Of course if you are so uneducated as to not know that treaties like Kyoto and the ICC, whilst not obviously in America's short term interests, are in fact in America's long term interests, you might say something so daft in the context of Kyoto and the ICC.
Sigh.
Why does your disagreement start with an insult? You have no idea of my educational level or experiences, and your instant reversion to an ad hominem attack doesn't do much to endear me to listen to any argument you might present. Isn't part of a good education learning how to argue a point like an adult, or should I just insult you back?
The treaties that you are so enamored with may be viewed as of benefit to you or yours - but they have not been viewed as sufficiently beneficial to the citizens of the U.S. - or they would have been agreed to. Instead, they place the burden of cost on the U.S. with few perceived benefits.
Kyoto would exempt "developing" nations - so in effect dirty manufacturing would end up moving to those places even faster because it would be cheaper - it would basically make such places (which I have visited in my professional, albiet uneducated life) even more unpleasant to live in - is that what you want to do to those poor countries to make yourself feel like you've "done something"?
The ICC has already shown its true colors in attempting to charge various U.S. citizens for "warcrimes" in the U.S.-led action in Iraq - exactly to what advantage of the U.S. citizen is it if the U.S. would need to subjucate itself to such a body before taking actions it feels are necessary for its defense? Mother-May-I was a stupid children's game in the fist place - a sovereign nation certainly sholdn't play it.
If the world scientific and political body can convince the administration of the U.S. that Kyoto or something like it will benefit the people of the U.S. above what it will cost, then the people of the U.S. will call for its adoption.
I guess my question is given the plethora of extremely proven, capable solutions in the embedded market, what would make Linux (which was designed for the desktop/server market) a credible choice beyond perhaps catering to the hype machine?
I think you are missing what made Linux the thing that it is. It's not that it was designed for the server or the desktop or whatever - it's that it was written to scratch an itch - whatever particular itch the writer of a piece of it most wanted to scratch - and the server/desktop was that particular itch then - and that it worked and works so well specifically because of its open-source copyleft model - a developer "pays" for access to the wealth of work that came before him by agreeing to release his own work to that pool.
Linux's advantage in most programming situations is that because of its free nature it's got a lot of eyeballs to look at the core of it, which can therefore more safely be assumed to be correct. The grunt work can then go into the special code that runs some particular device.
Any paticular embedded device could be massaged to run more efficiently with custom code - just like any given electronic device could be made to run with less transistors than those on an embedded CPU - but why bother when the lifecycle of technology is so short. Instead the payback is in getting an operable system employed quickly, and Linux's evergrowing depth and breadth of appplication (because it has that wealth of previous effort behind it) allows its use in more and more places.
Critical applications will still require more critical QA efforts of course - but cheapness and time-to-market drive everything to using CPUs with millions of transistors and and on-the-surface overly-complex-OSs to do simple tasks.
For example, I wanted to help my kid with some vocabulary words - and it became obvious he was going to have a lot of 'em over the school year. In about an hour I'd written a database-driven PHP script with a web interface running on my server to do the job. It'd be insane to write all the OS, web-server, etc. code from scratch to do such a thing, but once the tools are there then they can be easily extended to do new things. In the embedded world, as reliable implementations of Linux systems can be installed with a few chips, then the developer can write simple extension code that tells a robot to do this, do that, etc.
why demand your money back
you go into the setup page and turn it off
its not hard
cry cry cry
A company often only gets one chance to violate the trust a customer has in them.
Imagine the opportunity for all the other router manufacturers to now announce how they would never violate your trust by having their own product do something you didn't ask it to do. One can't help but wonder what other "we're here to help" code exists within other Belkin products. They may claim they don't collect private information, but what reason is there to believe that statement when they blatantly usurped your trust to pitch another of their products?
If I worked in the corporate world any longer I would now be very distrusting of the products that carry a Belkin label. I suspect that many of those who do still work there will consider this as a rather negative mark.
Belkin's action is quite the pitch for "open-source only", from a trust perspective in the corporate world too, ain't it?
Why does half the announcement on Lenslet have to talk about how this will revolutionize the defense industry and homeland security?
Because that's the two applications most likely be willing to quickly pay a pretty penny for this development - that might matter to an investor.
Those two applications can put to immediate use very-high-speed logic. Real-time and ver-high-speed filtering of radar (and other) data allows discerning objects that are much smaller, or much farther away, or are much closer to the ground, etc. than current technology - if it's that much harder to hide a threat then it's easier to now apply (always) limited assets to better determine what is an actual threat and what is not, or perhaps which is the most immediate threat, etc.
There is no free lunch, and there is no "free" health care. There is simply the ability to shift the cost from those receiving the care to others (leaving out the argument of the debatable quality of government managed health care). If mandating that someone else pay for your health-care, your minimum-wage, your rent-assistance, your food-stamps, your unemployment, etc. isn't "left-wing", then what is - if people had the option of contributing to health insurance for the uninsured, unemployment assistance to the unemployed, etc, potentially including themselves, and chose on their own to do so, then bravo for all involved. But to legislate that one person will pay for someone else's problems is as left-wing and nanny-state as it gets.
The way our laws are structured, the IPO goes to the investment houses. They get to buy at discount rates, and then sell the initial sales to their friends, who make 10-50% on the first day's rise.
They also are the people that supported the company as it struggled to prove its merit during its private days, and they also take on the risk of guaranteeing that the stock will be purchased when it goes public. There are stocks that go down the first day. There are stocks that go up a lot the first few months. There's everything in between.
What I don't get is why people would buy stock if they have no plans to exert any influence as a partial owner of the company.
People buy stock because it gives them influence that they hope will later be of greater value. Whether that influence allows them to vote is irrelevant to many stock holders - they recognize that since there is only so much stock to go around, then the value of that stock adjusts as the value of the company behind it is perceived to change - if the company is expected to create significant profit then the company can use that profit to 1) improve its own operation, 2) buy someone else's efficient profit making machine, or 3) give some profit back to the stockholder. Each of those affects the perceived (free market) value of the company.
Getting a dividend seems like the reason to many people to hold a stock - but any company that can't do better with my money than to give it back to me probably didn't deserve to have any of my money in the first place.
Creating your own wealth means taking someone else's... it's a zero-sum game
A remarkably blindered view. Wealth is only zero-sum at a given instant.
Wealth is properly measured by value - what is the value of a great medical system, a great transportation system, varied and efficient communications systems? What is the value of having the time to attend your daughter's soccer games? What is the value of a multitude of research efforts into extending life and making it healthier, or of a US infant mortality rate of 6 per 1000 compared to say Angola's 200 per 1000? Did the US somehow "steal" Angola's ability to produce healthy babies or did the people of the US slowly build their wealth to one that allowed the "purchase" of a society that could provide the lower rate?
Wealth is (to some degree) exponential and viral - it is used to create more wealth for others if applied in a free market system - one in which those who offer a service or product are free to charge what they can and the buyer is free to choose WWWWW to buy. When wealth is stolen by those-that-know-how-to-spend-your-money-better (that is, tax used for social purposes) then it takes longer for wealth to grow and spread - those who had wealth now have less of it to spread through their own acquisition of products and services, and there is tremendous waste and fraud because of a lack of personal interest in seeing that value is obtained for the expenditure.
The kid next door charges more every year to cut my grass - I could look for another grasscutter or I could make some lawnmower manufacturer happy by buying their product and using it instead of allowing this young fellow to practice capitalism, but I've chosen how I want to spend my wealth (my cash) and the kid's chosen how he want's to spend his (his time). I have the luxury and wealth (and gray hair) to be lazy, and the kid trades his time and effort for my cash. This is not a zero-sum game - the world had to invent the lawnmower for the kid and the plasma TV with Angelina Jolie on screen to interest me for this transaction to have occured - else I'd have more inclination to cut my own damn grass.
This kid is using his saved wealth to buy a car, so that he can get to "a real job", so that he can save money and go to school, so that he can invent bigger plasma screens or extend the average lifespan even more or eventually bring sanitation and sane government and decent health care to Angola, or free-market education to the masses, etc.
The ability to pursue happiness mean the number of people enjoying longer, healthier lives with more free-time increases continuously, as it has. That is not zero-sum - it is the growth of wealth.
Unless the power being used in the cars was produced by a nuclear reactor (or other clean source), we are just passing the pollution up the chain.
But that's one of the values of using hydrogen in either a fuel cell or a combustion engine.
In a gasoline or diesel engine, it takes a tremendous amount of effort to produce an exhaust that is clean - indeed, we don't do it completely because it would be prohibitively expensive- no one can go around breathing actual car exhaust for long.
In a hydrogen powered vehicle, the pollution is not generated in a billion locations around the world (that is, in the cars). Instead, it is generated in the production facilities.
Localizing the pollution allows a much easier control and clean-up of it - building large and very effective filters at a handful of locations is much easier to accomplish and maintain than doing so at the numerous end points. Additionally, there are techniques of producing hydrogen from clean sources - Iceland is examining becoming an exporter of the fuel by producing it using their geothermal energy, for example. There are also many studies of producing other non-polluting hydrogen generation sources.
But, there are not enough people insisting that this happen and so we plod along with the idea that "it's not yet perfect so let's not bother".
I wonder if perhaps special measures should be set up to protect the resources of the Universe
How about this... we create "billions and billions" of resource locations but put stuff real far away from each other (even requiring generations of travel) and make it really expensive in resources (by creating deep gravity wells) to get to 'em and surround 'em with killer cosmic rays and vacuum?
Spoken like someone who's never truly hit hard times. Move out of your parent's basement yet, little buddy? No, turdburglar, reality is you can't always "find another job."
Aside: I find the mentality remarkable on Slashdot when an Anonymous Pussy reply that leads off with calling someone a turdburglar gets modded as interesting. Ah, the value of a fourth-grade education shows once again.
Telemarketing is a shitty job, but it pays fairly well compared to minimum wage.
There are a lot of shitty jobs in the world that are honest and don't involve harassing people that you damn well know don't want to be harassed - but oh, whine, whine, if it pays more than minimum wage then it's acceptable to bug the shit out of people. What self-respect would you sell and what would you be willing to do for twice minimum wage oh spineless one?
I don't piss and moan about how inconvenienced I am by the fact that someone else is trying to feed themselves.
Congratulations to contributing to the early death of many alcoholics. Sleep better?
annoying telemarkers may seem fun but these people are almost always in a bind and do not want to work there either. Making a single mother's life hell when she's resorted to working for a call center because she can not find anything else is not going to solve the problem.
Bullshit - yet another variation of "it's for the children". She can find some other job.
I'm unsympathetic to someone's excuse why it's ok for them to harass me - would it be acceptable for people to walk up to you on the street and offer to "quit harassing you" if you'll just give them some money?
And yes, I trolled you with the abortion thing. Looks like I won.
Since you still have no idea of my thoughts on that, which is irrelevant to this discussion in the first place, but don't hesitate to stooping to creating a position for me and then belittling the imaginary statements, I guess you have no trouble defining a "win" either.
you should be opposing abortion because it deprives the state of future taxpayers, not on religious or moral grounds.
Exactly what is your self-justification to assume knowledge, and then proceed to insult those assumptions, of my opinion on abortion, or my religious beliefs, or my moral views - from a discussion of collecting taxes and deficit spending? Aren't those rather personal beliefs - or are you a libertartian only when convenient to your argument?
The Government has always spent money they don't have (besides the fact that it's not their money in the first place) - you don't see cash-in-hand for any program that stretches out over more than one year - you don't even see the cash in hand for the money that was collected under the fraudulent concept of "we'll hold it for you for your own good of social-security", do you? You want to lay that one at the feet of Dubya too?
Looking back at the "debate" the other night (more like a public opportunity for Al Sharpton to threaten to have his thugs beat up the hecklers if the college couldn't take care of it), what do you think will happen if those that demand taxpayer-funded medical insurance get elected? Would that be spending future money by getting such a bill passed? (Personally, I view that as pure campaign promise to gather votes - "chicken in every pot" talk). Do you think that would be easily taken away if ever passed and the medical and insurance (and legal) field begin to work in that manner? Just remember, it'll be just as well protected and smartly managed as the money "held for you" for social security.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh.
Why does your disagreement start with an insult? You have no idea of my educational level or experiences, and your instant reversion to an ad hominem attack doesn't do much to endear me to listen to any argument you might present. Isn't part of a good education learning how to argue a point like an adult, or should I just insult you back?
The treaties that you are so enamored with may be viewed as of benefit to you or yours - but they have not been viewed as sufficiently beneficial to the citizens of the U.S. - or they would have been agreed to. Instead, they place the burden of cost on the U.S. with few perceived benefits.
Kyoto would exempt "developing" nations - so in effect dirty manufacturing would end up moving to those places even faster because it would be cheaper - it would basically make such places (which I have visited in my professional, albiet uneducated life) even more unpleasant to live in - is that what you want to do to those poor countries to make yourself feel like you've "done something"?
The ICC has already shown its true colors in attempting to charge various U.S. citizens for "warcrimes" in the U.S.-led action in Iraq - exactly to what advantage of the U.S. citizen is it if the U.S. would need to subjucate itself to such a body before taking actions it feels are necessary for its defense? Mother-May-I was a stupid children's game in the fist place - a sovereign nation certainly sholdn't play it.
If the world scientific and political body can convince the administration of the U.S. that Kyoto or something like it will benefit the people of the U.S. above what it will cost, then the people of the U.S. will call for its adoption.
Till then, piss off.
The U.S. should rightfully continue to refuse to agree to any treaty that has not been shown to be in the best interests of the citizens of the U.S.
So why not spend the billions developing quieter traffic? Put it into fuel cells and electric motors, for example.
I think you are missing what made Linux the thing that it is. It's not that it was designed for the server or the desktop or whatever - it's that it was written to scratch an itch - whatever particular itch the writer of a piece of it most wanted to scratch - and the server/desktop was that particular itch then - and that it worked and works so well specifically because of its open-source copyleft model - a developer "pays" for access to the wealth of work that came before him by agreeing to release his own work to that pool.
Linux's advantage in most programming situations is that because of its free nature it's got a lot of eyeballs to look at the core of it, which can therefore more safely be assumed to be correct. The grunt work can then go into the special code that runs some particular device.
Any paticular embedded device could be massaged to run more efficiently with custom code - just like any given electronic device could be made to run with less transistors than those on an embedded CPU - but why bother when the lifecycle of technology is so short. Instead the payback is in getting an operable system employed quickly, and Linux's evergrowing depth and breadth of appplication (because it has that wealth of previous effort behind it) allows its use in more and more places.
Critical applications will still require more critical QA efforts of course - but cheapness and time-to-market drive everything to using CPUs with millions of transistors and and on-the-surface overly-complex-OSs to do simple tasks.
For example, I wanted to help my kid with some vocabulary words - and it became obvious he was going to have a lot of 'em over the school year. In about an hour I'd written a database-driven PHP script with a web interface running on my server to do the job. It'd be insane to write all the OS, web-server, etc. code from scratch to do such a thing, but once the tools are there then they can be easily extended to do new things. In the embedded world, as reliable implementations of Linux systems can be installed with a few chips, then the developer can write simple extension code that tells a robot to do this, do that, etc.
That's measured in "geek male" inches.
Remind me again how much Microsoft "invested" in SCO?
A company often only gets one chance to violate the trust a customer has in them.
Imagine the opportunity for all the other router manufacturers to now announce how they would never violate your trust by having their own product do something you didn't ask it to do. One can't help but wonder what other "we're here to help" code exists within other Belkin products. They may claim they don't collect private information, but what reason is there to believe that statement when they blatantly usurped your trust to pitch another of their products?
If I worked in the corporate world any longer I would now be very distrusting of the products that carry a Belkin label. I suspect that many of those who do still work there will consider this as a rather negative mark.
Belkin's action is quite the pitch for "open-source only", from a trust perspective in the corporate world too, ain't it?
Because that's the two applications most likely be willing to quickly pay a pretty penny for this development - that might matter to an investor.
Those two applications can put to immediate use very-high-speed logic. Real-time and ver-high-speed filtering of radar (and other) data allows discerning objects that are much smaller, or much farther away, or are much closer to the ground, etc. than current technology - if it's that much harder to hide a threat then it's easier to now apply (always) limited assets to better determine what is an actual threat and what is not, or perhaps which is the most immediate threat, etc.
At the point the government of the country said it was (it is their country, and not m$ft's...)
There is no free lunch, and there is no "free" health care. There is simply the ability to shift the cost from those receiving the care to others (leaving out the argument of the debatable quality of government managed health care). If mandating that someone else pay for your health-care, your minimum-wage, your rent-assistance, your food-stamps, your unemployment, etc. isn't "left-wing", then what is - if people had the option of contributing to health insurance for the uninsured, unemployment assistance to the unemployed, etc, potentially including themselves, and chose on their own to do so, then bravo for all involved. But to legislate that one person will pay for someone else's problems is as left-wing and nanny-state as it gets.
Better known as "heaven on earth".
Could you share that list? I've built mine by hand over a few years and it's a pitiful 200 sites (but it does cover a lot of territory).
They also are the people that supported the company as it struggled to prove its merit during its private days, and they also take on the risk of guaranteeing that the stock will be purchased when it goes public. There are stocks that go down the first day. There are stocks that go up a lot the first few months. There's everything in between.
People buy stock because it gives them influence that they hope will later be of greater value. Whether that influence allows them to vote is irrelevant to many stock holders - they recognize that since there is only so much stock to go around, then the value of that stock adjusts as the value of the company behind it is perceived to change - if the company is expected to create significant profit then the company can use that profit to 1) improve its own operation, 2) buy someone else's efficient profit making machine, or 3) give some profit back to the stockholder. Each of those affects the perceived (free market) value of the company.
Getting a dividend seems like the reason to many people to hold a stock - but any company that can't do better with my money than to give it back to me probably didn't deserve to have any of my money in the first place.
A remarkably blindered view. Wealth is only zero-sum at a given instant.
Wealth is properly measured by value - what is the value of a great medical system, a great transportation system, varied and efficient communications systems? What is the value of having the time to attend your daughter's soccer games? What is the value of a multitude of research efforts into extending life and making it healthier, or of a US infant mortality rate of 6 per 1000 compared to say Angola's 200 per 1000? Did the US somehow "steal" Angola's ability to produce healthy babies or did the people of the US slowly build their wealth to one that allowed the "purchase" of a society that could provide the lower rate?
Wealth is (to some degree) exponential and viral - it is used to create more wealth for others if applied in a free market system - one in which those who offer a service or product are free to charge what they can and the buyer is free to choose WWWWW to buy. When wealth is stolen by those-that-know-how-to-spend-your-money-better (that is, tax used for social purposes) then it takes longer for wealth to grow and spread - those who had wealth now have less of it to spread through their own acquisition of products and services, and there is tremendous waste and fraud because of a lack of personal interest in seeing that value is obtained for the expenditure.
The kid next door charges more every year to cut my grass - I could look for another grasscutter or I could make some lawnmower manufacturer happy by buying their product and using it instead of allowing this young fellow to practice capitalism, but I've chosen how I want to spend my wealth (my cash) and the kid's chosen how he want's to spend his (his time). I have the luxury and wealth (and gray hair) to be lazy, and the kid trades his time and effort for my cash. This is not a zero-sum game - the world had to invent the lawnmower for the kid and the plasma TV with Angelina Jolie on screen to interest me for this transaction to have occured - else I'd have more inclination to cut my own damn grass.
This kid is using his saved wealth to buy a car, so that he can get to "a real job", so that he can save money and go to school, so that he can invent bigger plasma screens or extend the average lifespan even more or eventually bring sanitation and sane government and decent health care to Angola, or free-market education to the masses, etc.
The ability to pursue happiness mean the number of people enjoying longer, healthier lives with more free-time increases continuously, as it has. That is not zero-sum - it is the growth of wealth.
Nah ... it'll be double-ROT-13 encrypted ... so merely looking at it will encompass a violation.
But that's one of the values of using hydrogen in either a fuel cell or a combustion engine.
In a gasoline or diesel engine, it takes a tremendous amount of effort to produce an exhaust that is clean - indeed, we don't do it completely because it would be prohibitively expensive- no one can go around breathing actual car exhaust for long.
In a hydrogen powered vehicle, the pollution is not generated in a billion locations around the world (that is, in the cars). Instead, it is generated in the production facilities.
Localizing the pollution allows a much easier control and clean-up of it - building large and very effective filters at a handful of locations is much easier to accomplish and maintain than doing so at the numerous end points. Additionally, there are techniques of producing hydrogen from clean sources - Iceland is examining becoming an exporter of the fuel by producing it using their geothermal energy, for example. There are also many studies of producing other non-polluting hydrogen generation sources.
But, there are not enough people insisting that this happen and so we plod along with the idea that "it's not yet perfect so let's not bother".
Protecting some people is indeed a waste of money.
How about this ... we create "billions and billions" of resource locations but put stuff real far away from each other (even requiring generations of travel) and make it really expensive in resources (by creating deep gravity wells) to get to 'em and surround 'em with killer cosmic rays and vacuum?
Aside: I find the mentality remarkable on Slashdot when an Anonymous Pussy reply that leads off with calling someone a turdburglar gets modded as interesting. Ah, the value of a fourth-grade education shows once again.
Telemarketing is a shitty job, but it pays fairly well compared to minimum wage.
There are a lot of shitty jobs in the world that are honest and don't involve harassing people that you damn well know don't want to be harassed - but oh, whine, whine, if it pays more than minimum wage then it's acceptable to bug the shit out of people. What self-respect would you sell and what would you be willing to do for twice minimum wage oh spineless one?
I don't piss and moan about how inconvenienced I am by the fact that someone else is trying to feed themselves.
Congratulations to contributing to the early death of many alcoholics. Sleep better?
So, grow the fuck up and get some perspective.
Yawn.
Bullshit - yet another variation of "it's for the children". She can find some other job.
I'm unsympathetic to someone's excuse why it's ok for them to harass me - would it be acceptable for people to walk up to you on the street and offer to "quit harassing you" if you'll just give them some money?
Since you still have no idea of my thoughts on that, which is irrelevant to this discussion in the first place, but don't hesitate to stooping to creating a position for me and then belittling the imaginary statements, I guess you have no trouble defining a "win" either.
Exactly what is your self-justification to assume knowledge, and then proceed to insult those assumptions, of my opinion on abortion, or my religious beliefs, or my moral views - from a discussion of collecting taxes and deficit spending? Aren't those rather personal beliefs - or are you a libertartian only when convenient to your argument?
The Government has always spent money they don't have (besides the fact that it's not their money in the first place) - you don't see cash-in-hand for any program that stretches out over more than one year - you don't even see the cash in hand for the money that was collected under the fraudulent concept of "we'll hold it for you for your own good of social-security", do you? You want to lay that one at the feet of Dubya too?
Looking back at the "debate" the other night (more like a public opportunity for Al Sharpton to threaten to have his thugs beat up the hecklers if the college couldn't take care of it), what do you think will happen if those that demand taxpayer-funded medical insurance get elected? Would that be spending future money by getting such a bill passed? (Personally, I view that as pure campaign promise to gather votes - "chicken in every pot" talk). Do you think that would be easily taken away if ever passed and the medical and insurance (and legal) field begin to work in that manner? Just remember, it'll be just as well protected and smartly managed as the money "held for you" for social security.