For the purpose of the CPI, how is corruption defined?
"The surveys used in compiling the CPI ask questions that relate to the misuse of public power for private benefit,"
The CPI ignores corruption in the private sector.
In other words, a Boeing style scandal is counted, but an Enron meltdown isn't. I was talking about political corruption, and I hope I specified that? I don't have an opinion about the private sector; I don't know enough about it.
I could of course bring in single expert opinion: I happen to track both American and Norwegian politics, Without any way for someone to verify your expert status, you are just trying to argue from a position of authority, a position which (on the internet) is meaningless. Google suggests that you are a programmer and web developer, not a political "expert", at least not in the way expert is commonly used. I was meaning compartively, in context - and reading it again, it's clumsy. I should have put "expert" in quotes.
I just happen to think that the corruption perception index is the best resource we have, much better than my personal opinion I agree. Both that the CPI is the best resource we have and that it is much better than your personal opinion. OK, so then you agree that it is reasonable to retract your previous statements, given that you've agreed that there is a better source that says they're wrong?
I've no intention of defending MS, but it is just abiding by the rules of capitalism. It's required by *law* to generate as much profit as possible and it's playing by the rules of the game. If you don't like the rules stop voting republican. MS has (repeatedly, even) been convicted of using its monopoly to extend monopoly power to other areas; that's against the rules. This is a primary reason why we dislike it; and when it seems to repeat the tactic (such as now), many of us look badly at this.
Actually, averaged perception is a fairly good data source - in many ways, averages of normal people are better than single expert evaluations. And the "Corruption Perception Index" is about the perception *by professional country analysts and business people*.
I could of course bring in single expert opinion: I happen to track both American and Norwegian politics, including being quite interested in how different political and social systems lead to different results. There are sides where the US is better than Norway, and there are sides where Norway is better than the US. Political corruption is one of the ones where Norway is better - due to a host of factors working together.
I just happen to think that the corruption perception index is the best resource we have, much better than my personal opinion even though my personal opinion is somewhat qualified in both political areas (including, of course, knowing a number of anecdotes in each, like you're able to search up.) This view of the corruption perception index as some of the best corruption information available seems to be shared by most others that are writing about the field, being regularly referred by most experts I see writing about the field in general.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". If you search for "norway corruption index", you'll find scientific overviews of corruption. From the first link, Norway was ranked 8th in the world as of 2006. From further digging into the data (available at transparency.org), Norway is rated 3rd in the world for corruption-free political process, which this should come under, and is at 9th place overall as of today, with the USA clocking in at the 20th place, *after mostly European countries*. There non-european counties coming before the US are: New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, Hong Kong, and Japan.
The only western European countries coming *after* the US are Belgium (which is actually inside the confidence range of the US), Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece.
Side note: The prominent cases you find under your search are cases of bribery payment abroad; that's much more societally acceptable in Norway than taking of bribes, as having to pay bribes is sort of seen as a necessary cost of business in "those corrupt countries". I'll agree that that's a lousy attitude, too.
I guess that depends on the author;) Definitively, but there's some big names that need a lot of editing. I've seen the pre-editing copy of a Pulitzer prize winner - alas, I don't remember her name - and that wasn't pretty. I've also seen the acknowledgment given to the editor from a lot of well known names in SF - David Niven and Jerry Pournelle come to mind.
Editors *fix up text*, both by direct work and by telling the author where he has to work. This is an important task.
It is, to my mind, the primary value adding of publishers, and it is an important value add - the difference between a professionally edited text and an author draft is often immense.
There are techniques for extracting higher quality data from overlapping low-resolution data sets.
Yes and no. If your low-resolution images are properly acquired, that with with no aliasing, you're fucked. Aliasing means frequency components higher than half the sampling rate/camera resolution are not being filtered out prior to quantization by, in our example, the camera's CCD.
You're usually still good - the average energy is still distributed the correct place. Aliasing is only an issue for "single point" sampling; if the sample covers an average over a time period or an area, you're still getting an energy increase in the average for that area.
There are techniques for extracting higher quality data from overlapping low-resolution data sets. In the visual space, it's obvious that this is possible: If you have a single low-res camera, a static photographic subject, and full control of movement you can move a camera less than a pixel for reach picture taken (in a controlled way). Then you get sub-pixel-resolution data plus noise in the resulting difference set between different pictures. If you have ENOUGH difference sets, you can cancel out the noise. You then get sub-pixel resolution.
To extend this to a domain where you don't have the effective control, you have to automatically detect where different pictures fit. I remember having seen somebody that did this; I can't remember where, though.
But for actual normal servers I don't quite see it... I mean one option is that it's cheap. Which it might or might not be, depending on who you compare it to. Maybe it's the most reliable option out there at some price point, but the static IPs (for instance) are pretty young to consider this true, and it's not necessarily cheaper than the discounter's dedicataed servers. If we just assert for the discussion that it's not cheaper per power, then the question is, is it advantageous in other ways?
What I've found intriguing about this has always been for startups with an unknown growth curve: You can start with fairly little money, and if things take off, you're able to throw computing power at it VERY quickly. You pay a trifle more for the actual computing power, but it is available effectively immediately. This means you don't have to keep spare power around yourself for the case where you "hit the jackpot".
That's the exact same problem as with the GPL in software.
This is part of why I prefer the BSD license - it allows people to do improvements and use whatever improvements they have to make money, while still contributing back to the free codebase where applicable. This gives benefits to the consumers, and by allowing more use of the codebase, it makes the world richer. It also tends to get more contributions back to the free software, as when people do derivates, they get changes that they don't need to keep proprietary, and that they get benefit from contributing back. Somebody that works on a different codebase never contributes to yours.
I'm an atheist, and wouldn't have - actually, haven't had - a problem dating somebody with Christian beliefs, even if I don't see that as "possibly true".
Yeah, I see that belief as somewhat irrational - but then again, I'm sure that I have some irrational beliefs, so that's not something I count as a big thing.
I have much more of a problem with somebody that believe in astrology, though, because that's making predictions about the world *that has been shown false with very good proofs that are easily accessible*. I have a big problem with willfully ignorant and proud about it, because I have such strong core values in believing in the existence of the world and respecting it the way it is.
An above average programmer might also notice the use of ! in the other identifier (downcase!) as something that isn't valid Java, and then drop their assumption that the code was Java. (I would guess it was supposed to be Ruby code, in which case it is valid.)
Restrictive? It's a community with a clear boundary. If you were forced to use it, then the claim of "restrictive" might have more merit. Restrictive is a plain description of the license. The GPL contains more restrictions, ergo it is more restrictive.
You can make all these points, but they remain highly subjective.
Compilers are complex beasts. Name another one with half the platform compatibility of GCC. Irrelevant, as GCC has been the big bad brute of the open source compilers by virtue of being the first production open source compiler. The number of target platforms is a function of being the big bad brute of the open source compilers.
Propaganda, or advertising? It is my contention that Stallman has been as much an advertiser of a good idea as a demagogue. You're assuming that the idea is good, which I'll contend is a result of good propaganda from Stallman's side. Name your believed benefits of the idea, please - if they fit reality, I'll agree that it is advertising for you, if I can show you they're misunderstood, you'll agree you're an offer of propaganda. Will you agree to this test?
But who has forced you? In fact, for those that like the BSD approach (and I've been buying OpenBSD releases since 3.8) the GNU project has done all the research. As one of those that actually used to develop that, I can tell you plainly that they haven't. They have done some research, but most of it is useless, given their licensing, unless WE should want to force restrictions on people.
Or maybe we're all just human and given to whining. Maybe we're all human and given to false reasoning. I've been on the GPLite side. I've just changed sides after thinking really carefully through this and looking for what the benefits and drawbacks of this kind of licensing is.
And the primary thing that scare me is that most of those that are in favor of the GPL make the choice based on an incorrect understanding of how things work with a less restrictive license.
You just have to look at the growth of GPL and the lack of growth with BSD to see that as far as *real people* are concerned, GPL has a pragmatic use to it that the esoteric BSD doesn't have. BSD code is in larger scale use that GPL code, so it's hard to credit your argument.
Also, the BSD license is under a constant attack through the promotion of the GPL license, and given that attitudes follow behavior (a core tenet from social psychology), it's impossible to say how much use the BSD license would see without (A) Linux using the GPL and thereby making it default for many Linux users, and (B) people that have used the GPL (or argued in favor of it) arguing more in favor of it.
You can learn to write programs from books that teach the material, but to learn to write good programs requires seeing other good programs. It takes a very long time to go from your built-in BASIC interpreter and a manual to writing actually useful, well-designed programs, but having access to the source for other programs can accelerate that process.
Microsoft's compiler is very good, and if you're learning to write Hello, World! then there's no real difference between using it and using gcc. But if you want to learn how to write a compiler, gcc is a far more useful tool.
Actually, if you have GCC and want to learn how to write a compiler, you might be tempted to look at GCC. This makes GCC a much worse tool, as this is a dumb exercise. If you don't have GCC, you're likely to find a more appropriate way to learn how to make compilers (like finding a small, reasonably built compiler and a book on the topic).
What Open Source gives, much more than the source code to read, is the ability to participate in true, large scale development. This is very useful. Code itself would in no case be difficult to get hold of.
And the open development is not a result that comes from the FSF; it comes in spite of.
I've had some extended discussions with him over email.
Hence the fact that I taper off from agreement when the discussion gets abstract: his philosophical basis leaves me unmoved.
However, when you consider the impact of the GPL, Teaching a generation of programmers to use a license that restrict reuse of their work, separating the development of free and proprietary software by a vast chasm and thereby blocking patch flow from proprietary works to free works.
GCC, Providing a "good enough" yet still low quality compiler, with a bunch of "embrace and extend" to keep free software locked to it, thereby holding free compilers back a decade.
and the FSF world-wide Providing propaganda to support the above, though with a side nod to providing information about free software in general.
, and into the future, the Nobel Peace Prize makes sense, Given the above, perhaps a deeper analysis would be good? The question is "What happened WITH Stallman" and "What would have happened WITHOUT Stallman". As far as I can tell, the flow of free software was inevitable with the growth of the Internet - the only question is what the licensing and license culture would be, public domain style (BSD style) or more restrictive (GPL).
You're also using language manipulatively:-( Especially on slashdot, most peoples connotation of "monopoly" is "sole provider of something I need". Saying copyright holders are a monopoly is like saying that Nike have a monopoly on producing Nike trainers. It doesn't say anything useful. Nobody needs Nike trainers specifically, just like nobody needs Britney Spears' music specifically (regardless of what the little sisters of the world may think).
There's a thing that I feel make a difference here: Culture and sociability. Music, movies etc are social investments. Boycotting has a cost way beyond just not having that kind of entertainment for a period, a continual cost in the interaction with others.
I know, because I am living with such a boycott - I have boycotted TV and radio for about a decade now. I boycott because it cost me time I feel I can spend better elsewhere - but doing this boycott, I also find what cost it has, and I believe this cost is *way* higher for a teenager than it is for me. Effectively, this may turn commercial (marketed) music into something that is quite irreplaceable for social reasons. A manufactured need, yet still a true need (relatedness need, one of the core constructs in psychology.)
FreeBSD has generally had better network driver support than Linux. It has been the single driver area where we've usually been ahead. I don't know if that is true any longer or not - but at least it was, for a long period (1998 or so and forwards, after Bill Paul's "Let's fix FreeBSD network drivers"-run)
That's not going to make anyone safe. As long as American hegemony exists the US will be a target for every mental case with an agenda. Speak for yourself. I'm willing to go for more specific targets, like Microsoft.;)
Also, AFAIK, the illegal part of MSFT's monopoly has ended, There never has been any "illegal monopoly" - what's been has been illegal use of a monopoly, and illegal techniques for getting a monopoly. MS has used both, and they are still holding a monopoly - one gained through illegal techniques. And they're leveraging this monopoly for whatever money it will bring.
Slashdot Mirror
Eivind.
For the purpose of the CPI, how is corruption defined?
"The surveys used in compiling the CPI ask questions that relate to the misuse of public power for private benefit,"
The CPI ignores corruption in the private sector.
In other words, a Boeing style scandal is counted, but an Enron meltdown isn't. I was talking about political corruption, and I hope I specified that? I don't have an opinion about the private sector; I don't know enough about it. I could of course bring in single expert opinion: I happen to track both American and Norwegian politics, Without any way for someone to verify your expert status, you are just trying to argue from a position of authority, a position which (on the internet) is meaningless. Google suggests that you are a programmer and web developer, not a political "expert", at least not in the way expert is commonly used. I was meaning compartively, in context - and reading it again, it's clumsy. I should have put "expert" in quotes. I just happen to think that the corruption perception index is the best resource we have, much better than my personal opinion I agree. Both that the CPI is the best resource we have and that it is much better than your personal opinion.
OK, so then you agree that it is reasonable to retract your previous statements, given that you've agreed that there is a better source that says they're wrong?
Eivind.
Eivind.
I could of course bring in single expert opinion: I happen to track both American and Norwegian politics, including being quite interested in how different political and social systems lead to different results. There are sides where the US is better than Norway, and there are sides where Norway is better than the US. Political corruption is one of the ones where Norway is better - due to a host of factors working together.
I just happen to think that the corruption perception index is the best resource we have, much better than my personal opinion even though my personal opinion is somewhat qualified in both political areas (including, of course, knowing a number of anecdotes in each, like you're able to search up.) This view of the corruption perception index as some of the best corruption information available seems to be shared by most others that are writing about the field, being regularly referred by most experts I see writing about the field in general.
Eivind.
The only western European countries coming *after* the US are Belgium (which is actually inside the confidence range of the US), Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece.
Side note: The prominent cases you find under your search are cases of bribery payment abroad; that's much more societally acceptable in Norway than taking of bribes, as having to pay bribes is sort of seen as a necessary cost of business in "those corrupt countries". I'll agree that that's a lousy attitude, too.
Eivind.
Eivind.
Editors *fix up text*, both by direct work and by telling the author where he has to work. This is an important task.
It is, to my mind, the primary value adding of publishers, and it is an important value add - the difference between a professionally edited text and an author draft is often immense.
Eivind.
Women are more indirect, and use indirect methods of gaining and employing power. Men use more direct means.
Eivind.
There are techniques for extracting higher quality data from overlapping low-resolution data sets.
Yes and no. If your low-resolution images are properly acquired, that with with no aliasing, you're fucked. Aliasing means frequency components higher than half the sampling rate/camera resolution are not being filtered out prior to quantization by, in our example, the camera's CCD.
You're usually still good - the average energy is still distributed the correct place. Aliasing is only an issue for "single point" sampling; if the sample covers an average over a time period or an area, you're still getting an energy increase in the average for that area.Here's a paper covering the area: High-resolution image reconstruction from multiple low-resolutionimages; it's the 6th hit on Google for a search for "high res from many low res images". Note that you can even do this from JPEG-compressed images: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1006080.
Noise elimination is a relevant part of the problem, because there is always noise in the low-res images.
Eivind.
To extend this to a domain where you don't have the effective control, you have to automatically detect where different pictures fit. I remember having seen somebody that did this; I can't remember where, though.
Eivind.
But for actual normal servers I don't quite see it... I mean one option is that it's cheap. Which it might or might not be, depending on who you compare it to. Maybe it's the most reliable option out there at some price point, but the static IPs (for instance) are pretty young to consider this true, and it's not necessarily cheaper than the discounter's dedicataed servers. If we just assert for the discussion that it's not cheaper per power, then the question is, is it advantageous in other ways?
What I've found intriguing about this has always been for startups with an unknown growth curve: You can start with fairly little money, and if things take off, you're able to throw computing power at it VERY quickly. You pay a trifle more for the actual computing power, but it is available effectively immediately. This means you don't have to keep spare power around yourself for the case where you "hit the jackpot".Eivind.
This is part of why I prefer the BSD license - it allows people to do improvements and use whatever improvements they have to make money, while still contributing back to the free codebase where applicable. This gives benefits to the consumers, and by allowing more use of the codebase, it makes the world richer. It also tends to get more contributions back to the free software, as when people do derivates, they get changes that they don't need to keep proprietary, and that they get benefit from contributing back. Somebody that works on a different codebase never contributes to yours.
Eivind.
Check out the astrology research; there's been a lot of tests of "genuine astrologers" or "proper astrologers". They don't work either.
Stuff that's very well researched and shown to be incorrect isn't "spiritual", it's just wrong. Astrology comes under this heading.
Yeah, I see that belief as somewhat irrational - but then again, I'm sure that I have some irrational beliefs, so that's not something I count as a big thing.
I have much more of a problem with somebody that believe in astrology, though, because that's making predictions about the world *that has been shown false with very good proofs that are easily accessible*. I have a big problem with willfully ignorant and proud about it, because I have such strong core values in believing in the existence of the world and respecting it the way it is.
Eivind.
Eivind (ex/inactive FreeBSD kernel developer).
Eivind.
Compilers are complex beasts. Name another one with half the platform compatibility of GCC. Irrelevant, as GCC has been the big bad brute of the open source compilers by virtue of being the first production open source compiler. The number of target platforms is a function of being the big bad brute of the open source compilers. Propaganda, or advertising? It is my contention that Stallman has been as much an advertiser of a good idea as a demagogue. You're assuming that the idea is good, which I'll contend is a result of good propaganda from Stallman's side. Name your believed benefits of the idea, please - if they fit reality, I'll agree that it is advertising for you, if I can show you they're misunderstood, you'll agree you're an offer of propaganda. Will you agree to this test? But who has forced you? In fact, for those that like the BSD approach (and I've been buying OpenBSD releases since 3.8) the GNU project has done all the research. As one of those that actually used to develop that, I can tell you plainly that they haven't. They have done some research, but most of it is useless, given their licensing, unless WE should want to force restrictions on people. Or maybe we're all just human and given to whining. Maybe we're all human and given to false reasoning. I've been on the GPLite side. I've just changed sides after thinking really carefully through this and looking for what the benefits and drawbacks of this kind of licensing is. And the primary thing that scare me is that most of those that are in favor of the GPL make the choice based on an incorrect understanding of how things work with a less restrictive license.
Eivind.
Also, the BSD license is under a constant attack through the promotion of the GPL license, and given that attitudes follow behavior (a core tenet from social psychology), it's impossible to say how much use the BSD license would see without (A) Linux using the GPL and thereby making it default for many Linux users, and (B) people that have used the GPL (or argued in favor of it) arguing more in favor of it.
Eivind.
You can learn to write programs from books that teach the material, but to learn to write good programs requires seeing other good programs. It takes a very long time to go from your built-in BASIC interpreter and a manual to writing actually useful, well-designed programs, but having access to the source for other programs can accelerate that process.
Microsoft's compiler is very good, and if you're learning to write Hello, World! then there's no real difference between using it and using gcc. But if you want to learn how to write a compiler, gcc is a far more useful tool.
Actually, if you have GCC and want to learn how to write a compiler, you might be tempted to look at GCC. This makes GCC a much worse tool, as this is a dumb exercise. If you don't have GCC, you're likely to find a more appropriate way to learn how to make compilers (like finding a small, reasonably built compiler and a book on the topic).What Open Source gives, much more than the source code to read, is the ability to participate in true, large scale development. This is very useful. Code itself would in no case be difficult to get hold of.
And the open development is not a result that comes from the FSF; it comes in spite of.
Eivind.
Hence the fact that I taper off from agreement when the discussion gets abstract: his philosophical basis leaves me unmoved.
However, when you consider the impact of the GPL, Teaching a generation of programmers to use a license that restrict reuse of their work, separating the development of free and proprietary software by a vast chasm and thereby blocking patch flow from proprietary works to free works. GCC, Providing a "good enough" yet still low quality compiler, with a bunch of "embrace and extend" to keep free software locked to it, thereby holding free compilers back a decade. and the FSF world-wide Providing propaganda to support the above, though with a side nod to providing information about free software in general. , and into the future, the Nobel Peace Prize makes sense, Given the above, perhaps a deeper analysis would be good? The question is "What happened WITH Stallman" and "What would have happened WITHOUT Stallman". As far as I can tell, the flow of free software was inevitable with the growth of the Internet - the only question is what the licensing and license culture would be, public domain style (BSD style) or more restrictive (GPL).
Eivind.
You're also using language manipulatively :-( Especially on slashdot, most peoples connotation of "monopoly" is "sole provider of something I need". Saying copyright holders are a monopoly is like saying that Nike have a monopoly on producing Nike trainers. It doesn't say anything useful. Nobody needs Nike trainers specifically, just like nobody needs Britney Spears' music specifically (regardless of what the little sisters of the world may think).
There's a thing that I feel make a difference here: Culture and sociability. Music, movies etc are social investments. Boycotting has a cost way beyond just not having that kind of entertainment for a period, a continual cost in the interaction with others.I know, because I am living with such a boycott - I have boycotted TV and radio for about a decade now. I boycott because it cost me time I feel I can spend better elsewhere - but doing this boycott, I also find what cost it has, and I believe this cost is *way* higher for a teenager than it is for me. Effectively, this may turn commercial (marketed) music into something that is quite irreplaceable for social reasons. A manufactured need, yet still a true need (relatedness need, one of the core constructs in psychology.)
Eivind.
Eivind.
Eivind.
Eivind.