Are you a communist? You just described a government that controls the economy and closes its boundaries to trade.
Barret wasn't complaining about producing food, he was complaining that the US government is wasting resources on a obsolete, tecnologically behind and not efficient industry.
Even agriculture can benefit from tecnology. There are countries producing more and better food with less resources, being much more efficient than the US industry.
In many other countries, you'd never be able to sell something at US prices.
I don't think that's right. Generally, prices in the US aren't more expensive than in Brazil (where I live). But wages are much higher in the US. For example, the price of a HP printer in Brazil is the same as in the US. But the sales person salary is something like 10 times lower in Brazil. Of course, life standards are much lower in Brazil too.
It's a "screw us, screw you" type of thing, and still I think it's right. IMO, international relations between two sovereign nations should be bilateral always. The US is basically telling that Brazilians (and, of course, people from all the other countries who have to be booked in immigration) that they are suspects beforehand. I think this is unacceptable. Sum that to the new visa rules (if I want to go from Rio to Sydney stopping at LA, I need a visa, even if I don't leave the plane), and you see that the US is not exactly being nice to Brazilians.
About the anti-US thing: our president is from a left party, and could be called a socialist, it's kinda subjective. IMO, the president's party moved to the center, compared to 20 years ago, and is not anti-US by any means. It's like I said before, he's not taking a submissive position, and that has resulted in severe criticism by his opponents, in the line of "who does he think he is?". Make your conclusions, but wouldn't you prefer a active, negotiating and centered president?
BTW, sorry for the rant, but sometimes the disinformation gets on my nerves. Peace:-)
You have the same misconceptions the majority of americans have about this: what makes you think that a terrorist can't come out from the US and go to another countries? You mean to tell that USians should be exempt because... why exactly?
Why is it that the US taking security measures is OK and Brazil taking the same measures is "childish"? You think Brazil cannot be a target for terrorism? Or that the US, as the center of the world and most important place on the universe is entitled to anything on any matter?
And, please, tell me where the hell did you get the conclusion that Brazil is being run by "anti-US socialists"? I live in Brazil, am aware of my local political issues (unlike the majority of USians) and I don't think the Brazilian government is anti-US. There's a nitty little difference: our government isn't submissive to the US.
I see a lot of misconceptions posted here, so I'll just put some light on:
1. Kylix is not the same as Delphi for Linux: Delphi uses the VCL, Kylix uses CLX. VCL is much more evolved and tested.
2. Delphi/Kylix uses Object Pascal, which is not the same as the plain Pascal you know. Compiling in Delphi is *much* faster than in C/C++. The language is great and rich in features. Pascal may suck, but Object Pascal doesn't.
3. Kylix didn't sell? Of course, not as much as Delphi. The reason? The Linux market is not asking for desktop applications (the best use for Delphi, IMO). In my personal experience, 3 out of 5000 costumers asked for a Linux version of our software. When Kylix was announced, I was thrilled, mainly because I would be "Microsoft-free". But in my real world, it just didn't happen. My costumers are using Windows, and it's for Windows I'll develop.
You are right, but I guess that for a lot of people, a MP3 encoded at 128k sounds the same as the original. That can happen for several reasons: you may have a low-quality output device (bad speakers, cheap and lousy headphones), a bad sound card, you may have some kind of hearing disability (you may be deaf for some high or low frequecies).
So, agreeing with you, why should these people reencode their files using a better audio format? Like you mentioned, they already have several MP3 files, so it's kinda pointless to do so.
This was intended to put more money in the pockets of business with the hope that business would spend that money creating jobs. In this economic environment, all it does is make business keep its cash reserves high for a little longer, hoping to ride out decreased revenue.
Or, and that applies more where I live (Brazil), business, instead of creating more jobs, invest in the financial market, not in the production segment. It's safer these days to make money on a bank than risk it on *gasp* a business plan. That's capitalism for you!
Your're right, the ISP can't avoid the incoming traffic. But I guess the point was that if you prevent worms from getting in on your network, you decrease the "internal" traffic, or the traffic your peers are generating. Not kidding, but last time I saw my home box apache log, it still had Code Red requests. And I think that kind of traffic can be avoided.
In a perfect world, you are right. But then again, in a perfect world, people wouldn't be making worms to flood the internet.
My point is: of course, if there where no holes in the OS (Be it Windows, or Linux, or whatever), or if all net traffic was blocked by default, all problems would be solved. But that is not going to happen, unfortunately. I wish it could, but in the real world, it won't.
How do you set up an IM or P2P connection unless at least one of the clients can accept incoming connections?
That's where a good ISP can be noticed: they should know which ports to open to these simple apps.
But, for example, why should they open port 80 by default? How many dial-up costumers would need (or want) to run a web server? Sure, if you ask the ISP, they should unblock it, but I bet a lot of their costumers don't know and don't care about it, and that would reduce traffic and save money for the ISP.
do you really think an ISP would do this for free ?
Yes I think they would do it for free. Most barebone providers charge costumers by traffic. By filtering worms in unwanted ports, ISPs would save money.
Let me tell you about my local ISP here. They filter incoming traffic on port 80 for their costumers (me included), because of the infamous Code Red worm. That is stopping a lot of unwanted traffic for them. But I wanted to run apache and access a simple web app from my office. I called them, said "I need port 80 open!". Their answer: "OK sir, it's unblocked, thank you for your call, blah blah". They don't care really, and I bet 90% of their costumers will never know what's port 80, much less why they would want it unblocked.
yeah unless the ISP breaks shit, or takes to long to open XYZ port and you lose bussiness.
I totally agree. They should be quick about that.
i dont particularly care about joe schmoe getting a worm...
You should care. Your ISP probably pays its internet connections based on traffic, and if a lot of joe schmoes get worms, their costs will raise. Guess who is going to pay for that.
you people need to realise that if you grant this power to these people they will abuse it in ways you or i have not yet thought of.
I thought that there was where competition, consumer protection, etc. came to help. Vote with your money.
I'm sorry, but you're the one being short-sighted. You obviuosly know what you're talking about when you say you need port 135 open, etc. Now think about users without any knowledge about these things. Think, for instance, a high-school teacher acessing the internet from his house. Why the hell would this person need access to port X Y or Z?
As many have mentioned here, these services should be requested by people who understand what they're doing. For the rest, it just doesn't matter.
I agree with you in almost evertyhing you said, but
Calling your users lazy and illiterate, huh? You'll go far in the business world. I sure would love to be a customer of yours.
Sarcasm aside, maybe most people don't f'ing CARE about the documentation. Maybe they're using the computer to gasp do real work - y'know, the kind that keeps the electricity running and food on your table? Of course, they are lazy and illiterate. I forgot.
I'm sorry, but he's right. I've worked in tech support once. The people who are lazy or illiterate are exactly those who need the computer for doing real work, like word processing, spreadsheets and other things not related to programming. These people just don't have time to get involved in learning advanced things (of course there are exceptions, but you get the picture), and need everything to be the most obvious possible. I could write several pages of stupid things these people do, because they *are* lazy, or just dumb, but I guess this is well known by the community now.
So, my point is: if Linux doesn't get *obvious*, much more *simple*, it won't appeal to those people, because they don't care if it's Windows, Linux or anything else.
Re:Reason #1 for installing Mozilla and/or Phoenix
on
Phoenix 0.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
You know, I see everybody complaining about pop-ups and stuff, but I haven't seen one in months. And I use IE. There are two ways of getting rid of them: - Crazy Browser, which is a nice browser with tabs, for Windows, and - Pop-up Stopper. Personally I prefer Crazy Browser, 'cos I like tabbed browsing. Don't get me wrong, I have much simpathy for the Mozilla project, and I think it's a great browser, but it's not the only way to get rid of pop-ups.
Sure you're right, but see the other way around: if someone wants to send his/her kid to a private school, but can't afford to (this is very common), and there's no public system, this person has no option. Or, what's even worst, the kid will be thrown in a "cheap" school. This is what living in society is all about: you pay for things other people use, and vice-versa. For example, think of roads: you payed, with your taxes, for roads that you will never use. But someone payed for the roads you use daily. A democratic government is the only way to ensure that everybody will get more or less the same benefits. And to make sure everyone plays fair.
Actually its well -founded because nobody has done enough research yet. I'm glad you just want to believe what Monsanto and like companies tell you. However those companies also had us believe DDT was OK. I'd rather have a lot more research done thank you.
Thank you. Most debates I hear about GE plants are mostly between two points of view: one is saying GE is cheap, safe, modern, trust me! The other is saying what you said: no, I don't trust you. I won't eat it until you prove me it's safe.
I totally agree with you. Until someone proves me it's safe to consume GE plants, I'll prefer the old and outdated organic kind.
Actually here in Brazil it works a little different: you can choose the speed (from 128k to 512k, with prices going up with the speed), but you have a transfer limit. If you exceed this limit, you pay extra bucks. So, if you like downloading ISOs from each new distribution there, you will end up paying more. One good thing though is that they guarantee the bandwidth: you never get less speed than you signed for.
I could give you some real world examples, but none of them would prove to be easier in OOP when compared to p/r. It's a team quality: we prefer OOP because it's easier for us. We have developed classes some 3 or 4 years ago that are unchanged and very useful till today. Of course, we could do it not using OOP, but, and here's my point, what's the difference? (BTW, we develop in Delphi). Our productivity is pretty good in OOP, so there's no need to change it.
I will believe that OOP is better when I see side-by-side code comparisons of OO kicking p/r's butt.
Here's my point, again: I could say exactly the same thing about p/r.
The only defense I could make to OOP, in a real world case, is that, when we change a programmer in our team, we found it easier for the new person to adapt with our class libraries. When we used p/r, it was bumpier. Then again, this is particular to our team. I wouldn't go out and say it's a general rule. It has happened to us, and the sum of these little factors made us stick with OOP.
Somebody needs to find "paradigm patterns" for when to use what. Otherwise, we will just have flamewars all day
I'll have to disagree with you on that: there is a big number of problems that can be solved very efficiently with both approaches (object-oriented and procedural). For this big number of cases, it's just a case of taste. It really depends on how used the programmer is to OOP and/or to procedural/relational programming. You'll get the final product both ways, with equivalent efficency.
I've been programming small/medium applications for about 15 years now, and all I can say about it is that my team works better with OOP. It's my experience here. And I am fully aware that it doesn't apply to the rest of the world.
There's no need for flamewars: be open minded, test both ways and pick the one you liked better. Nobody will find a magic way of choosing one for you.
I agree with you. In another post I've read someone saying that some decisions are made on current market acronyms, not on what the software is supposed to do. OOP can be wonderful if you use it with caution: it's not the best paradigm that solves all problems in every single case you may stumble on. It's just another way to make things work better. If used correctly (IMHO), it's very useful.
Another MS bashing article: They found another bug in a MS software! Those f*cking bastards! How can they release software with bugs! It's the same-old double-standard/. If this was the linux kernel or mozilla or KDE or whatever, the crowd would be delighted at the wonders of open-source, and how fast they can fix the bugs.
Don't you think it's time for a break and for news that really matter?
My uncle used to use a dictaphone (he was a U.S. senator) to dictate all of his speeches. He had no problem. Why? Practice, of course. He had no problem thinking and talking at the same time. It's just what he was used to. He couldn't type worth a damn.
(Irony on) Well, maybe he was used to *talking* but not used to *thinking*. Like most politicians. (Irony off)
I think the real question is: if the CD was $10 would that make you less likely to burn it? $5? $3? $2? $1? At what point is it cheap enough? And is that point lower than what the record companies can afford. I mean, I wouldn't need to copy CD's if I could buy them for $0.50, but can they afford to sell them at that price?
Wow. I think I'm rambling.
I totally agree. There are several issues, like the price, most importantly (IMO), the content (I hate music CDs with 2 good songs and 12 fillers), and the add-ons (like booklets). The problem is that the RIAA isn't seeing MP3 and CD Burning as a real revolution. The way we listen our songs is changing. The big problem is that they haven't figured a way of making money out of this yet, so they are trying to outlaw it.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you a communist? You just described a government that controls the economy and closes its boundaries to trade.
Barret wasn't complaining about producing food, he was complaining that the US government is wasting resources on a obsolete, tecnologically behind and not efficient industry.
Even agriculture can benefit from tecnology. There are countries producing more and better food with less resources, being much more efficient than the US industry.
In many other countries, you'd never be able to sell something at US prices.
I don't think that's right. Generally, prices in the US aren't more expensive than in Brazil (where I live). But wages are much higher in the US. For example, the price of a HP printer in Brazil is the same as in the US. But the sales person salary is something like 10 times lower in Brazil. Of course, life standards are much lower in Brazil too.
It's a "screw us, screw you" type of thing, and still I think it's right. IMO, international relations between two sovereign nations should be bilateral always. The US is basically telling that Brazilians (and, of course, people from all the other countries who have to be booked in immigration) that they are suspects beforehand. I think this is unacceptable. Sum that to the new visa rules (if I want to go from Rio to Sydney stopping at LA, I need a visa, even if I don't leave the plane), and you see that the US is not exactly being nice to Brazilians.
:-)
About the anti-US thing: our president is from a left party, and could be called a socialist, it's kinda subjective. IMO, the president's party moved to the center, compared to 20 years ago, and is not anti-US by any means. It's like I said before, he's not taking a submissive position, and that has resulted in severe criticism by his opponents, in the line of "who does he think he is?". Make your conclusions, but wouldn't you prefer a active, negotiating and centered president?
BTW, sorry for the rant, but sometimes the disinformation gets on my nerves. Peace
You have the same misconceptions the majority of americans have about this: what makes you think that a terrorist can't come out from the US and go to another countries? You mean to tell that USians should be exempt because... why exactly?
Why is it that the US taking security measures is OK and Brazil taking the same measures is "childish"? You think Brazil cannot be a target for terrorism? Or that the US, as the center of the world and most important place on the universe is entitled to anything on any matter?
And, please, tell me where the hell did you get the conclusion that Brazil is being run by "anti-US socialists"? I live in Brazil, am aware of my local political issues (unlike the majority of USians) and I don't think the Brazilian government is anti-US. There's a nitty little difference: our government isn't submissive to the US.
I see a lot of misconceptions posted here, so I'll just put some light on:
1. Kylix is not the same as Delphi for Linux: Delphi uses the VCL, Kylix uses CLX. VCL is much more evolved and tested.
2. Delphi/Kylix uses Object Pascal, which is not the same as the plain Pascal you know. Compiling in Delphi is *much* faster than in C/C++. The language is great and rich in features. Pascal may suck, but Object Pascal doesn't.
3. Kylix didn't sell? Of course, not as much as Delphi. The reason? The Linux market is not asking for desktop applications (the best use for Delphi, IMO). In my personal experience, 3 out of 5000 costumers asked for a Linux version of our software. When Kylix was announced, I was thrilled, mainly because I would be "Microsoft-free". But in my real world, it just didn't happen. My costumers are using Windows, and it's for Windows I'll develop.
Other formats may be technically superior...
You are right, but I guess that for a lot of people, a MP3 encoded at 128k sounds the same as the original. That can happen for several reasons: you may have a low-quality output device (bad speakers, cheap and lousy headphones), a bad sound card, you may have some kind of hearing disability (you may be deaf for some high or low frequecies).
So, agreeing with you, why should these people reencode their files using a better audio format? Like you mentioned, they already have several MP3 files, so it's kinda pointless to do so.
This was intended to put more money in the pockets of business with the hope that business would spend that money creating jobs. In this economic environment, all it does is make business keep its cash reserves high for a little longer, hoping to ride out decreased revenue.
Or, and that applies more where I live (Brazil), business, instead of creating more jobs, invest in the financial market, not in the production segment. It's safer these days to make money on a bank than risk it on *gasp* a business plan. That's capitalism for you!
Sorry, it was backbone :-).
Your're right, the ISP can't avoid the incoming traffic. But I guess the point was that if you prevent worms from getting in on your network, you decrease the "internal" traffic, or the traffic your peers are generating. Not kidding, but last time I saw my home box apache log, it still had Code Red requests. And I think that kind of traffic can be avoided.
If windows came installed...
In a perfect world, you are right. But then again, in a perfect world, people wouldn't be making worms to flood the internet.
My point is: of course, if there where no holes in the OS (Be it Windows, or Linux, or whatever), or if all net traffic was blocked by default, all problems would be solved. But that is not going to happen, unfortunately. I wish it could, but in the real world, it won't.
How do you set up an IM or P2P connection unless at least one of the clients can accept incoming connections?
That's where a good ISP can be noticed: they should know which ports to open to these simple apps.
But, for example, why should they open port 80 by default? How many dial-up costumers would need (or want) to run a web server? Sure, if you ask the ISP, they should unblock it, but I bet a lot of their costumers don't know and don't care about it, and that would reduce traffic and save money for the ISP.
do you really think an ISP would do this for free ?
Yes I think they would do it for free. Most barebone providers charge costumers by traffic. By filtering worms in unwanted ports, ISPs would save money.
Let me tell you about my local ISP here. They filter incoming traffic on port 80 for their costumers (me included), because of the infamous Code Red worm. That is stopping a lot of unwanted traffic for them. But I wanted to run apache and access a simple web app from my office. I called them, said "I need port 80 open!". Their answer: "OK sir, it's unblocked, thank you for your call, blah blah". They don't care really, and I bet 90% of their costumers will never know what's port 80, much less why they would want it unblocked.
yeah unless the ISP breaks shit, or takes to long to open XYZ port and you lose bussiness.
I totally agree. They should be quick about that.
i dont particularly care about joe schmoe getting a worm...
You should care. Your ISP probably pays its internet connections based on traffic, and if a lot of joe schmoes get worms, their costs will raise. Guess who is going to pay for that.
you people need to realise that if you grant this power to these people they will abuse it in ways you or i have not yet thought of.
I thought that there was where competition, consumer protection, etc. came to help. Vote with your money.
I'm sorry, but you're the one being short-sighted. You obviuosly know what you're talking about when you say you need port 135 open, etc. Now think about users without any knowledge about these things. Think, for instance, a high-school teacher acessing the internet from his house. Why the hell would this person need access to port X Y or Z?
As many have mentioned here, these services should be requested by people who understand what they're doing. For the rest, it just doesn't matter.
I agree with you in almost evertyhing you said, but
Calling your users lazy and illiterate, huh? You'll go far in the business world. I sure would love to be a customer of yours.
Sarcasm aside, maybe most people don't f'ing CARE about the documentation. Maybe they're using the computer to gasp do real work - y'know, the kind that keeps the electricity running and food on your table? Of course, they are lazy and illiterate. I forgot.
I'm sorry, but he's right. I've worked in tech support once. The people who are lazy or illiterate are exactly those who need the computer for doing real work, like word processing, spreadsheets and other things not related to programming. These people just don't have time to get involved in learning advanced things (of course there are exceptions, but you get the picture), and need everything to be the most obvious possible. I could write several pages of stupid things these people do, because they *are* lazy, or just dumb, but I guess this is well known by the community now.
So, my point is: if Linux doesn't get *obvious*, much more *simple*, it won't appeal to those people, because they don't care if it's Windows, Linux or anything else.
You know, I see everybody complaining about pop-ups and stuff, but I haven't seen one in months. And I use IE. There are two ways of getting rid of them:
- Crazy Browser, which is a nice browser with tabs, for Windows, and
- Pop-up Stopper.
Personally I prefer Crazy Browser, 'cos I like tabbed browsing.
Don't get me wrong, I have much simpathy for the Mozilla project, and I think it's a great browser, but it's not the only way to get rid of pop-ups.
Sure you're right, but see the other way around: if someone wants to send his/her kid to a private school, but can't afford to (this is very common), and there's no public system, this person has no option. Or, what's even worst, the kid will be thrown in a "cheap" school.
This is what living in society is all about: you pay for things other people use, and vice-versa. For example, think of roads: you payed, with your taxes, for roads that you will never use. But someone payed for the roads you use daily.
A democratic government is the only way to ensure that everybody will get more or less the same benefits. And to make sure everyone plays fair.
Actually its well -founded because nobody has done enough research yet. I'm glad you just want to believe what Monsanto and like companies tell you. However those companies also had us believe DDT was OK. I'd rather have a lot more research done thank you.
Thank you. Most debates I hear about GE plants are mostly between two points of view: one is saying GE is cheap, safe, modern, trust me! The other is saying what you said: no, I don't trust you. I won't eat it until you prove me it's safe.
I totally agree with you. Until someone proves me it's safe to consume GE plants, I'll prefer the old and outdated organic kind.
Actually here in Brazil it works a little different: you can choose the speed (from 128k to 512k, with prices going up with the speed), but you have a transfer limit. If you exceed this limit, you pay extra bucks. So, if you like downloading ISOs from each new distribution there, you will end up paying more. One good thing though is that they guarantee the bandwidth: you never get less speed than you signed for.
Care to give an explicit example?
I could give you some real world examples, but none of them would prove to be easier in OOP when compared to p/r. It's a team quality: we prefer OOP because it's easier for us. We have developed classes some 3 or 4 years ago that are unchanged and very useful till today. Of course, we could do it not using OOP, but, and here's my point, what's the difference? (BTW, we develop in Delphi). Our productivity is pretty good in OOP, so there's no need to change it.
I will believe that OOP is better when I see side-by-side code comparisons of OO kicking p/r's butt.
Here's my point, again: I could say exactly the same thing about p/r.
The only defense I could make to OOP, in a real world case, is that, when we change a programmer in our team, we found it easier for the new person to adapt with our class libraries. When we used p/r, it was bumpier. Then again, this is particular to our team. I wouldn't go out and say it's a general rule. It has happened to us, and the sum of these little factors made us stick with OOP.
Somebody needs to find "paradigm patterns" for when to use what. Otherwise, we will just have flamewars all day
I'll have to disagree with you on that: there is a big number of problems that can be solved very efficiently with both approaches (object-oriented and procedural). For this big number of cases, it's just a case of taste. It really depends on how used the programmer is to OOP and/or to procedural/relational programming. You'll get the final product both ways, with equivalent efficency.
I've been programming small/medium applications for about 15 years now, and all I can say about it is that my team works better with OOP. It's my experience here. And I am fully aware that it doesn't apply to the rest of the world.
There's no need for flamewars: be open minded, test both ways and pick the one you liked better. Nobody will find a magic way of choosing one for you.
I agree with you. In another post I've read someone saying that some decisions are made on current market acronyms, not on what the software is supposed to do.
OOP can be wonderful if you use it with caution: it's not the best paradigm that solves all problems in every single case you may stumble on. It's just another way to make things work better. If used correctly (IMHO), it's very useful.
Another MS bashing article: They found another bug in a MS software! Those f*cking bastards! How can they release software with bugs! /. If this was the linux kernel or mozilla or KDE or whatever, the crowd would be delighted at the wonders of open-source, and how fast they can fix the bugs.
It's the same-old double-standard
Don't you think it's time for a break and for news that really matter?
You know, there are ways of getting popups off in IE. Get Pop-up Stopper.
My uncle used to use a dictaphone (he was a U.S. senator) to dictate all of his speeches. He had no problem. Why? Practice, of course. He had no problem thinking and talking at the same time. It's just what he was used to. He couldn't type worth a damn.
(Irony on)
Well, maybe he was used to *talking* but not used to *thinking*. Like most politicians.
(Irony off)
I think the real question is: if the CD was $10 would that make you less likely to burn it? $5? $3? $2? $1? At what point is it cheap enough? And is that point lower than what the record companies can afford. I mean, I wouldn't need to copy CD's if I could buy them for $0.50, but can they afford to sell them at that price?
Wow. I think I'm rambling.
I totally agree. There are several issues, like the price, most importantly (IMO), the content (I hate music CDs with 2 good songs and 12 fillers), and the add-ons (like booklets). The problem is that the RIAA isn't seeing MP3 and CD Burning as a real revolution. The way we listen our songs is changing. The big problem is that they haven't figured a way of making money out of this yet, so they are trying to outlaw it.
In the meantime, we can ramble on!