Executives don't like reality. They are all about wish fulfillment. When your project(s) are not completed by their deadlines, you will be fired. You will be the one who has to pay, because you were the one repeatedly pointing out that you needed more resources, given the requirements and deadlines. You contradicted your executive's worldview. In any competition between reality and an executive's world-view, the executive wins, in the short term. Reality always wins in the long term.
Re:Piracy is Constitutional.
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
Corperate Welfare? Well real capitalism only works on paper not in the real world.
I think "Corporate Statism" is a better term.
"Real Capitalism" -- I would love for you to define that term, so I know what you're talking about exactly -- worked in the U.S. We've been semi-socialist only since the the Federal Reserve and New Deal were pushed through. And the Fed largely caused the depression, which led to the "internal revolution" -- the New Deal -- that socialized the U.S.
Re:Socialism is all that works for information
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
> pubic purse
Er... "public purse"
Re:Socialism is all that works for information
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
The three Americas:
1) Before Lincoln. 2) Before FDR. 3) Today.
There were things wrong with (1), but mostly it amounted to not living up to the constitution and declaration of independance. If we went back to (1), but without slavery and with universal sufferage, we'd be a lot better off than we are today. People were not voting themselves money from the pubic purse back then, and sentators were the representatives of states, not a second house of representatives.
If I were you I'd try this CD on a different machine
That solution is intolerable. WPA means windows is broken by design.
Re:Why not add a link to the patch as well, Slashd
on
Microsoft News Update
·
· Score: 2
You mean, such as taking out Windows Update itself, as well as a number of internal Microsoft servers and desktops? Code Red did that.
And don't forget those Russians who broke into Microsoft's internal network and rifled through their source code repository. "Trustworthy computing," indeed.
Use a firewall to block all traffic into and out of your network, and make the machiens inside use proxy servers (for http) and relays (for smtp) to access the internet. In other words, disallow all traffic that is not explicitly permitted. Log what goes through the proxies and relays, and log attempts at initiation of direct outgoing traffic.
word processor documents that they can't print in our labs. Headaches, ahoy.
Heck, at NCSU, we had that problem with Word documents, too. My favorite is when Word writes out a file that it can't read back in. I run those through OpenOffice and save them as RTF.
I was actually thinking that Microsoft might have asked Fraunhofer to start charging for decoders, to hurt free software and help Windows and Windows Media.
RedHat pretty religiously releases its code under the GPL and works with third parties to make sure standards get implemented. They will be LSB compliant, for instance, in their next release.
Don't hate them because they're popular and (somewhat) successful; they are not evil, or power-lusting, etc. They do a pretty good job, and are good community citizens.
I've read that people are vandalizing traffic cameras in Britain -- by the hundreds -- and no one is admitting to it or turning in their fellow citizens who are destroying the cameras. So far, no arrests, no suspects.
Course you can. Its called taxation Try collecting taxes without the use of force. I know that a lot of people pay "their share" just because they think it's the right thing to do. But what do you suppose would happen to the "compliance rate" if there was no force to back up the tax laws?
They'll vote for local taxation to build a group of already-wealthy businessmen a new baseball stadium
I won't. I think that's a scam of outrageous proportions.
Actually, yeah, I think Rand would have a lot bigger problem with Microsoft than with GNU, as the last thing Microsoft actually wants is a free market. Microsoft's isn't very capitalist (as Rand saw it).
Welfare Statists advocate forcible (re-)distribution of wealth by the government (can't do it without using force), and government control (at some level) of the means of production. But not outright ownership.
"Welfare Statists" are generally "Liberals." "Socialists" are generally "Authoritarians" or "Totalitarians."
I'll take "welfare statists" over "socialists" any day, they're a much more reasonable bunch. Of course, the more capitalism and freedom-oriented the "welfare statist" is, the better I will like him.
The founders intended for the federal government to be essentially what the libertarians say it should be. It enumerates specific powers granted to the federal government. Anything not covered by that enumeration, or one of the amendments, is not in the jurisdiction of the federal government. Please locate the constutitional authority for federal "welfare" programs such as social security and medicare.
You and I can think "general welfare" means whatever we want for it to mean; but when it comes down to it, the constitution determines what powers the federal government actually, legitimately, has.
Government's role is to promote the welfare of the people.
No, it's not. That's your mother's job.
Prenventing and punishing use of force and fraud is the legitimate role of government. Not providing "free" money to one group by taking it from another.
Sometimes that means providing for a common defense
That's about all it should mean. Not ptomoting business. Not providing a social "safety net."
Slashdot Mirror
Executives don't like reality. They are all about wish fulfillment. When your project(s) are not completed by their deadlines, you will be fired. You will be the one who has to pay, because you were the one repeatedly pointing out that you needed more resources, given the requirements and deadlines. You contradicted your executive's worldview. In any competition between reality and an executive's world-view, the executive wins, in the short term. Reality always wins in the long term.
Corperate Welfare? Well real capitalism only works on paper not in the real world.
I think "Corporate Statism" is a better term.
"Real Capitalism" -- I would love for you to define that term, so I know what you're talking about exactly -- worked in the U.S. We've been semi-socialist only since the the Federal Reserve and New Deal were pushed through. And the Fed largely caused the depression, which led to the "internal revolution" -- the New Deal -- that socialized the U.S.
> pubic purse
Er... "public purse"
The three Americas:
1) Before Lincoln.
2) Before FDR.
3) Today.
There were things wrong with (1), but mostly it amounted to not living up to the constitution and declaration of independance. If we went back to (1), but without slavery and with universal sufferage, we'd be a lot better off than we are today. People were not voting themselves money from the pubic purse back then, and sentators were the representatives of states, not a second house of representatives.
Coming soon, America #4: "After Bush"
If I were you I'd try this CD on a different machine
That solution is intolerable. WPA means windows is broken by design.
You mean, such as taking out Windows Update itself, as well as a number of internal Microsoft servers and desktops? Code Red did that.
And don't forget those Russians who broke into Microsoft's internal network and rifled through their source code repository. "Trustworthy computing," indeed.
Additional thouughts:
Use a firewall to block all traffic into and out of your network, and make the machiens inside use proxy servers (for http) and relays (for smtp) to access the internet. In other words, disallow all traffic that is not explicitly permitted. Log what goes through the proxies and relays, and log attempts at initiation of direct outgoing traffic.
word processor documents that they can't print in our labs. Headaches, ahoy.
Heck, at NCSU, we had that problem with Word documents, too. My favorite is when Word writes out a file that it can't read back in. I run those through OpenOffice and save them as RTF.
no auto format, and is missing many key functions of Word
Sounds great! I hate autoformat.
I was actually thinking that Microsoft might have asked Fraunhofer to start charging for decoders, to hurt free software and help Windows and Windows Media.
RedHat pretty religiously releases its code under the GPL and works with third parties to make sure standards get implemented. They will be LSB compliant, for instance, in their next release.
Don't hate them because they're popular and (somewhat) successful; they are not evil, or power-lusting, etc. They do a pretty good job, and are good community citizens.
I've read that people are vandalizing traffic cameras in Britain -- by the hundreds -- and no one is admitting to it or turning in their fellow citizens who are destroying the cameras. So far, no arrests, no suspects.
I hope it's a revolt against the panopticon!
So, what you're saying is, a web-enabled, open-protocol mail system would be a good thing for the corporate desktop?
Someone should mention that Microsoft's C++ name mangling is not standard, either.
I wonder if there are any fax machines that can be programmed to block faxes from certain numbers, or by other identifying data.
I should also mention the Star Trek series of TV shows. They have a pretty positive view of technology and the future.
Course you can. Its called taxation
Try collecting taxes without the use of force. I know that a lot of people pay "their share" just because they think it's the right thing to do. But what do you suppose would happen to the "compliance rate" if there was no force to back up the tax laws?
They'll vote for local taxation to build a group of already-wealthy businessmen a new baseball stadium
I won't. I think that's a scam of outrageous proportions.
Well, it's better than "Telemachus Sneezed," or "Penelope Burped"
"The Number of the Beast," by Robert A. Heinlein
(heh... dirty old man!)
Actually, yeah, I think Rand would have a lot bigger problem with Microsoft than with GNU, as the last thing Microsoft actually wants is a free market. Microsoft's isn't very capitalist (as Rand saw it).
Nah, you're a "Welfare Statist."
Welfare Statists advocate forcible (re-)distribution of wealth by the government (can't do it without using force), and government control (at some level) of the means of production. But not outright ownership.
"Welfare Statists" are generally "Liberals." "Socialists" are generally "Authoritarians" or "Totalitarians."
I'll take "welfare statists" over "socialists" any day, they're a much more reasonable bunch. Of course, the more capitalism and freedom-oriented the "welfare statist" is, the better I will like him.
Here ya go, a few links:
t ml#con1.8
a md9
Article 8: http://www.constitution.by.net/uSA/Constitution.h
Amendments 9 and 10: http://constitution.by.net/uSA/BillOfRights.html#
Is it telling that your idea of the proper role of government is not realized in a single modern or close-to-modern government?
I don't think so. It wasn't realized in Medieval governments either, for instance.
The founders intended for the federal government to be essentially what the libertarians say it should be. It enumerates specific powers granted to the federal government. Anything not covered by that enumeration, or one of the amendments, is not in the jurisdiction of the federal government. Please locate the constutitional authority for federal "welfare" programs such as social security and medicare.
You and I can think "general welfare" means whatever we want for it to mean; but when it comes down to it, the constitution determines what powers the federal government actually, legitimately, has.
Government's role is to promote the welfare of the people.
No, it's not. That's your mother's job.
Prenventing and punishing use of force and fraud is the legitimate role of government. Not providing "free" money to one group by taking it from another.
Sometimes that means providing for a common defense
That's about all it should mean. Not ptomoting business. Not providing a social "safety net."