With apologies to evil geniuses everywhere, as clearly Orrin hasn't hatched anything but cockamamie schemes. But, he gets points for being a busy little beaver. I wonder if his workshop/lair is built on a crooked angle like the one's in the old Batman TV series.
I've lived with a related concept for some time, and occasionally forget that others may not have had the opportunity, time, or inclination to reach this conclusion yet. To summarize my own thoughts on the related concept, "Skyscrapers are as natural as ant-hills." In other words, since man is a part of nature, all things from man, however cruel or disgusting, are natural.
The parent post explains the logical conclusion of defining free will. The gist is that the definition of free will is a description of natural law. You don't follow natural law, you define it with your choices because you can't escape being part of nature. Whatever you conceive of is natural. Free-will | Natural-law are two-sides of the same coin.
Funny article. It's titled "More Distortions From Michael Moore", but then fails to prove that the film was anything but factual. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about the article itself (Isikoff has released nearly the same article under different titles, rehashing the points). The version you point out has already been corrected (thanks to someone pointing out the lack of fact checking), but you can read more in "How Dumb is Michael Isikoff of Newsweek? You Decide.".
The closest thing to criticism seems to be a distate for alleged innuendo created by the proximity of facts given, or that the film wasn't 10 hours long, therefore all facts weren't given. Even the author's admit that just the fact the ideas were presented raises important questions that can't be ignored. If Moore had to complete every thought for the audience, then he would simply be accused of either being pedantic, or he could rightfully be called a liar. The facts given are sometimes circumstantial without admittance of guilt from parties involved. In that type of situation, the filmmaker couldn't truthfully tell you that the facts lead to an undeniable result, only a plausible one. He can only honestly say, "Here's the circumstantial evidence without admittance to guilt. And, here's another. And, another. What do you make of it? Personally, I think something funny is going on." And, that's what Moore did. A simple amazing point that I don't see mentioned anywhere, is that this supposedly slanderous documentary doesn't appear to have generated any law suits as of this writing. Could the facts speak for themselves? Even the lawsuit-slap-happy Faux News Channel is unusually reserved in the courtroom department.
The fact the article was written, however misleading the title, is a good sign Michael Moore has done his job right. People need to be talking and debating, rather than simply swallowing the slop thrown over the White House's new security fences, or the drivel usually trickling out of corporate owned TV newsrooms.
I have two worries. That people will spread an opinion about the movie before actually seeing it. And, I share the second with you, that they will accept what they see without further research. This movie should be a catalyst for further study. The issues are complex, and Moore himself wants people to poke holes in the facts presented. Think of it as Open Source verification. Download his movie, and tear it apart. This is something the self-deluded can never do. Moore is wise in this way.
It's been pointed out in other places that it was Unocal and the Clinton administration that supported the land pipeline.
Powerful oil interests influencing non-Bush Administration White House? Entirely probable. However, the Taliban didn't go to the White House. They went to Texas. Does it erase the fact that Bush's friends had a powerful interest in a pipeline through Afghanistan? Nope, it confirms it. And, Unocal winning the contract from the Taliban is history, not speculation. Even so, Clinton wouldn't recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government, and so the pipeline plans languished, the project (perhaps with different players) on hold until Bush took over. At the very least, Moore provides not only reference but footage. You can do the same.
The pipeline was never built and probably never will be.
Again, your sources? I would say they are out of date, or at worst incorrect.
So, you are mis-informed. Hmmm. It seems people are getting the wrong impressions from this factual movie. How could that be?
Well, you certainly won't get the facts from the Faux News Channel. Try reliable newssources for facts about the pipeline you claim will never will be built.
Unocal's reasons for abandoning the project doesn't necessarily mean there weren't reasons for pursuing it. The fact they did abandon it, means they were pursuing it up to that point. Those reasons may have born fruit as the West's invasion of Afghanistan. It just means that after the damage has been done, making certain factors apparent, a new perception of viability has replaced an old one. New calculations have been made, and it may no longer be considered worth the trouble it once was by certain parties. It doesn't mean that other partners haven't benefited from the leverage pushed by Western partners, even though the West may have done all the work and damage. And, it also doesn't mean the Western partners won't be back to reap what they sowed at a later time when the heat is off, and Moore or others like him have been dissappeared.
I agree with you. This is the most important film in recent generations.
If anyone has friends sitting on the fence regarding Bush. They should advise them to see Fahrenheit 9/11 to get pushed one way or another off that uncomfortable perch. Also, advise them that anyone telling them not to see it is either a censor, hasn't seen it, or has an agenda against the citizens of the United States. Let them make up their own minds about images that corporate news wouldn't show.
Moore served his country well, and may have saved the world from 4 more years of hell. He's a Patriot to the core. More than that, he's a citizen of the world.
"We invaded Afghanistan" and "Afghanistan's natural gas pipeline was built very quickly." Moore puts these facts in proximity to imply we invaded partly for oil. You can't deny the facts, but the implication is debatable.
The implication becomes stronger when Moore also presents the history of the gas pipeline prior to the invasion, which includes the Bush family, the officer who's name was blacked out by the White House when it released Bush's military records simply because he was Bush's business partner in oil, and the Saudis, and that the former Unocal adviser is now the president of Afghanistan. In a business sense, it's simply one hand helping the other, something most people can understand. In a humanitarian sense ( a dirty word to conservatives ) it's a disaster. Families have died due to these business dealings. When it happens on your block, you expect the criminals to be prosecuted. When it happens half a world away, its too abstract to accept, and that gives the neo-conservatives power over the rest of us.
An opposite opinion on the implications would sound rather ludricrous as they would claim these were all "coincidences". However, still expect a lot of handwaving, and misdirection.
It would be different with think tanks because they are not trying to be unbiased agents of the truth.
You'll be hard pressed to find a "stink tank" that would agree with you. They do claim unbiased analysis. If they weren't trying to at least project the image of being unbiased agents of the truth, they wouldn't be much use would they? By witholding disclaimers in their articles as to who funds them, they're liars and they know it. I'm sure they'd even deny the watered down term of propagandist. Even Slashdot will conscientiously admit to the source of an article being from or involving a parent company to acknowledge the possibility of a conflict of interest. That shows Slashdot is a more honest than these loser "analists".
However, if they aren't for the truth, what are they for? I mean, has anyone stopped to ask what is a "think tank" anyways? Here's a coupledefinitions.
Incidentally, if you look at other large sponsors of these agencies, you'll see other funding sources they have in common besides Microsoft. It's not like MS is the sole, driving force behind these organizations.
Perhaps not, but it's absolutely clear they are the common funder. And, I bet they're the biggest fish in that scummy pond. It's also crystal clear that the less visibility Microsoft has as a funder, the less likely there will be questions of veracity regarding the "analysis" from these so called "think tanks". As Microsoft practices security through obscurity, so do these "stink tanks" claim unbiased authority by not announcing who paid for their "research". There's a reason why political Ads must have full disclosure as to who paid for what. That's because an uninformed public will make uninformed decisions, and often against their own interests. Paint it anyway you want, but I've got paint thinner.
Senator Hatch has a powerful incentive in attacking P2P networks (see #'s 7, 15, 18).
So, that's how much it costs to buy a U.S. Senator. I hadn't really set my heart on it as I've heard about the sanitation issues. However, while currently beyond my means, I'm rather surprised how little it takes.
If I'd known, I could've saved earlier, as I did for my home, and bought myself a U.S. Senator. Wow, the idea just seems so surreal. But, again, the sanitation issues...
I'm registered as an Independent. Even though I've voted more for Democrats and Greens, I like the way it sounds. Non-partisan.
Plus, depending on the State you live in, you get to vote in either party's elections. That way you can help weed out the worst and scariest candidate in one party before the general elections occur. So, if you've got to pick between two evils (Dem or Rep) in general elections, you can at least help mitigate the degree of evil by culling the herd earlier.
Researchers using lab techniques can create a weird relationship between pairs of tiny particles. After that, the fate of one particle instantly affects the other; if one particle is made to take on a certain set of properties, the other immediately takes on identical or opposite properties, no matter how far away it is and without any apparent physical connection to the first particle.
In time, they'll probably realize what many throughout the ages have intuited. That the underlying nature of existence (foundations of at least this universe, if there isn't a multiverse) is a single thread, and that if you're skillful and clever you can pluck a note here, and hear it there.
It may even be more interesting than that. The underlying reality, or layers of reality like onion skins (some religions consider at least the first layer a form of illusion), may apparently be accessible for manipulation. But, that is only the superficial view by the tinkerers in us.
Philosophical views may be more profound. As scientists start proving that existence isn't an experience shared by many individual minds, but is the byproduct of a single force that doesn't "unite", but cause perceived divisions amongst the sentients for the sake of calculation and experience. Perhaps, answers as to the nature of God could be answered by simply looking in the mirror. It is entirely possible that we are to what we nominally call God, as your fingers are to you. Are God's fingers any less sacred than the rest of God? In the end, being part of something larger, may be taken literally, and that death (the other preoccupying concern, aside from God's existence) isn't actually such an important matter. Particularly, if you die you don't actually go anywhere to be with God, you are simply withdrawn back into God (God being yourself). Except that withdrawn isn't the correct notion either. What are you being withdrawn from? From the rest of reality/God/yourself that represents you/God/reality? No, you may simply metamorph into something else useful/experimental, not standing aloof from your/our/my/God's creation/yourself/God, but changing into another part(no concept of "part" either as everything is One) of creation/yourself.
God/me/you/she/he/it/us may not be intelligent in the form we (humans here) take for granted, but like a general purpose computer/bacteria/amoeba/mother-nature/atoms/physi cs/us that has the ability to build very smart specialized analogs (us, and any alien life forms), in a sense making itself smarter/experienced by growing what it/we/I needs. Not really having a will of its/our own except whatever will we/it/God can give it/God/ourselves. And, arriving at us (sapiens sapiens) isn't an end point. We're/God/I'm all simply part of the experiment/experience/existance called natural-selection/God/existence.
The iterations and failures leading up to us, weren't failures at all, simply different perspectives to our/God's/its experience/growth/search. What are we/God/us/I looking for? An identity? A name? A reason? A purpose? These questions are all simply some of the results of my/our/God's specialized analogs/us in this particular iteration of ourselves/God.
If a 2-Dimensional picture is better than a thousand words, here's a simplification of the ideas I've/we've/God's proposed (and has been proposing to himself/herself/itself/ourselves). The picture is of "La Linea" from a children's television show from the 1980's called "The Great Space Coaster".
La Linea is depicted as an outline or line-drawing of a man, protruding from the ground/universe/existence drawn as a straight line. There is no discernable difference between him and the rest of the universe/everyting-below-the-line, except that instead of being a straight line he has a specific shape. Other than that, the universe/existance and he are one and the sam
It doesn't matter. Its irrelevant to Java. It would matter if Java was being used in place of VB on the client side, but it isn't.
Because business software applications are rarely single pieces these days, it is vitally important to any vendor that they have a foot in the door on at least one piece of the application. Whether on the client-side/presentation/web side, business logic side, or database side. The reason for this is to establish a point where leverage can be asserted to take over the other parts of the business application. Please review M$'s and IBM's history to understand this.
There is no such thing as 'The Software Market'. There are niches, which are quite separate.
In the business world, a niche for particular business software only exists in it's use, not in its technology or architecture. The proper word is category or tier in an application's architecture. Java apps exist well on the server-side, which is a category of operation or tier. A particular use of a server side Java app could be to capture, organize and store digitally imaged files. That type of business software exists in a particular niche. However, that can be accomplished by.NET just as easily (I just saw a AIX/ASP system replaced by a Win2K/.NET system last year at the biggest entertainment company in the world). There is nothing inherent in Java that keeps it secure in its category of operation or tier...only the good will of the people using it.
Using.Net server side is just plain barmy: Why bother, when Java does even more in that situation, is free, is multi-vendor and portable?
As I said,.NET is being used already on the server-side. The weakness of the Windows platform has been negated by the usage of redundancy hardware tech and VMs like VMWare. Server farms and clustering are the vogue, and hide M$'s faulty server design quite well, making downtime transparent to the user. In addition, as the majority of business apps are departmental in scope and size, and larger projects tend to over-purchase equipment/resources, it is a negligible cost to move departmental apps into these farms and share resources. I'm already seeing the conversion projects picking up steam. More contracts are being offered for conversions; doubling the number from last year.
The only meaningful thing that will differentiate Java and.NET will be whether Java is GPL'd/LGPL'd or not. I'm afraid a lesser license will not help at all. It has to be the same license used by Mono (which is maturing quite quickly now) if it's to grow and not lose ground to.NET.
Anthropology tends to be tied to Sociology over here...
As Archaeology is a discipline within Anthropology, Sociology is a specialization of Anthropology. Anthropology is incomplete without the study of culturalcontext. An accurate simplification would be that as siblings, Archaeology and Sociology study the same things, but at different times. One in the present, the other in the past. One relies on remnants of civilization to learn about its subject via recontruction, the other studies it live. Of course, this is a simplification, and in actuality most of the disciplines within the larger science of Anthropology (the study of man) borrow from one another or overlap.
...whilst Archaeology tends to be associated with History or even Classics, hence the disparaging 'Archaeology is the handmaiden of History' quote often trotted out.
You may be confusing various subsets of Archaeology, with the discipline itself. Sub-fields of Archaeology include Classical and Historical Archeaology. The science remains the same, despite the specialization.
Why aren't the people yelling for open source Java busy working on Kaffe and the others?
Without an Open Source Java blessed by Sun, it's only an Open Source Kaffe, or GNU ClassPath, or GCJ. This is Sun's proof that forking isn't an issue. These clones are at varying degrees of completion in their implementation of the reference. They want nothing better than to be Java. But, they can't. They can only be Kaffe, GNU ClassPath, or GCJ. This almost guarantees that they will remain obscure tools to most programmers, and certainly not considered worth risking in production by the majority of Java programmer.
Sun has proven that without their blessing, Open Source Java that can't be called Java isn't likely to be received well in the near future. C# on the other hand, being allowed to be called C# even in its Open Source forms, might just be where the Open Source advocates turn their attention to. That wouldn't be good for Sun, as these are the same people who are also bringing Linux into the corporate world through the backdoors. These Linux distributions don't normally come with Sun's Java on the CD, but they can come with Mono's C#.
What's in a name? The power of identification and validation; also, the assurance of accreditation and endorsement. No one runs out to buy a dozen "blozes" on Valentines day, though they smell just as sweet.
Sun can merely allow the Open Source projects they approve of (certified) to retain the Java name, and all others will be ignored.
There's an important distinction that needs to be made. There are temporary forks, which are wonderful for the evolution of code. And, there are permanent forks which are wonderful for diversifying a tool's application.
Unless it is particularly wanted by every single person who has the skill to code, permanent forks are impossible for works under the GPL. Projects under the GPL follow the natural tendency of unifying useful code. This is as long as a single technical person exists who wishes it to unify.
This is why the temporary forks in Linux are one of its most important strengths. It makes Linux agile and flexible. And, just as important if not more so: from the user standpoint, it is nearly transparent.
Anthropology is a science. Archaeology is a branch of it. In a sense, you're both right; but, one is more correct than the other. In the overview, Archaeology is a discipline within the larger science of Anthropology. An Archaeologist, is a specialized Anthropologist. An Anthropologist, is not always an Archaeologist.
If you believe Java is in decline, you need to open your eyes and look at the real IT market, not the one you want to exist.
The most popular application development platform in business is based on M$ products. The most popular language until recently, is/was VB. A minority of those aging VB/ASP projects will be re-written in Java/JSP. The majority are just now being slated for re-writes, and they will be going to.NET.
In reality the re-write will be as difficult in.NET as they would have been in Java, but M$ has the upperhand in propaganda. And, the people doing the re-writes are often only familiar with M$ products.
In the near future,.NET projects will outnumber Java projects simply on the momentum of legacy conversions alone. It makes Sun's Open Source timing critical. The clock is ticking, and they can't sit on their arses for too long before the OOP shift goes M$'s way and not theirs.
Sun must take their flagship product and place it under a new flag that the uncommited can rally under if they intend on fighting the Microsofties of the world. Another thing: they must commit to become a Linux company as well, ASAP. Their window of opportunity won't last forever, if you'll excuse the pun. Sun Linux would have some weight in the current business world, and they could make it dominant (JDS is not a commitment, it's a hedge-bet). Sun Linux appearing in the next few years would just be another small Linux vendor amongst the Novell Linux, HP Linux, IBM-RedHat Linux vendors of the world. Even the future Microsoft Winux System would have more weight than a tardy Sun Linux.
Open Source Solaris? Who cares? We have Linux and we have all the BSD variants you could want. Who'd needs another BSD variant? More importantly, who'd want a more legally restrictive BSD variant? Between the ingenious restrictions in the GPL, and nearly useless license of the BSDs, you've got the entire range of licenses, power, stability, hardware platforms, and security.
Sun, stop wasting time. The clock is ticking. Before you drop dead or get bought out, GPL Java and help us kick M$'s ass. Oh, wait, you've already been sucked into the dark-side. Never mind.
Slashdot Mirror
= 9J =
Really? I would have said democratic.
= 9J =
= 9J =
The parent post explains the logical conclusion of defining free will. The gist is that the definition of free will is a description of natural law. You don't follow natural law, you define it with your choices because you can't escape being part of nature. Whatever you conceive of is natural. Free-will | Natural-law are two-sides of the same coin.
= 9J =
The closest thing to criticism seems to be a distate for alleged innuendo created by the proximity of facts given, or that the film wasn't 10 hours long, therefore all facts weren't given. Even the author's admit that just the fact the ideas were presented raises important questions that can't be ignored. If Moore had to complete every thought for the audience, then he would simply be accused of either being pedantic, or he could rightfully be called a liar. The facts given are sometimes circumstantial without admittance of guilt from parties involved. In that type of situation, the filmmaker couldn't truthfully tell you that the facts lead to an undeniable result, only a plausible one. He can only honestly say, "Here's the circumstantial evidence without admittance to guilt. And, here's another. And, another. What do you make of it? Personally, I think something funny is going on." And, that's what Moore did. A simple amazing point that I don't see mentioned anywhere, is that this supposedly slanderous documentary doesn't appear to have generated any law suits as of this writing. Could the facts speak for themselves? Even the lawsuit-slap-happy Faux News Channel is unusually reserved in the courtroom department.
The fact the article was written, however misleading the title, is a good sign Michael Moore has done his job right. People need to be talking and debating, rather than simply swallowing the slop thrown over the White House's new security fences, or the drivel usually trickling out of corporate owned TV newsrooms.
= 9J =
= 9J =
Powerful oil interests influencing non-Bush Administration White House? Entirely probable. However, the Taliban didn't go to the White House. They went to Texas. Does it erase the fact that Bush's friends had a powerful interest in a pipeline through Afghanistan? Nope, it confirms it. And, Unocal winning the contract from the Taliban is history, not speculation. Even so, Clinton wouldn't recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government, and so the pipeline plans languished, the project (perhaps with different players) on hold until Bush took over. At the very least, Moore provides not only reference but footage. You can do the same.
The pipeline was never built and probably never will be.
Again, your sources? I would say they are out of date, or at worst incorrect.
So, you are mis-informed. Hmmm. It seems people are getting the wrong impressions from this factual movie. How could that be?
Well, you certainly won't get the facts from the Faux News Channel. Try reliable news sources for facts about the pipeline you claim will never will be built.
Unocal's reasons for abandoning the project doesn't necessarily mean there weren't reasons for pursuing it. The fact they did abandon it, means they were pursuing it up to that point. Those reasons may have born fruit as the West's invasion of Afghanistan. It just means that after the damage has been done, making certain factors apparent, a new perception of viability has replaced an old one. New calculations have been made, and it may no longer be considered worth the trouble it once was by certain parties. It doesn't mean that other partners haven't benefited from the leverage pushed by Western partners, even though the West may have done all the work and damage. And, it also doesn't mean the Western partners won't be back to reap what they sowed at a later time when the heat is off, and Moore or others like him have been dissappeared.
= 9J =
If anyone has friends sitting on the fence regarding Bush. They should advise them to see Fahrenheit 9/11 to get pushed one way or another off that uncomfortable perch. Also, advise them that anyone telling them not to see it is either a censor, hasn't seen it, or has an agenda against the citizens of the United States. Let them make up their own minds about images that corporate news wouldn't show.
Moore served his country well, and may have saved the world from 4 more years of hell. He's a Patriot to the core. More than that, he's a citizen of the world.
= 9J =
The implication becomes stronger when Moore also presents the history of the gas pipeline prior to the invasion, which includes the Bush family, the officer who's name was blacked out by the White House when it released Bush's military records simply because he was Bush's business partner in oil, and the Saudis, and that the former Unocal adviser is now the president of Afghanistan. In a business sense, it's simply one hand helping the other, something most people can understand. In a humanitarian sense ( a dirty word to conservatives ) it's a disaster. Families have died due to these business dealings. When it happens on your block, you expect the criminals to be prosecuted. When it happens half a world away, its too abstract to accept, and that gives the neo-conservatives power over the rest of us.
An opposite opinion on the implications would sound rather ludricrous as they would claim these were all "coincidences". However, still expect a lot of handwaving, and misdirection.
= 9J =
= 9J =
= 9J =
= 9J =
You'll be hard pressed to find a "stink tank" that would agree with you. They do claim unbiased analysis. If they weren't trying to at least project the image of being unbiased agents of the truth, they wouldn't be much use would they? By witholding disclaimers in their articles as to who funds them, they're liars and they know it. I'm sure they'd even deny the watered down term of propagandist. Even Slashdot will conscientiously admit to the source of an article being from or involving a parent company to acknowledge the possibility of a conflict of interest. That shows Slashdot is a more honest than these loser "analists".
However, if they aren't for the truth, what are they for? I mean, has anyone stopped to ask what is a "think tank" anyways? Here's a couple definitions.
Incidentally, if you look at other large sponsors of these agencies, you'll see other funding sources they have in common besides Microsoft. It's not like MS is the sole, driving force behind these organizations.
Perhaps not, but it's absolutely clear they are the common funder. And, I bet they're the biggest fish in that scummy pond. It's also crystal clear that the less visibility Microsoft has as a funder, the less likely there will be questions of veracity regarding the "analysis" from these so called "think tanks". As Microsoft practices security through obscurity, so do these "stink tanks" claim unbiased authority by not announcing who paid for their "research". There's a reason why political Ads must have full disclosure as to who paid for what. That's because an uninformed public will make uninformed decisions, and often against their own interests. Paint it anyway you want, but I've got paint thinner.
= 9J =
So, that's how much it costs to buy a U.S. Senator. I hadn't really set my heart on it as I've heard about the sanitation issues. However, while currently beyond my means, I'm rather surprised how little it takes.
If I'd known, I could've saved earlier, as I did for my home, and bought myself a U.S. Senator. Wow, the idea just seems so surreal. But, again, the sanitation issues...
= 9J =
Plus, depending on the State you live in, you get to vote in either party's elections. That way you can help weed out the worst and scariest candidate in one party before the general elections occur. So, if you've got to pick between two evils (Dem or Rep) in general elections, you can at least help mitigate the degree of evil by culling the herd earlier.
= 9J =
In time, they'll probably realize what many throughout the ages have intuited. That the underlying nature of existence (foundations of at least this universe, if there isn't a multiverse) is a single thread, and that if you're skillful and clever you can pluck a note here, and hear it there. It may even be more interesting than that. The underlying reality, or layers of reality like onion skins (some religions consider at least the first layer a form of illusion), may apparently be accessible for manipulation. But, that is only the superficial view by the tinkerers in us.
Philosophical views may be more profound. As scientists start proving that existence isn't an experience shared by many individual minds, but is the byproduct of a single force that doesn't "unite", but cause perceived divisions amongst the sentients for the sake of calculation and experience. Perhaps, answers as to the nature of God could be answered by simply looking in the mirror. It is entirely possible that we are to what we nominally call God, as your fingers are to you. Are God's fingers any less sacred than the rest of God? In the end, being part of something larger, may be taken literally, and that death (the other preoccupying concern, aside from God's existence) isn't actually such an important matter. Particularly, if you die you don't actually go anywhere to be with God, you are simply withdrawn back into God (God being yourself). Except that withdrawn isn't the correct notion either. What are you being withdrawn from? From the rest of reality/God/yourself that represents you/God/reality? No, you may simply metamorph into something else useful/experimental, not standing aloof from your/our/my/God's creation/yourself/God, but changing into another part(no concept of "part" either as everything is One) of creation/yourself.
God/me/you/she/he/it/us may not be intelligent in the form we (humans here) take for granted, but like a general purpose computer/bacteria/amoeba/mother-nature/atoms/physi cs/us that has the ability to build very smart specialized analogs (us, and any alien life forms), in a sense making itself smarter/experienced by growing what it/we/I needs. Not really having a will of its/our own except whatever will we/it/God can give it/God/ourselves. And, arriving at us (sapiens sapiens) isn't an end point. We're/God/I'm all simply part of the experiment/experience/existance called natural-selection/God/existence.
The iterations and failures leading up to us, weren't failures at all, simply different perspectives to our/God's/its experience/growth/search. What are we/God/us/I looking for? An identity? A name? A reason? A purpose? These questions are all simply some of the results of my/our/God's specialized analogs/us in this particular iteration of ourselves/God.
If a 2-Dimensional picture is better than a thousand words, here's a simplification of the ideas I've/we've/God's proposed (and has been proposing to himself/herself/itself/ourselves). The picture is of "La Linea" from a children's television show from the 1980's called "The Great Space Coaster".
La Linea is depicted as an outline or line-drawing of a man, protruding from the ground/universe/existence drawn as a straight line. There is no discernable difference between him and the rest of the universe/everyting-below-the-line, except that instead of being a straight line he has a specific shape. Other than that, the universe/existance and he are one and the sam
= 9J =
Because business software applications are rarely single pieces these days, it is vitally important to any vendor that they have a foot in the door on at least one piece of the application. Whether on the client-side/presentation/web side, business logic side, or database side. The reason for this is to establish a point where leverage can be asserted to take over the other parts of the business application. Please review M$'s and IBM's history to understand this.
There is no such thing as 'The Software Market'. There are niches, which are quite separate.
In the business world, a niche for particular business software only exists in it's use, not in its technology or architecture. The proper word is category or tier in an application's architecture. Java apps exist well on the server-side, which is a category of operation or tier. A particular use of a server side Java app could be to capture, organize and store digitally imaged files. That type of business software exists in a particular niche. However, that can be accomplished by .NET just as easily (I just saw a AIX/ASP system replaced by a Win2K/.NET system last year at the biggest entertainment company in the world). There is nothing inherent in Java that keeps it secure in its category of operation or tier...only the good will of the people using it.
Using .Net server side is just plain barmy: Why bother, when Java does even more in that situation, is free, is multi-vendor and portable?
As I said, .NET is being used already on the server-side. The weakness of the Windows platform has been negated by the usage of redundancy hardware tech and VMs like VMWare. Server farms and clustering are the vogue, and hide M$'s faulty server design quite well, making downtime transparent to the user. In addition, as the majority of business apps are departmental in scope and size, and larger projects tend to over-purchase equipment/resources, it is a negligible cost to move departmental apps into these farms and share resources. I'm already seeing the conversion projects picking up steam. More contracts are being offered for conversions; doubling the number from last year.
The only meaningful thing that will differentiate Java and .NET will be whether Java is GPL'd/LGPL'd or not. I'm afraid a lesser license will not help at all. It has to be the same license used by Mono (which is maturing quite quickly now) if it's to grow and not lose ground to .NET.
= 9J =
Europe too.
Anthropology tends to be tied to Sociology over here...
As Archaeology is a discipline within Anthropology, Sociology is a specialization of Anthropology. Anthropology is incomplete without the study of cultural context. An accurate simplification would be that as siblings, Archaeology and Sociology study the same things, but at different times. One in the present, the other in the past. One relies on remnants of civilization to learn about its subject via recontruction, the other studies it live. Of course, this is a simplification, and in actuality most of the disciplines within the larger science of Anthropology (the study of man) borrow from one another or overlap.
You may be confusing various subsets of Archaeology, with the discipline itself. Sub-fields of Archaeology include Classical and Historical Archeaology. The science remains the same, despite the specialization.
= 9J =
Without an Open Source Java blessed by Sun, it's only an Open Source Kaffe, or GNU ClassPath, or GCJ. This is Sun's proof that forking isn't an issue. These clones are at varying degrees of completion in their implementation of the reference. They want nothing better than to be Java. But, they can't. They can only be Kaffe, GNU ClassPath, or GCJ. This almost guarantees that they will remain obscure tools to most programmers, and certainly not considered worth risking in production by the majority of Java programmer.
Sun has proven that without their blessing, Open Source Java that can't be called Java isn't likely to be received well in the near future. C# on the other hand, being allowed to be called C# even in its Open Source forms, might just be where the Open Source advocates turn their attention to. That wouldn't be good for Sun, as these are the same people who are also bringing Linux into the corporate world through the backdoors. These Linux distributions don't normally come with Sun's Java on the CD, but they can come with Mono's C#.
What's in a name? The power of identification and validation; also, the assurance of accreditation and endorsement. No one runs out to buy a dozen "blozes" on Valentines day, though they smell just as sweet.
Sun can merely allow the Open Source projects they approve of (certified) to retain the Java name, and all others will be ignored.
= 9J =
Unless it is particularly wanted by every single person who has the skill to code, permanent forks are impossible for works under the GPL. Projects under the GPL follow the natural tendency of unifying useful code. This is as long as a single technical person exists who wishes it to unify.
This is why the temporary forks in Linux are one of its most important strengths. It makes Linux agile and flexible. And, just as important if not more so: from the user standpoint, it is nearly transparent.
= 9J =
= 9J =
= 9J =
The most popular application development platform in business is based on M$ products. The most popular language until recently, is/was VB. A minority of those aging VB/ASP projects will be re-written in Java/JSP. The majority are just now being slated for re-writes, and they will be going to .NET.
In reality the re-write will be as difficult in .NET as they would have been in Java, but M$ has the upperhand in propaganda. And, the people doing the re-writes are often only familiar with M$ products.
In the near future, .NET projects will outnumber Java projects simply on the momentum of legacy conversions alone. It makes Sun's Open Source timing critical. The clock is ticking, and they can't sit on their arses for too long before the OOP shift goes M$'s way and not theirs.
Sun must take their flagship product and place it under a new flag that the uncommited can rally under if they intend on fighting the Microsofties of the world. Another thing: they must commit to become a Linux company as well, ASAP. Their window of opportunity won't last forever, if you'll excuse the pun. Sun Linux would have some weight in the current business world, and they could make it dominant (JDS is not a commitment, it's a hedge-bet). Sun Linux appearing in the next few years would just be another small Linux vendor amongst the Novell Linux, HP Linux, IBM-RedHat Linux vendors of the world. Even the future Microsoft Winux System would have more weight than a tardy Sun Linux.
= 9J =
Sun, stop wasting time. The clock is ticking. Before you drop dead or get bought out, GPL Java and help us kick M$'s ass. Oh, wait, you've already been sucked into the dark-side. Never mind.
= 9J =