You have a sudden and irresistible urge to pick up the chair that you are sitting in and throw it across the room while repeating the mantra, "developers, developers, developers".
your comment about Zhao Ziyang was interesting, I didn't know that and had not considered that, but then again it is difficult for anyone on the outside looking in to say *precisely* what is going on inside the Chinese government because of their secretive and closed door nature when it comes to certain political matters and particularly ones which they consider to be sensitive like the Tiananmen square incident.
"Up until very recently" was like more than 100 years ago (probably more like 150 years ago). Yes, but the Chinese culture and history is thousands of years old and it seems logical that things tend to build up momentum and maintain some inertia over time, even as new ideas and culture are integrated with the old, so it is perhaps not unreasonable to talk about things 100 years old when the culture itself is thousands of years old.
until very recently criticism on China's democratic and human rights status was more of a political tool against China than anything really constructive. Even so, the democratic and human rights questions were and are legitimate.
Well to speak fairly there is admittedly some attitude that the "Chinese" way of doing things is better, but usually that comes with some more or less apparently rational explanation (look up on, eg. "Asian values"). Everybody has some "our way of doing things is better" attitude, I don't think the Chinese is particularly close minded. It probably comes from the ancient and homogeneous quality of Chinese culture in that there are so many concentrated within China with a common history and traditional value system. This could be contrasted with America where the culture is much more heterogeneous and the people came from lots of different places into more of a melting pot of cultures and ideas. The major influence was of course, the enlightenment ideas of natural law and individual liberty which themselves had their genesis in earlier civilizations (i.e. classical Hellenistic culture in ancient Greece), but I think it is fair to say that the culture of China, being more homogeneous, tends to concentrate the "our way of doing things is better" attitude more than in the American culture. Americans are a practical people for the most part, we try new things and keep what works while chucking what doesn't. I realize that these generalizations may be hopelessly broad, but we we are attempting to speak about broad issues.
George Washington's portrait is on the one dollar bill but that doesn't mean all his ideas are practiced by the current US administration. Same thing really. The guy who founds a country gets the rights to have his portrait displayed in important places, that's it. True enough.
Besides, if you think about it, "Political power flows from the barrel of the gun" simply is a (crude) statement of fact. It's really hard to argue that the converse is true. Yes, but very few leaders throughout history have come right out and said as much.
Stretching it as evidence of a doctrine to use military power to suppress political dissidents is probably quoting him out of context. It might be more precise to say that while it may not fit well with the current or even the Tiananmen situation, it probably is not out of context with regard the source of the quote (i.e. Mao) and the times that influenced him to say it. However, that as you have said, isn't here or there, so the point is well taken.
Why would you think that "not much has changed since then"? (this is intended as a legitimate question) Many of the same people or their hand picked successors and protégés are still firmly in power, they have shown their willingness in the past to use the gun when faced with an afront or challenge to that power, and finally up until very recently in the grand scheme of things the Chinese viewed all outsiders and westerners in particular as "barbarians" or inferior peoples and this attitude has served to lessen their willingness to listen to external criticism from the "barbarians" concerning their "internal affairs" or "state secrets". It is my opinion that this attitude, while less spoken of now that China is part of the WTO is still pervasive, at least among the older generations of Chinese, and particularly so among those old men and party insiders who are in power. Remember that it was Mao who said, "Political power flows from the barrel of the gun" and they still hang his portrait prominently in the very square where they put that maxim to the test and protected their continuing power with the gun.
The trouble is, secretly in their heads, a lot of people never, ever, get over this viewpoint. Ever. Which is exactly what the powers that be want. Everything in this country, from the public education system to our laws and even the authorities themselves, are largely designed to produce a nation of docile and servile followers who do what they are told, don't ask the wrong questions, and generally magnify (unwittingly) the power of the elites who are really in control of this nation. The children of the wealthy, the powerful, and the politically well connected, who are often one in all the same, receive an entirely different education from the rest of us, one designed to position them as the future leaders of the followers. The proper functioning of a democracy requires well educated, sophisticated, and advanced citizens who engage with their government as equals in the marketplace of ideas and this is at the heart of the problem with our democracy today. The level of the public discourse, at least among the masses, has eroded and declined substantially to the point where most of us, if put to it, would rather be alive with full stomachs and watching the latest season of American Idol than truly free...bread and circuses friends, we have seen this before. People are basically saying, "I don't value my freedoms very much, or at least not enough to be made uncomfortable or be inconvenienced in their defense."
How will the government respond? Are we going to have dozens of people arrested, imprisoned and/or deported? The last time the Chinese government responded to a large gathering of popular dissent, which as you say will surely accompany a high profile global event such as the Olympics, they did it with tanks, tear gas, and machine guns. I suspect that not much has changed since then.
If Anderson and Landley claimed that busybox was 100% theirs This was not the issue in this case. The issues were an alleged violation of the GPL (we will never know for sure now because Verizon settled the case before it went to trial) AND violation of copyright. The issue of whether 100% of the BusyBox source code belonged to the creators who brought the suit was irrelevant so long as some of the code in BusyBox was theirs and Verizon had violated their copyright on their portions of the source code by using it in violation of the terms of the GPL.
The "stolen property" issue is a wrong-headed theory put forth by the entertainment cartels (i.e. the MAFIAA) to make one crime, copyright infringement, sound more serious than it actually is by equating it with stealing someone's wallet or their car (i.e. like in their lame anti-piracy propaganda that they put on their DVDs). IANAL, but from what I understand copyright infringement is copyright infringement which is not the same thing as theft of physical property. If the two are equivalent then why does the law distinguish between them instead of just saying that copying is theft of property?
If Anderson and Landley told Verizon they did not own 100% of busybox, write to Verizon and ask them to pay you your x%. Or better yet, ask nicely so that Anderson and Landley will give you the phone number of their attorney and have that same attorney file the same case again but this time on behalf of your infringed copyrights. The suit was not filled as a class-action so there is nothing to prevent other potential claimants from suing Verizon individually for exactly the same violation if they too have cause to bring an action.
Perhaps someone should trawl through the busybox archives and put together a summary of who wrote what line? The result would be a pie chart that assigns each developer a percentage of authorship. Send this pie chart to Verizon along with a letter of demand from all authors. Some authors might decide to forgoe their cash in return for GPL compliance, which would make life interesting! Except that Verizon cannot do that because their agreement is with Anderson and Landley and not every other developer whose copyrights they may have violated. Those people will either have to sue Verizon individually, which shouldn't be too difficult now that Anderson and Landley have blazed the trail. It may not be possible to sue Anderson and Landley because they did not have to claim 100% ownership in order to win their case against Verizon, even partial copyright of a larger work should be enough. As long as they didn't misrepresent their claim in the settlement then they should be free and clear (i.e. you could ask them to split the proceeds with the other developers, but there is nothing stopping them from keeping the money for themselves)...at least IMHO, but IANAL so check with one before you do anything.
I won't, even if it means living in a tent. I'm not for sale. A noble sentiment, but sentiment does not put food on the family table. Not all of us are able to make decisions secure in the knowledge that only we ourselves will suffer the consequences if our decisions turn out to be wrong or even just-sub optimal. Some of us have families and other people who's fortunes depend upon our success. Real life is, unfortunately, rarely as simple as our high minded principles lead us to believe.
Competition would be so much easier if I could shoot my competitor. For some strange reason the government doesn't let me do that.
That is why we have governments, to control the unmitigated use of naked aggression to achieve desire outcomes by coercion which beats down and destroys civilization (i.e. barbarians, warlordism, and the like). However, forced conservation or mandated purchases are a step beyond preventing physical violence and are unwarranted uses of government power (i.e. the monopoly on strong coercion via military force).
Conservation is exactly the same.
Not exactly...
Governments try to stop people from competing negatively
If by negative competition you mean negative externalities then I agree that it is a proper role of government to mitigate such outcomes. However, such mitigation does not necessarily require excessive regulation, mandates, or enforcement. In fact, a well defined system of property rights and convenient access to dispute resolution via the courts can be just as effective and more efficient to boot. One of the major differences between the third world and the first world is the effective adjudication of private property rights. This has been extensively researched by economists such as Hernando de Soto for decades now and there is substantial experimental evidence to support the efficacy of private property rights in achieving both better environmental quality and higher standards of living.
Conservation in various forms is very definitely an area where regulation may have a net positive effect. e.g. mandating high efficiency and long life light bulbs.
It is my opinion, and the opinion of a great many other people including most governments now, that markets result in the most efficient and fair use of resources, not government control, regulation, and force. The power of government can be used to "mandate" that people buy at least two (2) cans of beer per day and some people might be fine with that (i.e. they would have purchased those goods and services in those quantities or greater in any case), but what if you don't want two cans of beer today? Just because force can be used to compel people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do doesn't make it right (i.e. the ends justify the means).
This has nothing to do with socialism and your labeling of it as such is naive.
On the contrary it has everything to do with socialism. What is socialism? It is the use of the power of government (i.e. the power of force) to effect a distribution of the national income, for whatever purpose, that would not otherwise occur in the absence of government interference. If you use the power of government to force conservation or mandate the purchase of particular goods or services then you are effectively using the power of government to forcibly redistribute the national income and that is socialism.
Both "socialism" and "communism", the big bad bogey men of many conservatives are often simply a way to short-circuit intelligent debate about what is appropriate regulation and what isn't.
They are sometimes used for that purpose yes, but in the context of this discussion the comparison was quite apropo in so far as it relates to the issue of conservation achieved by force. However, so long as we are on the subject of generalities regarding conservatives, perhaps you will permit me to put forth a couple of my own observations regarding liberals...
(1) They judge a government policy by its intended result or how they feel about the means used to achieve that desired result, but then conveniently ignore the actual outcomes of those policies in practice (i.e. economics) which are all too often the direct opposite of what they originally intended. They say that they have soft he
Apple's made a huge mistake in their lockdown That basically sums up the entire history of Apple, at least from the standpoint of third party developers...
So silly of me. Indeed it is. Conservation doesn't work for many of the same reasons that communism doesn't work. It is human nature to be greedy so why should I cut back when I can be a free rider on your conservation? Are you going to create new regulatory agencies and energy police to seek out and punish people who don't conserve? Conservation, rationing, dividing up existing wealth, socialism...it just doesn't work and it has never worked. Either you use the gun (ala Stalin) or you have to offer people incentives and conservation is all stick and no carrot.
The MPAA/RIAA expect the entire world to adapt their infrastructure to police their interests -- it doesn't work that way. The word "force" is more appropriate than adapt in this case. They (the MAFIAA) are attempting to use the power of government to force their desired resolution upon the marketplace because they know that the marketplace, if left to its own devices, will never accept their restrictions or structure itself in the manner that they want. The name that economists use for this type of behavior is Rent Seeking which basically refers the extraction of uncompensated value from the marketplace via force (i.e. government and laws).
2K Sports was a major thorn in EA's side, as it forced EA to reduce the price of its sports game to 19.99 for a little while. Hmmm, I remember reading that EA had won the rights to all of the NFL sports teams, player names, logos, and other trademarks and that they had paid other leagues for the same privileges by outbidding their competitors (i.e. 2K) for the same naming rights in baseball, hockey, and just about every other professional sports league of consequence. Now, would you rather play Madden 200x from EA with Madden voice overs, the real NFL team names, player names and statistics, venues, jerseys, etc OR would you rather play "Championship Football" from 2K Sports with fake team names, fake players, fakes statistics, and some C-List actor that you have never heard off doing the voice overs? So how much of a competitor was 2K sports really? Is $19.99 vs $59.99 enough of a difference that you wouldn't be willing to pay a bit more for Madden 200x over "Championship Football"? For most people the answer to that question is probably "no"...
Maybe they figure that now they've cut their teeth on a big player (and they came out on top, eventually) they can tackle the big guys Perhaps, but even the scientologists would be wise to pick and choose their battles carefully. There are various governments, organizations, and even individuals around the world who do not take kindly to attempts at infiltration and should they be caught by these people there might be, well let us just say that there could be terminal consequences. If the CIA cannot always protect their agents from harm then how much less will the scientologists be able to do so? Anyone who dares to act outside the law should be prepared for the consequences, even governments are not immune to blowback.
Yes, but it is also simultaneously calibrated with pure thetan energy to overload the brains of all the psychiatrists reading it causing their heads to explode like volcanos. Indeed, even Xenu himself could not have conceived of such a brilliant and masterful subterfuge.
The casinos are more concerned about card counting teams then they are about individual players. In the team scenario there are counters at multiple tables who have no problem keeping the count and keeping their cool because they are always betting the minimum and never varying their bets. The trick is that they have to somehow signal the roving "high roller" to sit down when the deck is hot without tipping off security. This is one reason why many blackjack tables, particularly high limit tables, do not allow new players to sit down in the middle of a shoe (i.e. you have to wait until the shoe currently being played is finished, the cards are shuffled, and the next shoe is loaded).
I would say that extensive gaming keyboard and mouse support on the console, for whatever reason, is still lacking. From what I gather you need a special adapter which maps keys as if you were playing with the controller. Perhaps Microsoft feels that using the keyboard and mouse for Halo type games while others are limited to the controller would be unfair on XBox live? Who knows, but some games, particularly strategy type games, require the keyboard and mouse and many other games, including FPS, can benefit substantially from the full keyboard + mouse setup.
This is precisely why Adblock is necessary. The advertisers piss and moan about how there will be no more free content if everyone blocks their ads, but in a world where your privacy is actively and automatically subverted without your knowledge or consent then what else can one reasonably do? The advertisers sowed the wind with their tracking, targeting, and indiscriminate sale of personal information and now they will reap the whirlwind as more and more people black hole both their ads and their tracking mechanisms with tools like AdBlock. They can bring on the technological arms race if they want, but even the spammers (arguably the most determined, hard core, and motivated advertisers out there) have been falling behind in their arms race against the geeks.
To the advertisers out there: the web doesn't owe you or anybody else a living...adapt or die. If your content is so valuable then protect it with a login password and charge a subscription fee, at least then we will see what the "content" is really worth, but as far as I am concerned you can take your ads and shove em.
Random ads are less likely to affect my behavior, so I find them more acceptable. Why not declare your independence from ads permanently? Adblock Plus...accept no substitutes.
Fruitcakes like you really need to grow up. Ad-hominem, the first resort of the childish. Perhaps you should take your own advice, sir.
Your taxes being spent on something you don't like is much the same as you being a minority shareholder in a company and the majority shareholders deciding to take the company in a direction you don't like. Except that I not compelled to associate in the first place with corporations or invdividuals with whom I do not wish to or if I no longer wish to be a part of an association, of shareholders for instance, then I can sell my shares and depart.
Except in the case of a democratic government it's one man, one vote, not one dollar, one vote. In principal yes, but in practice the dollar and the vote are very nearly the same thing these days. If one has sufficient resources and is willing to spend them then just about any sort of policy, privilege, or consideration on the part of the government can be purchased. If this were not the case then the modern lobbyist as we currently know him would cease to exist.
In both cases you can try to get sufficient votes to change the direction of the organization. In both cases you can sell out and leave. In both cases you can adjust your shareholding by voting for tax increases/decreases or buying/selling your shares. In both cases you can vote for changes in the structure and rules of the organization. It is not a valid comparison to suggest that being a citizen of a nation is no different than being a shareholder of a corporation. The power of government is based upon the power of coercion, the power of force, which will hang over one's head no matter where on this earth one chooses to go. It is not possible to separate onself from the power of strong coercion, the power of government, in the same way that one can choose to be disassociated with a particular corporation or other private individual.
The anti-tax fixation that many people have just shows they're shallow thinkers. On the contrary, I find that such a stance is more indicative of a strong-willed and free thinking man who is not beholden to the government for assistance or demanindg a "fair share" of his neighbor's wealth instead of actually working to acquire his own. Perhaps you should re-read the Constitution because it does not ONCE mention any right to receive any good or service (i.e. healthcare). One is entitled ONLY to pursue those things for oneself without undue interference from others. The taxes that are collected (and yes some tax MUST be collected...I am opposed to excessive taxes not to all taxes) should only be used to fund the three branches of government, as outlined in the Constitution, the military, the courts, and the police and nothing else.
Many people think that government and taxes are sometimes a more efficient way of solving some country-wide problems. I defy you to cite a single example or instance where a tax and spend program has resulted in a more efficient outcome than is or could be provided by the private sector...just one. If government control is so superior to free market capitalism then why isn't the Soviet Union still around? Why does Venezuela have basic food shortages with oil prices breaking records?
In particular, one-man, one-vote is very important to limit the excessive dominance of the rich, There is nothing wrong with one-man, one-vote but how does that entitle you to tax me to pay for your wants and needs? If you try to equalize society with force then you will only succeed in making things MORE unequal and stiring up extra violence to boot. If individual freedom is pursued to its fullest extent then society will end up with a great measure of both equality and fairness, but equality and fairness will never be achieved by force.
Although my current career is software development, which may or may not be considered engineering depending upon one's point of view, I feel compelled to comment on a couple of the points which you have made regarding the availability of grant money and who is in the best position to decide these things.
There is a baisc premise underlying you views concerning who should choose what is researched and where the funding should come from and it is the same view of all people who advocate socialism or socialist policies with respect the the spending of the national income, or more precisely, the spending of the money of others. Now obviously a scientist is going to value potential discoveries, new research, and the like much more than the next average citizen and this is not surprising. However, is it right to take from your fellow citizen by force (which is what the government does when it collects taxes and the government is largely funded by taxes) so that you can spend his money for him on something which he would not buy on his own initiative, scientific research for example?
Perhaps you do believe that such a confiscation is worthwhile or indeed even beneficial, but who are you going to place in charge of confiscating and what will their priorities be? How would the average citizen feel about working full time for some income and then having that income, or a substantial portion of it, confiscated by some council of government scientists, philosopher kings, if you will in pursuit of goals which are not his own but rather were decided upon by his "betters"? This is essentially what they did in the Soviet Union and it made slaves of the average people in the name of scientific advancement and one-upping the Unites States in the space race. There were scientific advances yes, but the people were living in misery to support a socialist agenda which , in many cases, was not their own.
There are sources of private funding available for grant research and many large companies mantain a research division from which they do not expect immediate or even medium term results, research is a long term bet as you have said. That may not be enough funding for your taste, but this next point is important: you and I don't run the world and it is not our money. Perhaps the scientists should persue their MBAs and then come back to research once they have made their own collosal fortunes to finance their own interests. If they are as brilliant as they claim to be then it should be only a minor inconvenience in the early part of their career to build up a suitable fortune of research money, but in the meantime I would prefer that they keep their hands out of my pockets when they look to secure funding for their research.
This whole "desktop will be irrlevent" is stupid. Many consumers are stupid as well, stupid enough to fall for the hype anyway. The fool and his money are soon parted as they say.
Yes he has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders and the corporation. But a personal opinion is unlikely to become a legal issue as long as he handles it right and the board is OK with it. Perhaps, but in this case Miguel was speaking publicly on a panel at an event organized by his employers. This was not an off the cuff remark to a reporter at a cocktail party or a statement made "outside of work" (i.e. in his own home privately). Now, from a practical standpoint it would be difficult, if not impossible, to PROVE in court that Miguel's statements resulted in any direct (or even indirect) and quantifiable financial losses or damage to the company so the point is probably moot anyway. Miguel will probably get a reminder from Steve Ballmer to watch what he says at company events or be at the receiving end of a flying chair.
Here on slashdot, I predict, within the first 20 posts someone will be remarking how they would destroy it if they encountered it. We would engage the Steve Ballmer bot, complete with flying chair attack, and send it against the bar-b-q bot...
>Steve Ballmer enters from the SE and is attacked by bar-b-q bot.
>bar-b-q bot ATTACKS with spray cannon and HITS Steve Ballmer for 9 hit points of damage.
>Steve Ballmer spins about preparing to DODGE.
>bar-b-q bot ATTACKS with spray cannon and MISSES Steve Ballmer...it was a critical miss! bar-b-q bot is shaken and cannot react.
>Steve Ballmer bot aims carefully preparing to throw his chair...
>Steve Ballmer bot ATTACKS with flying chair and HITS bar-b-q bot for 100 hit points of damage...it was a critical hit!
>bar-b-q bot collapses into a pile of metal.
>Steve Ballmer searches the metal pile and recovers 9 gold pieces as loot.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a sudden and irresistible urge to pick up the chair that you are sitting in and throw it across the room while repeating the mantra, "developers, developers, developers".
and Macrovision is on your DVDs and VHS tapes for "quality protection" purposes.
The "stolen property" issue is a wrong-headed theory put forth by the entertainment cartels (i.e. the MAFIAA) to make one crime, copyright infringement, sound more serious than it actually is by equating it with stealing someone's wallet or their car (i.e. like in their lame anti-piracy propaganda that they put on their DVDs). IANAL, but from what I understand copyright infringement is copyright infringement which is not the same thing as theft of physical property. If the two are equivalent then why does the law distinguish between them instead of just saying that copying is theft of property? If Anderson and Landley told Verizon they did not own 100% of busybox, write to Verizon and ask them to pay you your x%. Or better yet, ask nicely so that Anderson and Landley will give you the phone number of their attorney and have that same attorney file the same case again but this time on behalf of your infringed copyrights. The suit was not filled as a class-action so there is nothing to prevent other potential claimants from suing Verizon individually for exactly the same violation if they too have cause to bring an action. Perhaps someone should trawl through the busybox archives and put together a summary of who wrote what line? The result would be a pie chart that assigns each developer a percentage of authorship. Send this pie chart to Verizon along with a letter of demand from all authors. Some authors might decide to forgoe their cash in return for GPL compliance, which would make life interesting! Except that Verizon cannot do that because their agreement is with Anderson and Landley and not every other developer whose copyrights they may have violated. Those people will either have to sue Verizon individually, which shouldn't be too difficult now that Anderson and Landley have blazed the trail. It may not be possible to sue Anderson and Landley because they did not have to claim 100% ownership in order to win their case against Verizon, even partial copyright of a larger work should be enough. As long as they didn't misrepresent their claim in the settlement then they should be free and clear (i.e. you could ask them to split the proceeds with the other developers, but there is nothing stopping them from keeping the money for themselves)...at least IMHO, but IANAL so check with one before you do anything.
Competition would be so much easier if I could shoot my competitor. For some strange reason the government doesn't let me do that.
That is why we have governments, to control the unmitigated use of naked aggression to achieve desire outcomes by coercion which beats down and destroys civilization (i.e. barbarians, warlordism, and the like). However, forced conservation or mandated purchases are a step beyond preventing physical violence and are unwarranted uses of government power (i.e. the monopoly on strong coercion via military force).
Conservation is exactly the same.
Not exactly...
Governments try to stop people from competing negatively
If by negative competition you mean negative externalities then I agree that it is a proper role of government to mitigate such outcomes. However, such mitigation does not necessarily require excessive regulation, mandates, or enforcement. In fact, a well defined system of property rights and convenient access to dispute resolution via the courts can be just as effective and more efficient to boot. One of the major differences between the third world and the first world is the effective adjudication of private property rights. This has been extensively researched by economists such as Hernando de Soto for decades now and there is substantial experimental evidence to support the efficacy of private property rights in achieving both better environmental quality and higher standards of living.
Conservation in various forms is very definitely an area where regulation may have a net positive effect. e.g. mandating high efficiency and long life light bulbs.
It is my opinion, and the opinion of a great many other people including most governments now, that markets result in the most efficient and fair use of resources, not government control, regulation, and force. The power of government can be used to "mandate" that people buy at least two (2) cans of beer per day and some people might be fine with that (i.e. they would have purchased those goods and services in those quantities or greater in any case), but what if you don't want two cans of beer today? Just because force can be used to compel people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do doesn't make it right (i.e. the ends justify the means).
This has nothing to do with socialism and your labeling of it as such is naive.
On the contrary it has everything to do with socialism. What is socialism? It is the use of the power of government (i.e. the power of force) to effect a distribution of the national income, for whatever purpose, that would not otherwise occur in the absence of government interference. If you use the power of government to force conservation or mandate the purchase of particular goods or services then you are effectively using the power of government to forcibly redistribute the national income and that is socialism.
Both "socialism" and "communism", the big bad bogey men of many conservatives are often simply a way to short-circuit intelligent debate about what is appropriate regulation and what isn't.
They are sometimes used for that purpose yes, but in the context of this discussion the comparison was quite apropo in so far as it relates to the issue of conservation achieved by force. However, so long as we are on the subject of generalities regarding conservatives, perhaps you will permit me to put forth a couple of my own observations regarding liberals...
(1) They judge a government policy by its intended result or how they feel about the means used to achieve that desired result, but then conveniently ignore the actual outcomes of those policies in practice (i.e. economics) which are all too often the direct opposite of what they originally intended. They say that they have soft he
Yes, but it is also simultaneously calibrated with pure thetan energy to overload the brains of all the psychiatrists reading it causing their heads to explode like volcanos. Indeed, even Xenu himself could not have conceived of such a brilliant and masterful subterfuge.
The casinos are more concerned about card counting teams then they are about individual players. In the team scenario there are counters at multiple tables who have no problem keeping the count and keeping their cool because they are always betting the minimum and never varying their bets. The trick is that they have to somehow signal the roving "high roller" to sit down when the deck is hot without tipping off security. This is one reason why many blackjack tables, particularly high limit tables, do not allow new players to sit down in the middle of a shoe (i.e. you have to wait until the shoe currently being played is finished, the cards are shuffled, and the next shoe is loaded).
I would say that extensive gaming keyboard and mouse support on the console, for whatever reason, is still lacking. From what I gather you need a special adapter which maps keys as if you were playing with the controller. Perhaps Microsoft feels that using the keyboard and mouse for Halo type games while others are limited to the controller would be unfair on XBox live? Who knows, but some games, particularly strategy type games, require the keyboard and mouse and many other games, including FPS, can benefit substantially from the full keyboard + mouse setup.
This is precisely why Adblock is necessary. The advertisers piss and moan about how there will be no more free content if everyone blocks their ads, but in a world where your privacy is actively and automatically subverted without your knowledge or consent then what else can one reasonably do? The advertisers sowed the wind with their tracking, targeting, and indiscriminate sale of personal information and now they will reap the whirlwind as more and more people black hole both their ads and their tracking mechanisms with tools like AdBlock. They can bring on the technological arms race if they want, but even the spammers (arguably the most determined, hard core, and motivated advertisers out there) have been falling behind in their arms race against the geeks.
To the advertisers out there: the web doesn't owe you or anybody else a living...adapt or die. If your content is so valuable then protect it with a login password and charge a subscription fee, at least then we will see what the "content" is really worth, but as far as I am concerned you can take your ads and shove em.
Although my current career is software development, which may or may not be considered engineering depending upon one's point of view, I feel compelled to comment on a couple of the points which you have made regarding the availability of grant money and who is in the best position to decide these things.
There is a baisc premise underlying you views concerning who should choose what is researched and where the funding should come from and it is the same view of all people who advocate socialism or socialist policies with respect the the spending of the national income, or more precisely, the spending of the money of others . Now obviously a scientist is going to value potential discoveries, new research, and the like much more than the next average citizen and this is not surprising. However, is it right to take from your fellow citizen by force (which is what the government does when it collects taxes and the government is largely funded by taxes) so that you can spend his money for him on something which he would not buy on his own initiative, scientific research for example?
Perhaps you do believe that such a confiscation is worthwhile or indeed even beneficial, but who are you going to place in charge of confiscating and what will their priorities be? How would the average citizen feel about working full time for some income and then having that income, or a substantial portion of it, confiscated by some council of government scientists, philosopher kings, if you will in pursuit of goals which are not his own but rather were decided upon by his "betters"? This is essentially what they did in the Soviet Union and it made slaves of the average people in the name of scientific advancement and one-upping the Unites States in the space race. There were scientific advances yes, but the people were living in misery to support a socialist agenda which , in many cases, was not their own.
There are sources of private funding available for grant research and many large companies mantain a research division from which they do not expect immediate or even medium term results, research is a long term bet as you have said. That may not be enough funding for your taste, but this next point is important: you and I don't run the world and it is not our money. Perhaps the scientists should persue their MBAs and then come back to research once they have made their own collosal fortunes to finance their own interests. If they are as brilliant as they claim to be then it should be only a minor inconvenience in the early part of their career to build up a suitable fortune of research money, but in the meantime I would prefer that they keep their hands out of my pockets when they look to secure funding for their research.
Richard Stallman, is that you?
>Steve Ballmer enters from the SE and is attacked by bar-b-q bot.
>bar-b-q bot ATTACKS with spray cannon and HITS Steve Ballmer for 9 hit points of damage.
>Steve Ballmer spins about preparing to DODGE.
>bar-b-q bot ATTACKS with spray cannon and MISSES Steve Ballmer...it was a critical miss! bar-b-q bot is shaken and cannot react.
>Steve Ballmer bot aims carefully preparing to throw his chair...
>Steve Ballmer bot ATTACKS with flying chair and HITS bar-b-q bot for 100 hit points of damage...it was a critical hit!
>bar-b-q bot collapses into a pile of metal.
>Steve Ballmer searches the metal pile and recovers 9 gold pieces as loot.
>Steve Ballmer exits to the SE...
Ahh for the old MUD days again