The government's job is to protect little guys with no power (the general population) from big guys with lots of power.
That is debatable. I would argue that the proper role of the government is to enforce the laws and that those laws should be strictly limited by what is permissible according to the US Constitution. The US Constitution lays out the case for negative rights or the right to an equal opportunity to the extant that the government will not use its power to make the opportunities explicitly unequal. However, this does NOT mean that the government is responsible for equalization of outcomes. Every time the government uses its power of coercion to "equalize" an outcome in an otherwise free society we take one step further down the road to socialism which is essentially the opposite of freedom. You might agree with that path, but IMHO that is NOT the proper role of government as defined in the US Constitution.
The system will regulate itself? HAH! yeah, keep voting for the big bucks...
And you propose what exactly as an alternative? Shall the government, on your behalf, intervene with coercive force to appropriate the private property of Sun and Oracle shareholders? Did Sun or Oracle receive taxpayer bailout money? What gives you the right to insert yourself into a transaction between two private third parties? You may not like what Ellison has done after the acquisition, but it was his perfect right as the new owner to do it.
The parser example is commonly mentioned as being both more difficult to implement in OO languages and less intuitive. However, if C# is the language chosen to write the parser then there are several fine examples of recursive descent parsing using the visitor pattern written in C# (mostly by academics). On the other hand, how often is a fully featured parser (of the type which could supply structured symbolic graphs to a code generator) actually implemented in practice? IMHO, the parser example is most often selected to cherry pick a corner case where functional languages excel without mentioning the tremendous strengths of OO languages for many ordinary programing tasks.
Only if we can also say that it is mixed with dihydrogen monoxide so that it sounds especially menacing; a veritable toxic stew that will have your kids glowing in the dark from 10 miles away! No more nuclear power...boo.
Cheap surveillance systems (i.e. the type that most small businesses use) have capacity for approximately 5 days of video when set to motion capture mode. After 5 days the previous data is overwritten and lost forever if it is not first transferred off the disk and stored separately. Generally, unless something unusual happens (i.e. there was a robbery, a customer tripped and fell or someone was caught shoplifting), the video is allowed to overwrite itself. If the business is using old analog tape systems then the loop is on the order of hours not days. Asking small businesses (or even large ones) to keep all data "forever and a day" is unreasonable by definition.
Except for one minor problem: If you cannot (or will not) be innovative then you must at least do whatever it is that you are doing extremely well. If you do not, some open source project is going to roll up from behind, like a mighty juggernaut with a product years in the making, that absolutely flatten you on quality, reliability and speed; even though, like your own product, it is not particularly innovative. It is especially difficult to compete with a quality competitor when their price is free.
the non-technical guy who kills ideas and can't be reasoned with
aka "The Cage Match Negotiator". The term comes from the professional wrestling format where multiple wrestlers enter the cage, but only one exits victorious. The cage match negotiator will "win the argument" at any price and damn the torpedos. This type of person can be particularly destructive in a large organization where high level managers have almost unlimited power to alter or cancel projects at will.
Is not privacy essential to a high quality of life?
According to Mark Zuckerberg, the answer is "no". The really sad part is that most of the general public will blithely go along with this asinine assertion.
The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car. Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche. The best that they (and the taxpayers) could hope for is for them to be bought by one of the major auto manufacturers. Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people? If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles. If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?
It'll cost them to do so, but it will severly limit their ability to extort and intimidate future defendents.
Which is probably a good reason for them NOT to drop the case. The RIAA is committed now so they might as well follow through to the end. Otherwise, their future threats of lawsuit will seem like bluffs or at least not as credible as they once were. Their business depends upon the power of copyright and the threat of enormous statutory damages; without that threat their existing business model is in even more doubt than it is right now.
Not necessarily; the records of the US Senate, with the exception of classified briefings and other such proceedings, are open to the public and the voters can ultimately decide for themselves who is being obstructionist. It is also important to remember that some voters, namely those who work on Wall Street, actually prefer to have gridlock because historically that has been good for business. The difficulty of getting major new legislation through the US Senate encourages vigorous debate, like what we are having now over health care, and long reflection before potentially sweeping changes are made to American society and government. However, this means that both sides must listen to each other and state their positions honestly; when that doesn't occur there is a price to be paid on election day (as we have seen with health care reform).
The reason health care reform is on life support right now (pardon the pun) is because the left did not "win" the debate over health care reform in the public forum. They pursued the wrong strategy, attempting to take advantage of a tenuous gain after President Obama's election, to ram through sweeping changes quickly before they lost their advantage and cooler heads prevailed. Obviously, this risky gamble did not pay off at the ballot box (evidence: Massachusetts). I can understand why the left is impatient; some of those Senators have been around long enough to remember the heady days of the 1960s and wanted a second bite at the apple after 40 years of disappointment, but they moved too quickly and on the wrong issues without the support of the American people.
Why do the Democrats refuse to openly and formally debate their positions in public? Are they afraid that their positions are too weak to withstand public scrutiny? Whatever happened to "having the debate on C-Span"? It does not suffice to simply call your opponents "morons" and proceed to ignore them, as if the superior intellect and enlightenment of the left excuses them from the burden of having to debate their "small-minded" opponents.
You shouldn't have to jump through the same hoops for normal legislative matters just because a minority can't stand to lose.
The Constitution allows the US Senate to choose its rules of procedure within the bounds set by that document. The US Senate decided long ago that "unlimited debate" is a necessary feature of their chamber. They placed that rule upon themselves. If at any time 60 Senators decided that filibusters were no longer needed or wanted, they could change the rules...but they don't. It is your opinion that they shouldn't have to jump through those hoops, but it is my opinion that a higher burden in the US Senate serves to promote the necessary introspection that is so often absent from the US House of Representatives which moves quickly (and sometimes rashly) to votes even on major issues. It is true that the rules of the US Senate relies more heavily upon collegiality and the wisdom that comes with advanced age, but shouldn't we expect these things from our Senators? I am really disappointed by the recent actions of the Harry Reid and other Senate democrats. They sold their high offices in return for a votes on a bill that smelled worse than 3 day old fish; not very Senatorial if you ask me.
The result is that the current system is excellent for almost everyone, except for kids that are slow and for kids that are too fast.
Of course, you do realize that a disproportionate number of the later are represented here on Slashdot? Perhaps knowing this will enable you to better appreciate the bitter experiences that many of us had with our primary school educations here in the United States. It does tend to bias our opinions on the subjects of teaching and education in any case.
Just out of curiosity, did she always want to be a dentist or did that come later? The reason I ask is that most kids, with the possible exception of a dentist's own, grow up loathing the dentist and dreading their annual check-ups or (gasp) cavities. I have never heard a young girl say, "I want to be a dentist when I grow up!"; so it is interesting that your daughter chose a career which is not usually the on many kids' wish lists and tends to be dominated by men in any case.
A valuable part of being in school was learning how to interact with new people, larger groups, and authority respectfully and responsibly.
Have you looked at public schools recently? A substantial number of the students are disrespectful and openly defiant of authority, form themselves into violent gangs and generally lack any sense of responsibility. In some states this may be less of an issue but here in California, where many public schools are overrun by these problem kids, those who can afford it generally put their kids in private school or else they homeschool them because public school is perceived in many cases to be an inferior option.
I think that what you want can be achieved without resort to a "closed" system. Ideally, the system should have acceptable default settings and be self-regulating for the "use it and forget about it" crowd. However, for those who want to delve more deeply into what the device can do, it would be nice if that path were not obstructed by a locked and guarded gate. People argue that Apple has to "lock down" the device to prevent users from hurting themselves, but I believe that a more acceptable middle ground is both possible and desirable. Which raises the obvious question: Why does Apple implement lock-down instead? As with all things Apple, there are ulterior motives, plans within plans if you will, that cloud the issue. IMHO, the FSF is attempting to draw out those hidden motives by challenging the publicly given reasons (i.e. "user protection") for lock-down.
If I may, I would like to add something to the suggestions given by the parent: Make your project very easy to setup, configure and use. In fact, make it a pleasure to do these things. Far too many open source projects, even ones that are technically superior in most other respects, fail to go the last mile in their march towards the users. They stop once the features are working and other geeks can setup, configure and use their work. Ask yourself what the difference between Apple and Microsoft is; with Apple one simply turns on the product and starts using it. It is a pleasure to use and powerful yet simple. Contrast that with the experience of a novice Windows user and you will begin to see my point. If your project solves a common problem(s) well AND is easy to use, word will spread soon enough; but above all else, make it easy.
This sounds like it could be straight out of GITSAC with those "hub cyber brains" and "stand alone complexes" (copies without originals); strange how life seems to imitate art.
I think we need to severly limit what kind of restrictions companies can place on their employees' future job prospects.
One of the reasons why Silicon Valley (i.e. the Palo Alto area) was and is so successful is that non-competes are basically impossible to enforce in the State of California. Thus, the barriers to switching jobs, even to a direct competitor, are lowered. This probably tends to attract more talented people than would otherwise be the case. California has other problems to be sure, but this is one of the bright spots; at least for tech workers.
I would attribute part of this to the culture in India. You see, India is not a first world country, despite their best aspirations, and what is considered an "acceptable" or even a quality solution in India is often not up to American or European standards. If you complain about this you often receive confused looks or angry retorts in reply because they are actually proud of their spaghetti code mess. They will argue that it works and meets the external spec so what is your problem? One can get a glimpse of this by watching videos of Indian traffic jams, complete with crazy mishmashes of cables connecting buildings in every which way and spliced hundreds of times in countless haphazard directions. This is "normal" to them, especially if they have never been overseas.
but if Senators did not want people using reconciliation, they should have worded it differently, don't you agree?
I was under the impression that the reconciliation language was pretty carefully worded precisely to prevent its use in non-budgetary matters. This is the most commonly accepted reading as far as I am aware.
Which has always been the case; cutting off debate and voting on the actual bill are two different things.
but as you mentioned, you have the option of running for the Senate and changing the procedures if you think they are worded too loosely.
Actually, I have a few more years yet for eligibility (the Senate requires minimum age of 35 years) and moreover, I don't have a problem with the Senate rules as they stand. I would however prefer to see Senators and parties play by them rather than attempting to subvert them. IMHO the language of reconciliation pretty clearly limits it use to budgetary matters. It takes some pretty extraordinary mental gymnastics to come up with an alternative interpretation of the reconciliation rules (they were pretty carefully worded on purpose to prevent people from doing that).
Slashdot Mirror
The government's job is to protect little guys with no power (the general population) from big guys with lots of power.
That is debatable. I would argue that the proper role of the government is to enforce the laws and that those laws should be strictly limited by what is permissible according to the US Constitution. The US Constitution lays out the case for negative rights or the right to an equal opportunity to the extant that the government will not use its power to make the opportunities explicitly unequal. However, this does NOT mean that the government is responsible for equalization of outcomes. Every time the government uses its power of coercion to "equalize" an outcome in an otherwise free society we take one step further down the road to socialism which is essentially the opposite of freedom. You might agree with that path, but IMHO that is NOT the proper role of government as defined in the US Constitution.
The system will regulate itself? HAH! yeah, keep voting for the big bucks...
And you propose what exactly as an alternative? Shall the government, on your behalf, intervene with coercive force to appropriate the private property of Sun and Oracle shareholders? Did Sun or Oracle receive taxpayer bailout money? What gives you the right to insert yourself into a transaction between two private third parties? You may not like what Ellison has done after the acquisition, but it was his perfect right as the new owner to do it.
but I wouldn't write a parser in C# either.
The parser example is commonly mentioned as being both more difficult to implement in OO languages and less intuitive. However, if C# is the language chosen to write the parser then there are several fine examples of recursive descent parsing using the visitor pattern written in C# (mostly by academics). On the other hand, how often is a fully featured parser (of the type which could supply structured symbolic graphs to a code generator) actually implemented in practice? IMHO, the parser example is most often selected to cherry pick a corner case where functional languages excel without mentioning the tremendous strengths of OO languages for many ordinary programing tasks.
Al Gore should accept on behalf of the Internet; this way the irrelevance of the Nobel Peace Prize will be complete.
Can't we just say 2.7 microcuries now?
Only if we can also say that it is mixed with dihydrogen monoxide so that it sounds especially menacing; a veritable toxic stew that will have your kids glowing in the dark from 10 miles away! No more nuclear power...boo.
All of this data must be kept for ever and a day
Cheap surveillance systems (i.e. the type that most small businesses use) have capacity for approximately 5 days of video when set to motion capture mode. After 5 days the previous data is overwritten and lost forever if it is not first transferred off the disk and stored separately. Generally, unless something unusual happens (i.e. there was a robbery, a customer tripped and fell or someone was caught shoplifting), the video is allowed to overwrite itself. If the business is using old analog tape systems then the loop is on the order of hours not days. Asking small businesses (or even large ones) to keep all data "forever and a day" is unreasonable by definition.
Except for one minor problem: If you cannot (or will not) be innovative then you must at least do whatever it is that you are doing extremely well. If you do not, some open source project is going to roll up from behind, like a mighty juggernaut with a product years in the making, that absolutely flatten you on quality, reliability and speed; even though, like your own product, it is not particularly innovative. It is especially difficult to compete with a quality competitor when their price is free.
the non-technical guy who kills ideas and can't be reasoned with
aka "The Cage Match Negotiator". The term comes from the professional wrestling format where multiple wrestlers enter the cage, but only one exits victorious. The cage match negotiator will "win the argument" at any price and damn the torpedos. This type of person can be particularly destructive in a large organization where high level managers have almost unlimited power to alter or cancel projects at will.
Is not privacy essential to a high quality of life?
According to Mark Zuckerberg, the answer is "no". The really sad part is that most of the general public will blithely go along with this asinine assertion.
The Tesla model S sedan will retail for $50,000+ which means that less than 20% (and that is being very generous) of Americans will be able to afford this car. Tesla is a niche and it will always be niche. The best that they (and the taxpayers) could hope for is for them to be bought by one of the major auto manufacturers. Why should the taxpayers be financing car production by boutique manufacturers for wealthy people? If the government subsidizes heavily so that average people can buy this particular car then you have to explain why the government should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the market for private automobiles. If Tesla is such a good investment then why cant they raise $450 million from the private equity market instead of from taxpayers; 99% of whom will never sit behind the wheel of a Tesla?
It'll cost them to do so, but it will severly limit their ability to extort and intimidate future defendents.
Which is probably a good reason for them NOT to drop the case. The RIAA is committed now so they might as well follow through to the end. Otherwise, their future threats of lawsuit will seem like bluffs or at least not as credible as they once were. Their business depends upon the power of copyright and the threat of enormous statutory damages; without that threat their existing business model is in even more doubt than it is right now.
What that means is, the minority wins.
Not necessarily; the records of the US Senate, with the exception of classified briefings and other such proceedings, are open to the public and the voters can ultimately decide for themselves who is being obstructionist. It is also important to remember that some voters, namely those who work on Wall Street, actually prefer to have gridlock because historically that has been good for business. The difficulty of getting major new legislation through the US Senate encourages vigorous debate, like what we are having now over health care, and long reflection before potentially sweeping changes are made to American society and government. However, this means that both sides must listen to each other and state their positions honestly; when that doesn't occur there is a price to be paid on election day (as we have seen with health care reform).
The reason health care reform is on life support right now (pardon the pun) is because the left did not "win" the debate over health care reform in the public forum. They pursued the wrong strategy, attempting to take advantage of a tenuous gain after President Obama's election, to ram through sweeping changes quickly before they lost their advantage and cooler heads prevailed. Obviously, this risky gamble did not pay off at the ballot box (evidence: Massachusetts). I can understand why the left is impatient; some of those Senators have been around long enough to remember the heady days of the 1960s and wanted a second bite at the apple after 40 years of disappointment, but they moved too quickly and on the wrong issues without the support of the American people.
Why do the Democrats refuse to openly and formally debate their positions in public? Are they afraid that their positions are too weak to withstand public scrutiny? Whatever happened to "having the debate on C-Span"? It does not suffice to simply call your opponents "morons" and proceed to ignore them, as if the superior intellect and enlightenment of the left excuses them from the burden of having to debate their "small-minded" opponents.
You shouldn't have to jump through the same hoops for normal legislative matters just because a minority can't stand to lose.
The Constitution allows the US Senate to choose its rules of procedure within the bounds set by that document. The US Senate decided long ago that "unlimited debate" is a necessary feature of their chamber. They placed that rule upon themselves. If at any time 60 Senators decided that filibusters were no longer needed or wanted, they could change the rules...but they don't. It is your opinion that they shouldn't have to jump through those hoops, but it is my opinion that a higher burden in the US Senate serves to promote the necessary introspection that is so often absent from the US House of Representatives which moves quickly (and sometimes rashly) to votes even on major issues. It is true that the rules of the US Senate relies more heavily upon collegiality and the wisdom that comes with advanced age, but shouldn't we expect these things from our Senators? I am really disappointed by the recent actions of the Harry Reid and other Senate democrats. They sold their high offices in return for a votes on a bill that smelled worse than 3 day old fish; not very Senatorial if you ask me.
Hmmm...maybe we'll have to bring back Harrison Ford to "retire" all of these replicants;
The result is that the current system is excellent for almost everyone, except for kids that are slow and for kids that are too fast.
Of course, you do realize that a disproportionate number of the later are represented here on Slashdot? Perhaps knowing this will enable you to better appreciate the bitter experiences that many of us had with our primary school educations here in the United States. It does tend to bias our opinions on the subjects of teaching and education in any case.
My daughter is a dentist.
Just out of curiosity, did she always want to be a dentist or did that come later? The reason I ask is that most kids, with the possible exception of a dentist's own, grow up loathing the dentist and dreading their annual check-ups or (gasp) cavities. I have never heard a young girl say, "I want to be a dentist when I grow up!"; so it is interesting that your daughter chose a career which is not usually the on many kids' wish lists and tends to be dominated by men in any case.
A valuable part of being in school was learning how to interact with new people, larger groups, and authority respectfully and responsibly.
Have you looked at public schools recently? A substantial number of the students are disrespectful and openly defiant of authority, form themselves into violent gangs and generally lack any sense of responsibility. In some states this may be less of an issue but here in California, where many public schools are overrun by these problem kids, those who can afford it generally put their kids in private school or else they homeschool them because public school is perceived in many cases to be an inferior option.
I think that what you want can be achieved without resort to a "closed" system. Ideally, the system should have acceptable default settings and be self-regulating for the "use it and forget about it" crowd. However, for those who want to delve more deeply into what the device can do, it would be nice if that path were not obstructed by a locked and guarded gate. People argue that Apple has to "lock down" the device to prevent users from hurting themselves, but I believe that a more acceptable middle ground is both possible and desirable. Which raises the obvious question: Why does Apple implement lock-down instead? As with all things Apple, there are ulterior motives, plans within plans if you will, that cloud the issue. IMHO, the FSF is attempting to draw out those hidden motives by challenging the publicly given reasons (i.e. "user protection") for lock-down.
Slashdot really doesn't make a very good advertising vehicle for attracting new users, it's a one-shot deal and that's pretty much it.
Unless of course you get dupes; then you get a second or even a third shot.
If I may, I would like to add something to the suggestions given by the parent: Make your project very easy to setup, configure and use. In fact, make it a pleasure to do these things. Far too many open source projects, even ones that are technically superior in most other respects, fail to go the last mile in their march towards the users. They stop once the features are working and other geeks can setup, configure and use their work. Ask yourself what the difference between Apple and Microsoft is; with Apple one simply turns on the product and starts using it. It is a pleasure to use and powerful yet simple. Contrast that with the experience of a novice Windows user and you will begin to see my point. If your project solves a common problem(s) well AND is easy to use, word will spread soon enough; but above all else, make it easy.
This sounds like it could be straight out of GITSAC with those "hub cyber brains" and "stand alone complexes" (copies without originals); strange how life seems to imitate art.
I think we need to severly limit what kind of restrictions companies can place on their employees' future job prospects.
One of the reasons why Silicon Valley (i.e. the Palo Alto area) was and is so successful is that non-competes are basically impossible to enforce in the State of California. Thus, the barriers to switching jobs, even to a direct competitor, are lowered. This probably tends to attract more talented people than would otherwise be the case. California has other problems to be sure, but this is one of the bright spots; at least for tech workers.
I would attribute part of this to the culture in India. You see, India is not a first world country, despite their best aspirations, and what is considered an "acceptable" or even a quality solution in India is often not up to American or European standards. If you complain about this you often receive confused looks or angry retorts in reply because they are actually proud of their spaghetti code mess. They will argue that it works and meets the external spec so what is your problem? One can get a glimpse of this by watching videos of Indian traffic jams, complete with crazy mishmashes of cables connecting buildings in every which way and spliced hundreds of times in countless haphazard directions. This is "normal" to them, especially if they have never been overseas.
but if Senators did not want people using reconciliation, they should have worded it differently, don't you agree?
I was under the impression that the reconciliation language was pretty carefully worded precisely to prevent its use in non-budgetary matters. This is the most commonly accepted reading as far as I am aware.
the Senate requires minimum age of 35 years
correction...30 years (still a bit short); 35 for president.
which is simple majority to pass a law
Which has always been the case; cutting off debate and voting on the actual bill are two different things.
but as you mentioned, you have the option of running for the Senate and changing the procedures if you think they are worded too loosely.
Actually, I have a few more years yet for eligibility (the Senate requires minimum age of 35 years) and moreover, I don't have a problem with the Senate rules as they stand. I would however prefer to see Senators and parties play by them rather than attempting to subvert them. IMHO the language of reconciliation pretty clearly limits it use to budgetary matters. It takes some pretty extraordinary mental gymnastics to come up with an alternative interpretation of the reconciliation rules (they were pretty carefully worded on purpose to prevent people from doing that).