
First Amendment ("Article the Third):
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If you read the brief, the court's findings were based more on "free exercise thereof" part of the first amendment, and not so much on the "law respecting an establishment" part.
According to the brief:
"Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter. The mere enactment of the 1954 Act in its particular context constitutes a religious recitation policy that interferes with Newdow's right to direct the religious education of his daughter. Accordingly, we hold that Newdow has standing to challenge the 1954 Act."
Of course this finding enforces an individuals right to practice religion as he/she sees fit... and not so much so this "anti-Christian" slant that CNN printed:
"I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."
Ironically, the court found that Newdow's ability to religiously educate his daughter in the ways of Atheism were being infringed by the pledge.
No kidding.
/. community ever graded Linux's successes based on stock value? Most of us debated whether or not standard business models would even work with Open Source.
Do a quick Search > Find in This Page CTRL+F
(you're using Mozilla right?)
Can't find "fail?" That's because the article ISN'T saying that Linux has failed. In fact it discussed Linux's successes as being mild in real world business terms.
The entire first paragraph sets the tone of the discussion:
"But after attracting widespread attention and generating several moonshot initial public offerings during the tech boom, purveyors of Linux software and support have fallen back to earth -- along with their stocks."
So what? Who in the
"Linux is now the second most popular operating system for servers...Numbers like those have caught the attention of computer hardware makers. Last year...Linux server sales jumped by more than 50 percent to $400 million, with IBM leading the pack... Linux is becoming more mainstream every day."
Where the hell are you reading "Linux failed!"
Actually, it was a very mild article. For MSNBC to say ANYTHING favorable about Linux is amazing. No matter how small.
Really the only negative comments are with the desktop implementation:
"But Linux has hardly made a dent in the desktop and home user markets."
That's just the truth. Linux's chief failing is that there is no reason to convert most users' desktop to it. In a typical business environment (believe it or not, most businesses aren't computer-centric), Win9X handles everything better than Linux. In a world where 95% of computer apps are either MSWord or MSExcel, I can't give my boss any good reason to convert over to Linux.
(Because it's free?! Not really. Most computers are using "borrowed" copies of MS... liberal licensing interpretation as we call it. You can get all in a huff if you like about "piracy"... all I can say is welcome to the real world.)
There's no reason to knee jerk to this article... there is nothing in it that isn't either the truth or subject to perspective.
here at CNET:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-938685.html
Interview with Chief Executive Matthew Szulik on Red Hat's view of the desktop world.
we're passing each other going opposite ways in our trains of thought here...
I was thinking that copyrights had evolved into this "misuse" where people gain ownership of ideas. And that's not my understanding of the original intent of copyrights.
Copyrights were to give holders protection from competition. Not exclusive rights to something intangible.
It makes sense to me that when profit is involved, the government grants TEMPORARY monopoly status to an inventor/publisher in order to protect said idea from pre-established competitive forces. Too many times "those who were here first" will squash a new idea simply to avoid competition. So from a business aspect, it aids the economy for the federal government to protect the more general "free trade environment" by granting specific temporary restrictions on it. A sort of culling the herd of freedom as it were.
But outside of the business world, copyrights should have abolutely no meaning. Let's look at the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8):
"(The Congress shall have Power) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
I've described in detail my interpretation of "promote the Progress of...", which is not necessarily the only or the correct interpretation, but is OPEN for discussion. However, notice that the article does not mention the words trademark or patent. Both concepts are implementations by the legislative branch and reinforced interpretations of the judicial.
Of course there is the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; "
Amendments take precedence over the main body of the constitution. There should be no question then that congress CAN NOT restrict the free movement of ideas. The creation of the trademark office (which is in itself an interpretation of Article I and NOT a direct implementation) is unconstitutional wherein it conflicts with the free expression of ideas amongst the general poulace. Of course the supreme court has the final say on the constitutionality of legislation, not myself. But it seems to me to be an OBVIOUS argument.
As to the ownership of ideas, I often make the comparison to the mid 1800s and the Sioux indians. The white man came across the Mississippi and said, "we own this land." And the indigenous people were completely bewildered by this concept. I'm sure you've heard the story before... owning the land was like owning the sky, the air, the summer...
I find it humorous that people have evolved the concept into ownership of even less tangible things like "ideas."
So that being said, I see the GPL as a way to use copyrights themselves in such a fashion as to protect source code from the worse misinterpretations of copyright law. You use this "ownership" idea against itself... in effect filling in the owner field in the application before someone else can, but never intending to use it for anything.
On the other hand, I'm not naive... I understand everyone has their own interpretations.
I didn't say that it was.
Copyright imples ownership. GPL pretty much makes the question of ownership moot. You can still claim that the software is yours, but who cares? Other than credit from your peers and the ability to change the license in the future (unless your source code contains someone else's GPL stuff), what exactly does your copyright give you?
"Were you able to figure out how good the car was before buying it just by opening the hood?"
pretty much so... yeah. (Of course it helps if the car is running.)
the way software welds the hood shut, you can't even tell if there's an engine inside... let alone how well it runs! For all you know there's a chipmunk in an exercise wheel and tape recorded engine noise under there!
what he said. (your post is refreshing.)
I would be interested in finding out from where copyright law originally came. It's in the constitution... so perhaps the Federalist papers have some insight as to how copyright law was originally intended to be implemented?
BUT, freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are AMENDMENTS! Therefore, they take PRECEDENCE over any and all constituional law that came before them. There is nothing wrong with copyright and patent law EXCEPT where it conflicts with these amendments. When conflicts occur, copyrights need to take the back seat.
And I guarantee you that somewhere in history this discussion took place between the Federalists and Anti-federalists. There must be SOME evidence of correspondence between the two on this subject. But where?
An essay on historical freedom vs copyright would make intersting reading. (hint, hint)
you're looking at it from the perspective of the publisher... which may or may not be the correct way to interpret copyright law.
For instance, "what went into creating it" shouldn't have anything to do with the copyrighted material itself. You're not copyrighting the effort or the services... you copyright the product: a tangible item that can be touched, felt, sniffed... etc...
The publisher's efforts prior to product is completely meaningless. Copyright doesn't cover any of that. It's not "protected," at least not directly. I'm not sure why you think that anything outside the actual printed word of the book is copyrightable.
"Users don't care...infringe upon copywrite." That's not the point. The ability for ANYBODY to determine whether one book infringes on another's copyright is not the same as whether or not the typical user cares.
Copyrighted software (99% of the time is CLOSED software) claims copyright infringement and then places the burden of proof on the judicial system itself. Not so with books (or music or architecture, etc...) Are these companies required to submit a copy of their copyrighted source code to the government? I have no idea, but I'd bet that the answer is no. So companies are able to accuse people of copyright infringement WITHOUT HAVING ANY PROOF! Not to mention that the closed system allows companies to hide behind copyright when users demand quality. They don't produce source code because they are protected by law! Current interpretation of copyrighted source code is that it's illegal to distribute without the owner's permission. That's crazy! Copyright law should only forbid unauthorized production for profit... but should allow for open recognition of who's product is who's. Like the branding of cattle.
Obviously, I believe that if the government is going to give "protected status" to anybody, that it should get something back in return. And there is no way that the "welded hood" system benifits anybody but the software companies... it is government sponsored and it allows for very crappy programming without any accountability.
"Ever hear of the GPL?"
um... yeah. The GPL is a way of using copyright laws against themselves. Exploiting a loophole as it were. It is in no way the TYPICAL use of copyrights in software.
My interpretation of the GPL is "to copyright something in such a fashion that it can't be copyrighted."
:)
"but users can't see under the hood"
perhaps this is why software is bad moreso than anything else?
When you copyright a book: anyone can pick it up, read a few paragraphs and compare it to another book. The reader can decide for themselves whether one book infringes on another's copyright, which one is "better" and can add that information to his/her accumulated knowledge. It's an OPEN copyright!
But when you copyright software: you get a (collection of) function(s) that you can run on your machine. A tool that you use. There's very little learning here... no using it as a foundation to the next level (like learning to add is a step towards learning to multiply). The user can't compare the program to other programs except through the GUI. He/she can't tell whether it infringes on another progam's copyright, and all (comparable) programs pretty much look the same. Not to mention that when it crashes... no one knows why.
Yes this is basically the open software vs closed debate. BUT, I don't understand this "welding the hood closed" approach that software copyrights are allowed to take. You don't see many books on Amazon with their pages glued together?!
"Your post wasn't interesting. Several of the replies were. Deal with it."
/. these days. There isn't any intellectual discussion like a few years ago. It's all a bunch of wet behind the ears kids and their ignorant "march in line" opinions screaming at each other.
/.
/. was controlled by only a handful of people ALL SIDES WERE HEARD! It was interesting as hell!
/. these days. But the fact that it got moderated up just goes to show that the moderators don't even read the threads... they just find the ideas that voice their own opinions and they turn them up!
What the fuck are you talking about? There were a dozen replies within a half ah hour. It had been moderated up to 3 for most of the day before some moron moderated it as troll. (Which will most likely get meta-moderated as unfair). It just goes to show that most of the newcomers with moderation points don't even understand what they're moderating. How can it be a troll when most of the replies agreed with my original post. Most of the replies themselves were ALSO moderated up AFTER my post was.
So somebody came along and didn't agree with my point... and instead of discussing it, moderated it down. Which is typical of
Newcomers have ruined
Now it's just an opinion page for pre-pubescents. No one has any reading comprehension skills here anymore. All of the replies are a perfect example of that fact. My point WAS interesting. And it had 12 replies to that fact within the hour. But ONE reply had the "popular opinion" one liner...and had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which it was posted... and POOF, moderated up! That's such crap.
I'm tired of the public school drones and their inability to think out of the box. A characteristic, I might add, that exemplifies true geeks. These "newcomers" are late to the game. They all have the same uninformed knee-jerk reaction to posts... and they all have the moderation points. A system that rewards a poster for being "in line" with the rest is inherently flawed... and when
THAT WAS MY POINT! Re-read the first line:
"Before we get 100 posts telling us that stem cell research is being held up by whacko Chrisitian right wing bible thumpers..."
the god damn title of the thread is POLITICAL DEBATE
So to go off on some knee-jerk tangent about something I never said is typical of
THAT ISN'T WHAT MODERATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE. Once again, read the guidelines.
God I hate teenagers. Get your head out of your ass.
"You posted an argument or statement that most people disliked - end of story"
oh and by the way... my original post had only one point modded as troll. The other points were modded up for interesting. If you're not even going to check your facts or read the entire thread, please don't waste our time.
You need to read the guidelines to moderation.
/. these says: you people don't even know how to moderate correctly.
/. and it makes it easier to ignore the uninformed.
You're not supposed to moderate based on whether you agree with the post! You're supposed to moderate based on whether it's interesting or not.
That's the problem with
Ironically your rant proves my point.
BTW, "his" point had nothing to do with my post. He was completely off-topic for my post. So he shouldn't have even bothered replying to it... but instead should have started a new thread. For moderators to award points for being "out of left field" IS POOR MODERATION. Whether you think so or not is completely irrelevant.
Finally, don't bother posting if you're not going to log-in. No one reads anonymous coward posts (other than the parent poster). And your user number typically indicates if you're a newcomer to
Somehow I don't consider the works of
/. moderation system is these days...
H.G. Wells
Isacc Asimov
Aldous Huxley (just to name a few)
to be mind-numbing television shows.
The point of the exercise was to get a few people to add some various Sci-Fi works to the list. Preferably ones that tout the HORRORS of cloning and genetic manipulation... but I'd settle for robot underlings as well.
My point was that there are enough anxieties about Frankenstein's monster (hey! there's another one) being promoted through the last 100 years that we don't need to turn this into a political bashing. (I'm so tired of the public school drones spouting "it's a Christian right conspiracy" everytime somebody takes an opposing stance.)
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You don't seem to be quoting me. Therefore, your post is one big incorrect assumption.
What's weird is that you got moderated up! Hell my first post got moderated as "troll" even though most of the supplementary replies got moderated as interesting. Just goes to show how bad the
Damn, I forgot the most obvious one:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0133093
Before we get 100 posts telling us that stem cell research is being held up by whacko Chrisitian right wing bible thumpers...
May I remind you that there are hundreds of Sci-Fi stories (books, TV, movies, etc...) debating the creation of an UNDERCLASS! Whether this be robots, animals, races or CLONES!!!
Space - Above and Beyond (FOX TV) "Tanks," human clones and "AIs"
Star Trek TNG: Data/Lor. And those stupid mouse looking robots that could synthesis their own tools.
Asimov I, Robot: self-explanatory
Max Headroom: body harvesters
Brave New World: alphas.
Any others? Feel free to add a few if you can think of them... I don't have time (I'm at work) to list all of the ones that I can think of, so please help out.
Anyway, I hate the idea of stem cell research. And I'm a self-proclaimed atheist. It's only a matter of time before somebody connects "test tube baby" technology with "cloning" technologies and grows their own stem cells from human fetuses.
Isn't this the creation of an underclass of humans whos purpose it is to serve the higher classes?
"Automated backup systems on each workstation can go a long way in helping this."
At my company we don't actually back up each machine... more like back up the network itself.
Each Win client will have a folder shared with user level security. These folders are to be backed up. We have one server running Linux and BRU. This server has each clients' shared directory mounted (-t smbfs), and backed up each afternoon. We of course stagger the backup routine to save one client at a time. Nightly backups are no good since most users shut their machines down before they leave.
So far it has been working pretty well. We only lose information if the user saves data in non-shared folders (very rare since we typically share the DEFAULT folders for each application)... or the hard drive crashes prior to the daily backup.
The only problem is backing up more than half a dozen clients to one tape can chew up a lot of tape.
Not meaning to nitpick, BUT:
separate
If you're going to use caps for emphasis, spelling the words correctly helps.
First off you have to keep your analysis simple when posting here... have you read some of the anonymous coward replies?
1. Burning hazardous waste is cheaper than burning coal. Waste generators pay us to dispose of the material, thus they are virtually paying us for our fuel.Secondly, I am only speaking from experience. I sat at a meeting with the president of Medusa cement here in the states (I assume that you are not a US citizen from your spelling of the word "labor"). We were implementing a CEM (continuos emissions monitor) system such that they were able to burn "hazardous wastes" as replacement for sulfur high coal. These wastes are typically left over chemicals or oil by-products from other industries such as plastics, paints, steel manufacturing and such. They burn much cleaner and more efficiently than sulfur high coal. (In the eighties the big environmental scare was "acid rain"... now it's "greenhouse gases.")
These CEMs were required for the cement plant to burn such materials under the 40 CFR. The federal government insists that if you are to burn any hazardous materials that you record (to the pound... or smaller depending on the material) all materials (including non hazardous) that go in and out of the kiln. Therefore emissions, being an exhaust, must be monitored to the parts per million.
The CEMs would save the plant money in at least 3 ways:
2. The CEMs provide a tool to which we can monitor the efficiency of kiln combustion. A tool that the plant did not have before. Higher efficiency typically means lower costs in this case.
3. It enabled us to better monitor already existing restrictions on other emissions prior to burning hazardous wastes. Thus avoiding permit violations and the associated fines...
So as far as costs go, it was a "can't lose" situation for the company. However, the president looked me straight in the eyes and said:
"our primary goal here is to make cement... NOT burn hazardous wastes. We make money when we make cement."Your post seems a bit like an economics major. Someone who perhaps studies economics in books... but is not actually exposed to "real world" economics. Or perhaps your industries behave differently than ours.
In my country, middle management is assigned the task of perpetually cutting costs. There is no finish line for these people. Which in my mind is just insane... at some point the laws of diminishing returns should apply and these people would simply run out of places to cut. But of course if they can't find costs to cut, then their positions are no longer necessary. Thus, middle management will ALWAYS find some place to cut.
It is in my experience that human resources are the most expensive of the industrial tools. For every worker you eliminate, you save the company millions of dollars over what would have been that worker's employment term. There is almost no other area that when eliminated has that high of a cost savings return.
So let's go back over your post:
"Job losses tend to happen at times of crisis." No. Job losses happen whenever management requires a boost in the profit margin... or an increase in stock value. Crisis has very little to do with it.
Secondly, "The potential for automation will already have been there beforehand as a result of the steady stream of new technology and processes." No. The implementation of any new technology will always be fought by both "manual labor" and management. Training costs are typically prohibitive, and new technology typically replaces manual labor. The only time any new technology ever gets implemented is when it's 4-5 months too late. Perhaps this is similar to what your are saying, but it is my experience that companies attempt to maintain the existing production system until it is painfully obvious that a change is required.
Third, "suggesting that an increase in the cost of using energy and machines is going to reduce a firm's demand for labour is a little peculiar." No. Typically when analyzing whether or not a new capital project is acceptable, we must prove that there will be a reduction in our production costs that we can reclaim within 5 years. This reclamation is to offset the initial capital investment. Typically, the only way that you can get this quick of a return is to eliminate jobs. It is unfortunate, but true. Your analysis does not seem to account for this real world time limitation.
"Finally you shouldn't forget that most economies are heavily biased against using labour because of the tendency to levy high taxes on income for reasons of fairness or income redistribution." Huh? Taxes doesn't typically enter into any calculation on new equipment. Capital venture is typically handled by a separate department from accounting. (Accounting/Finance handles all tax issues). Capital is given a budget for the year, and are allowed to spend that money however they feel is appropriate (within certain engineering guidelines) as long as they show a certain decrease in production costs every year. I have submitted thousands of RFP (requests for purchase), thousands of projections and thousands of budgets... and taxes never EVER came up in my calculations. Again, you sound like an economist... but it is my experience that economics has little to do with business decisions.
If you really want to understand how American Business works read The Dilbert Principle by Scott Adams. If it helps, I minored in Economics in college... and was distressed to find out what a complete waste of time it was.
- Project manager installing/designing CEMs since 1991
Your calculations aren't very deep.
Let's add a few factors:
1. CO2 production. This is not a bad thing in and of itself. CO2 is not pollution. It has yet to be scientifically determined what effect an increase in CO2 will have on our environment. It is very easy to say "greenhouse! greenhouse!" But the fact is NO ONE KNOWS! Combined with the devestation of vegetation PLANET WIDE... all we can say is that it will probably have an effect. Good or bad... who knows?
2. Non-emission pollution. I would rather drink the water from a U.S. river than from a third world country. Why is that? Because "pound for pound" the United States is one of the cleanest in the world. By focusing on emissions only, you really don't see the big picture.
3. U.S. environmental laws. I have met the man that was primarily responsible for the 40 CFR... and worked with him for several years. He (and a few other environmental engineers) sat around for a few months and worked out what they thought to be "acceptable regulations" within the guidelines presented to them by the Fed. These laws were pretty much passed carte blanche without any modification from the government... because after all, these engineers are experts. Then the engineers turned around and made lots of money hiring themselves out as consultants to companies. They made $300/hr instructing corporations how to circumvent these laws.
4. Lost jobs. If you have ever worked in industry, you'd realize that the first cost cut is with lost jobs. "Robots don't get benefits." Any increase in costs will result in the loss of unskilled jobs. These new jobs that you speak of will be very few and far between... not to mention drawn from the skilled labor pool.
5. Your "formulae." Is sparse at best. It's a bunch of unconnected reasoning. By themselves each point seems pretty clear... but let's look at what happens when you combine them all together:
Third world countries don't produce emissions higher than the United States, they make up for it by poisoning their only water supplies, cutting down vast stretches of rain forest and by having the highest unemployment (=poverty) rate in the world.
We are free to make our laws anyway we like, but there are only a handful people in the country that have experience in both environmental and industry... and when called on as "experts" there will be no one to look over their shoulders.
As costs increase, the use of energy will decrease as plants close and corporation presidents retire a few years earlier than the typical baby boomer. Without demand for energy at power plant dictated prices, power plants will also close down. As people lose their expensive union jobs, there will be no money for expensive solar and H2 cells.
And the funny thing is, if you remove the CO2 from the emissions, where exactly does it go?
not meow... PURR!
The documentary said that cats don't purr to each other, only to humans. (It then went on to say that there were in fact a few times that cats purred within their own social structure, but it was very very rare).
This was that discovery channel documentary series, one hour long, that focused on one (typically domesticated) species at a time. I've also seen the episode on horses and the one on dogs.
My male cat meows all the time to other cats. I can't tell you how many times he's woken me up at 3 am making that stupid "me-OW? me-OW?" call. He wanders the house looking for the female (someone needs to tell him that he's been neutered.)
without even reading your post... my apologies for flaming you. Anonymous Coward postings are always so annoying...
now that you've clarified your position, I find your thoughts well thought out. Cool.
enough of the anonymous coward postings... if you have something to say, post your name with it.
I'm putting Anonymous Coward on my ignore list, so don't bother replying if you aren't going to have the courtesy of using a nickname.
" If you were to hear about every miscarriage and abortion that happens and to express the appropriate amount of grief for the death of the child (or as you said before, the grief of not even getting to see your child), you'd be put into such a depression that you wouldn't be able to function."
congratualtions, you've just described perfectly how most people react to ONE miscarriage. Again, because you are able to describe EXACTLY how it feels to have a miscarriage and characterize it as an example of what DOESN'T happen demonstrates that you've never experienced one up close and personal. For you to be so callous as to continue forcing your ignorant opinion down the throats of we who have seen the devastation personally, marks you as an unfeeling little bug. Deep down you know that you have no experience to draw from, so you don't really KNOW what it's like personally. But to continue an argument to which you are ill-equipped just for the sake of arguing is sick. How is it that you have missed such an obvious and typical reaction? Why do you NEED to believe that people react cold and unfeeling? Is that your reaction? Do you feel ashamed and need to excuse your inhuman response by proving that it's "normal?"
As to my "absurd claims":
You have said:
"A murder gets media attention, a miscarriage doesn't."
"Does every abortion in the world make you stop..."
"A miscarriage... just doesn't hit most people the same way."
So what am I missing here? How exactly does what you've said NOT imply the media? How are we supposed to hear about every abortion in the world? Are you omniscient and can HEAR everyone's thoughts? The fact that YOU brought up the media first and then continued with the discussion in GLOBAL context binds us to information distributed via the media. I was just continuing your points. To blame this media connection on me, as if I pulled it out of thin air, marks you as the type who argues just to argue. Otherwise, you're an idiot or a liar. Take your pick. Either way, you are obviously misinformed and not worthy of my continuing this discussion.
I do agree with you 100% on one thing: You do tie your innermost feelings to what you've experience in the world. And it is obvious from this discussion that you have little or no experiences. To me you seem like a naive teenager. You speak using your logic skills only, but you've no experiences on which to build them. You state things as fact when all they are are just exercises in logic. Without a foundation that you can easily prove, your argument will fail. Yours is based on this idea that the world is a cold unfeeling place... and that's simply not true. There are 6 billion people, so there is no "the world is _______" statement that is actually true. It's DIFFERENT for everyone. So the best that you can hope for is to ASK someone who's actually experienced it themselves. To try and "logic out" something like this is just stupid. That is why the best writers "speak from what they know."
if you would like to get the last word in, feel free... but I'm not going to be bothered with you anymore.