> It got moderated +5 informative because the majority of people also reject copyright
that's the problem i'm talking about.
> something everyone knows to be wrong (aka copyright). That's just my opinion there...
NO. Certainly not everyone.
> You just wanted to put forth your own opinion and have a bit of a rant, > but you didn't have the decency to do so in an upstanding sort of fashion, > you had to twist it around so your opinion (that violating copyright is wrong) > was presented as a fact beyond discussion and anyone who disagrees with you > is a morally reprehensable person.
1) , It's a FACT, that violating copyright is illegal since 1886 and as of 2005 in 159 countries. Illegal, that's WRONG by law, q.e.d. You can have your moral opinion whether these are good laws, but not a legal opinion.
2) The Salon staff explicitly says that they do not want it to be copied. That's a violation of their wishes. "Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited Copyright 2005 Salon.com"
3) Everyone can read the article, if they go to salon.com and click through the "free site pass" and watch the ads. You don't have to spend any money, just a little time and effort. If you don't do that then Salon.com will have to close shop and there will be no other interview with Bruce Campbell to copy violate around, all because of your lazyness.
4) Bruce Campbell's movies are protected by EXACTLY THE SAME LAW that Salon's article is. If they were not, they would had been never produced and there would be no article to write about.
5) Linux's source code is protected by EXACTLY THE SAME LAW that Salon's article is (GPL). If there was no copyright Microsoft would simply copy linux into it's own code base.
"It has been brought to my attention, that the now famous KiSS Technology - already in violation of the GNU General Public License - has been confirmed stealing another program which is also completely under the GPL license."
"Every single one of their patterns match ours! This is not coincidence. This is stealing GPL code into a proprietary product! KiSS Technology failed to answer our inquiry for their source files (which they are obligated to provide)"
That's great, copy the whole article from a site which has created it to earn money. And you/.-moderators are encouraging this behaviour by modding this +5 informative.
I wonder why you didn't post this under your own/.-nick ; maybe it's because you know it was wrong, but you wanted to do this anyway and yet escape the consequences...
The word "natural" is a buzzword, which was invented and popularized by those Enlightenment* eco-freaks, like Rousseau. It was supposed to be associated with "best" or "optimal".
Saying that there is a "natural state" means to create a false dichotomy, wherein we have to decide which is better, more natural: peace XOR war. Neither is "natural".
Now, I understand what you were going to express. A better term to use would be "dominant", or "most frequent".
The page you've requested is an excerpt from a book by Brent Scowcroft and George H. W. Bush titled A World Transformed, which appeared in the March 2, 1998, issue of TIME magazine under the title "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam". It has been removed from our site because the publisher did not grant us rights to sell the piece online through the TIME archive.
See? You can buy Scowcroft & Bush's "A World Transformed" at your local oligopolist for $18.90. It's their copyright, pay them. Heck, it's their intellectual creation, their words, they deserve it.
Even if the article is gone from your free-as-in-beer internets, it does not mean that we already are in a '1984' future.
In fact it's like back in the pre-internet 1980's (oh, irony), when all we had were paper books. That you had to buy for cash.
"If you invested a million dollars developing an algorithm"
Does not happen.
You can blow a million dollars developing a whole program, but thinking up a patent-grade algorithm costs you merely a few bucks spend on a average coder.
Which is precisly the point. Developing and TESTING a new drug costs 50-500 million dollars. The first pharma to do it will be at a disadvantage. Patents are very good at protecting this kind of investment.
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
adv : regardless; a combination of irrespective and regardless sometimes used humorously
The role of anti-trust legislation is the protection of consumer choice. Intel's discount was directly targeted to prevent an alternative.
Monopolies are bad, irregardless of whether they are owned by the state or privately. People living under communism had no choice, too. All they had was one-two products from one state-owned monopoly.
BTW, I assume that people are able to distinguish between cheese and CPUs on their own.
If we are talking mad IT skillz there is a way to find out who's on top!
Just take look at topcoder.com's School and Country Rankings. Here's a short extract for your consideration:
School Rankings
Rank Name Member Count Rating
1 Warsaw University 25 2218.85 ...
22 Indian Institute of Technology 17 1153.36 ...
26 IIT Bombay 18 989.65
What's that, IITs on a meager 22th and 26th place?
Country Rankings
Rank Name Member Count Rating
1 United States 1133 2747.95
2 Poland 131 2528.69 ...
19 India 273 1592.25
Only 19th place? So why is India THE outsource destination, huh?
How many Enterprise episodes were rehashed from Voy,DS9,TNG,TOS , other SF movies? Has anyone done the work of listing their plot robbery?
Let me start: 305 'Impulse' Zombie-like Vulcans == 'Event Horizon'
The producers went into the show without having any idea what their epic story is. Instead they went from episode to episode *making shit up*. Xindi/Temporal War is a big pile, because we know that in the end the plot will land back at square one.
What they should be doing is telling a story on the begining of the Federation, which is known and already written down. That's not hard, good history movies are being produced all the time and noone is complaining that we know how the story ends.
could develop itself industrially in the 19th century precisly because it had no patents. The entrepreneurs in the US could 'take' the fine british engineered inventions and produce them oversees.
the revolver was invented by an Englishman. The invention was taken to the US and mass produced there by Mr Colt.
Hollywood, too. Why do you think did all the studios go to California? Because it had no copyright/patent law as opposed to the east coast.
This is a Nobunaga Hiroichi reporting rive from Tokyo, where Japan has started buirding its own radder to hayben. Ahready, the Japanese radder extend faaar into space and it's growing by a-one thousand miles every day. As the endeavor continues it is becoing clear that Japan will reach a-hayben before the United States.
In the US it's directed by the Pentagon and Eisenhower warned against it. It's principle was: "If it kills more, we buy it."
Gadget fanatics with unlimited spending power have been driving the technological progress in the US since the 50s. When national security is on the line, the customer pays any price. That's why companies could afford to risk doing expensive R&D. Until the PC-era (80s) computerisation was a 100% military sponsored gig.
In Japan you have now customers who will buy any new expensive digital sh*t, provided that it's small and blinks. That's a small prize for progress.
P.S., the european technological progress in the middle ages was also fueled by two key customer groups: luxury trade (furs and spices) and the military to protect them.
Do you want to insult me? Do you feel superior when you insult people?
Answering your question: MANY.
1) option one: it's called self-employment. Using your own money in your own small-business. They create their own jobs.
2) option two: everybody who is saving money in the bank is generating jobs per definition of investment. savings => credit => investment
The key fallacy in your world view (by this I mean the way you believe that the world works) is that the economy can not exist and work without rich people, because only they can generate jobs. This leads to the immediate conclusion, that bigger wealth disparities are benefitial because they create more jobs.
That exclusive claim is false. All that is really needed are people willing to save their money and entrepreneurs with ideas for investment. None of the person playing these two roles needs to be really, badly rich. The investors can be poor people saving their money in current accounts. The banking sector does a good job of converting these short-term savings into long-term credits for entrepreneurs.
I can not provide you with a direct connection between a chosen poor person and their financing of a huge company that employs thousands of people, precisly because the connection is obstructed by the way the capitalist system works. But that does not mean that such a connection does not exist.
OTOH, I am sure that you can list a few big owners of big companies. It's easy to memorise these connections, precisly because they are straight forward and less numerous. Yet any of them is a smaller investor that Calpers, an investment fund which cumulates the savings of millions of people. Calpers is THE job creator.
Let me restate my point: Rich people are not the sole creators of jobs in the economy. There is no need worship them for it. Please stop propagating such a personality cult. You and I do not own them nothing and they do not need our protection.
I'm tired of hearing that rich people are necessary so that poor people can have jobs. You bought into the neo-liberal propaganda, big time.
What is needed for job creation is capital and capital mostly is borrowed. You can have a well functioning economy where the whole capital comes from savings of what you would call "poor" or middle income people and is allocated through the banking system.
They are earned by doing work for the value of the wage.
WRONG, the work done is worth MORE than the wage. Always. If it was not, there would be no incentive for the employer to hire that particular person (he would get zero profit).
Things really get messed up if someone outside sets the value of the wage without regard to the value of the work.
Not necessarily without regard. The cost of labour has to be lower than it's value, leaving a profit magin for the employer.
Forcing companies to overpay workers at some government-set wage that has nothing to do with the work also demeans real work and turns the whole affair into a welfare program: a forced handout. Every time the government arbitrarily sets the mininum wage to be higher, thousands of people end up losing their jobs, as it forces companies to try to get by without low-end jobs.
The particular workforce as a whole may well profit from the minimum wage. Remember what you have learned about the monopoly power. Since the government has the power to influence the price, it can increase the total income of workers.
When I point it out to people who favor the "minimum wage", the typical response is that these jobs are worthless: a poor person is better off getting nothing, as compared to getting $17,000 a year.
I have no idea how you arrived at $17,000. My current data calculates as follows: a minimum wage, $5.15 an hour earned in a 40-hour workweek, returns an annual minimum salary of $10,700 (52*40*5.15), which anyway places a single parent of two below the poverty level.
Reverse calculating your proposal returns an $8.17 an hour wage. ($17,000 / 52 / 40 = $8.17) That's a lot, and it means that you assume that the job market gives people better welfare than the present minimum wage. If that were true, the minimum wage would be: 1) socially unnecessary 2) below the market equilibrium and therefore 3) economically ineffective.
As long as you are arbitrarily setting wages without regard to value, why not set the minimum wage to $1,000 an hour? It will make everyone a millionaire. Why stop at a low value?
Because the minimum wage is supposed to be just high enough to allow for a decent living: food, shelter, necessities. Duh!
If we set the minimum wage at such a high level, as you proposed, companies would have to rise the product prices to keep up with their increased labour cost (e.g. huge inflation), which would necessitate wage hikes for other jobs of greater value. There will always be a wage differential.
Trickle down economics is the concept of stimulating the economy by lowering the top income tax rate. But you are giving an example of "military keynesianism", fueling growth through military investment.
IMHO, the only government sponsored technology that was important for the 90s stock surge was ARPAnet. AFAIK, it was developed before the 80s.
And "trickle down" works poorly as stimulus. Ask Stiglitz, DeLong. It's much more effective to stimulate demand from the bottom.
I don't want to be a smartass, but using read/write flags would have prevented trouble.
use Fcntl; sysopen(SOURCE, $path, O_RDONLY)
or die "Couldn't open $path for reading: $!\n"; sysopen(SINK, $path2, O_WRONLY)
or die "Couldn't open $path2 for writing: $!\n";
Slashdot Mirror
the article is still there and is accessible to everyone.
Apparently you have no clue how salon's "free site pass" works.
> It got moderated +5 informative because the majority of people also reject copyright
l #kiss01
that's the problem i'm talking about.
> something everyone knows to be wrong (aka copyright). That's just my opinion there...
NO. Certainly not everyone.
> You just wanted to put forth your own opinion and have a bit of a rant,
> but you didn't have the decency to do so in an upstanding sort of fashion,
> you had to twist it around so your opinion (that violating copyright is wrong)
> was presented as a fact beyond discussion and anyone who disagrees with you
> is a morally reprehensable person.
1) , It's a FACT, that violating copyright is illegal since 1886 and as of 2005 in 159 countries. Illegal, that's WRONG by law, q.e.d. You can have your moral opinion whether these are good laws, but not a legal opinion.
2) The Salon staff explicitly says that they do not want it to be copied. That's a violation of their wishes. "Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited Copyright 2005 Salon.com"
3) Everyone can read the article, if they go to salon.com and click through the "free site pass" and watch the ads. You don't have to spend any money, just a little time and effort. If you don't do that then Salon.com will have to close shop and there will be no other interview with Bruce Campbell to copy violate around, all because of your lazyness.
4) Bruce Campbell's movies are protected by EXACTLY THE SAME LAW that Salon's article is. If they were not, they would had been never produced and there would be no article to write about.
5) Linux's source code is protected by EXACTLY THE SAME LAW that Salon's article is (GPL). If there was no copyright Microsoft would simply copy linux into it's own code base.
6) The above situation #5 happened to the crew of mplayer. With copyright they have a legal way to prevent it.
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/news.htm
"It has been brought to my attention, that the now famous KiSS Technology - already in violation of the GNU General Public License - has been confirmed stealing another program which is also completely under the GPL license."
"Every single one of their patterns match ours! This is not coincidence. This is stealing GPL code into a proprietary product! KiSS Technology failed to answer our inquiry for their source files (which they are obligated to provide)"
7) Even slashdot disagrees with you. Look at the bottom of this page.
"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2005 OSTG."
>So, I give myself permission to flame a bit...
> Why don't you just fuck off?
Now that was extra decent. pot/kettle/black.
That's great, copy the whole article from a site which has created it to earn money. And you /.-moderators are encouraging this behaviour by modding this +5 informative.
/.-nick ; maybe it's because you know it was wrong, but you wanted to do this anyway and yet escape the consequences...
I wonder why you didn't post this under your own
The word "natural" is a buzzword, which was invented and popularized by those Enlightenment* eco-freaks, like Rousseau.
;)
It was supposed to be associated with "best" or "optimal".
Saying that there is a "natural state" means to create a false dichotomy, wherein we have to decide which is better, more natural: peace XOR war. Neither is "natural".
Now, I understand what you were going to express. A better term to use would be "dominant", or "most frequent".
* not the window manager
You: This is already happening, and it is indeed scary.
That's a LIE. (Score: -1 , lying) It is not happening, there is a trace.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980302
See? You can buy Scowcroft & Bush's "A World Transformed" at your local oligopolist for $18.90. It's their copyright, pay them. Heck, it's their intellectual creation, their words, they deserve it.
Even if the article is gone from your free-as-in-beer internets, it does not mean that we already are in a '1984' future.
In fact it's like back in the pre-internet 1980's (oh, irony), when all we had were paper books. That you had to buy for cash.
And now please stop scaring people.
"If you invested a million dollars developing an algorithm"
Does not happen.
You can blow a million dollars developing a whole program, but thinking up a patent-grade algorithm costs you merely a few bucks spend on a average coder.
Which is precisly the point. Developing and TESTING a new drug costs 50-500 million dollars. The first pharma to do it will be at a disadvantage. Patents are very good at protecting this kind of investment.
The role of anti-trust legislation is the protection of consumer choice. Intel's discount was directly targeted to prevent an alternative.
Monopolies are bad, irregardless of whether they are owned by the state or privately. People living under communism had no choice, too. All they had was one-two products from one state-owned monopoly.
BTW, I assume that people are able to distinguish between cheese and CPUs on their own.
Just take look at topcoder.com's School and Country Rankings.
Here's a short extract for your consideration:
How many Enterprise episodes were rehashed from Voy,DS9,TNG,TOS , other SF movies? Has anyone done the work of listing their plot robbery?
Let me start:
305 'Impulse'
Zombie-like Vulcans == 'Event Horizon'
The producers went into the show without having any idea what their epic story is. Instead they went from episode to episode *making shit up*. Xindi/Temporal War is a big pile, because we know that in the end the plot will land back at square one.
What they should be doing is telling a story on the begining of the Federation, which is known and already written down. That's not hard, good history movies are being produced all the time and noone is complaining that we know how the story ends.
could develop itself industrially in the 19th century precisly because it had no patents. The entrepreneurs in the US could 'take' the fine british engineered inventions and produce them oversees.
the revolver was invented by an Englishman. The invention was taken to the US and mass produced there by Mr Colt.
Hollywood, too. Why do you think did all the studios go to California? Because it had no copyright/patent law as opposed to the east coast.
In the US it's directed by the Pentagon and Eisenhower warned against it. It's principle was: "If it kills more, we buy it."
Gadget fanatics with unlimited spending power have been driving the technological progress in the US since the 50s. When national security is on the line, the customer pays any price. That's why companies could afford to risk doing expensive R&D. Until the PC-era (80s) computerisation was a 100% military sponsored gig.
In Japan you have now customers who will buy any new expensive digital sh*t, provided that it's small and blinks. That's a small prize for progress.
P.S., the european technological progress in the middle ages was also fueled by two key customer groups: luxury trade (furs and spices) and the military to protect them.
i-names tries to sell uniqueness through a world domination scheme. ($25 ?! )
Google already has the world domination. (Microsoft tried with Passport, didn't work out.)
"socialist dreamworld"
Do you want to insult me? Do you feel superior when you insult people?
Answering your question: MANY.
1) option one: it's called self-employment. Using your own money in your own small-business. They create their own jobs.
2) option two: everybody who is saving money in the bank is generating jobs per definition of investment. savings => credit => investment
The key fallacy in your world view (by this I mean the way you believe that the world works) is that the economy can not exist and work without rich people, because only they can generate jobs. This leads to the immediate conclusion, that bigger wealth disparities are benefitial because they create more jobs.
That exclusive claim is false. All that is really needed are people willing to save their money and entrepreneurs with ideas for investment. None of the person playing these two roles needs to be really, badly rich. The investors can be poor people saving their money in current accounts. The banking sector does a good job of converting these short-term savings into long-term credits for entrepreneurs.
I can not provide you with a direct connection between a chosen poor person and their financing of a huge company that employs thousands of people, precisly because the connection is obstructed by the way the capitalist system works. But that does not mean that such a connection does not exist.
OTOH, I am sure that you can list a few big owners of big companies. It's easy to memorise these connections, precisly because they are straight forward and less numerous. Yet any of them is a smaller investor that Calpers, an investment fund which cumulates the savings of millions of people. Calpers is THE job creator.
Let me restate my point: Rich people are not the sole creators of jobs in the economy. There is no need worship them for it. Please stop propagating such a personality cult. You and I do not own them nothing and they do not need our protection.
I'm tired of hearing that rich people are necessary so that poor people can have jobs. You bought into the neo-liberal propaganda, big time.
What is needed for job creation is capital and capital mostly is borrowed. You can have a well functioning economy where the whole capital comes from savings of what you would call "poor" or middle income people and is allocated through the banking system.
No ultra-rich investors are necessary.
Dear CmdrTaco,
since when is marketing bullshit "news for nerds, stuff that matters"?
"proactive"
"initiative"
"operational"
"tact
"consideration"
"dominate"
"agenda"
"str
"approach"
You, The Editors, have been rejecting story submissions for much smaller sins.
They are earned by doing work for the value of the wage.
:
WRONG, the work done is worth MORE than the wage. Always. If it was not, there would be no incentive for the employer to hire that particular person (he would get zero profit).
Things really get messed up if someone outside sets the value of the wage without regard to the value of the work.
Not necessarily without regard. The cost of labour has to be lower than it's value, leaving a profit magin for the employer.
Forcing companies to overpay workers at some government-set wage that has nothing to do with the work also demeans real work and turns the whole affair into a welfare program: a forced handout. Every time the government arbitrarily sets the mininum wage to be higher, thousands of people end up losing their jobs, as it forces companies to try to get by without low-end jobs.
The particular workforce as a whole may well profit from the minimum wage. Remember what you have learned about the monopoly power. Since the government has the power to influence the price, it can increase the total income of workers.
When I point it out to people who favor the "minimum wage", the typical response is that these jobs are worthless: a poor person is better off getting nothing, as compared to getting $17,000 a year.
I have no idea how you arrived at $17,000. My current data calculates as follows: a minimum wage, $5.15 an hour earned in a 40-hour workweek, returns an annual minimum salary of $10,700 (52*40*5.15), which anyway places a single parent of two below the poverty level.
Reverse calculating your proposal returns an $8.17 an hour wage. ($17,000 / 52 / 40 = $8.17) That's a lot, and it means that you assume that the job market gives people better welfare than the present minimum wage. If that were true, the minimum wage would be
1) socially unnecessary
2) below the market equilibrium and therefore
3) economically ineffective.
As long as you are arbitrarily setting wages without regard to value, why not set the minimum wage to $1,000 an hour? It will make everyone a millionaire. Why stop at a low value?
Because the minimum wage is supposed to be just high enough to allow for a decent living: food, shelter, necessities. Duh!
If we set the minimum wage at such a high level, as you proposed, companies would have to rise the product prices to keep up with their increased labour cost (e.g. huge inflation), which would necessitate wage hikes for other jobs of greater value. There will always be a wage differential.
Oh wait, IAAE, too.
Trickle down economics is the concept of stimulating the economy by lowering the top income tax rate. But you are giving an example of "military keynesianism", fueling growth through military investment.
IMHO, the only government sponsored technology that was important for the 90s stock surge was ARPAnet. AFAIK, it was developed before the 80s.
And "trickle down" works poorly as stimulus. Ask Stiglitz, DeLong. It's much more effective to stimulate demand from the bottom.
it's a common typo among Nigerina programmers.
As the number of users grows, the probability that someone flames your post approaches ONE.
At ca. n_users = 9*10^5,
i'd say p_flame > 90%
You have to relax. It's simply unavoidable that someone won't like or understand your post plus has the time to reply.
that's a good colection. what are the standard features?
the head does flash when it is kicked,
the robot moves so one can jump on it's head,
and of course the Doc escapes. always.
I smell trouble.
I don't want to be a smartass, but using read/write flags would have prevented trouble.
use Fcntl;
sysopen(SOURCE, $path, O_RDONLY)
or die "Couldn't open $path for reading: $!\n";
sysopen(SINK, $path2, O_WRONLY)
or die "Couldn't open $path2 for writing: $!\n";