Re:The coolest things about QNX
on
The Rise Of QNX
·
· Score: 2
That it supports modules doesn't mean it's modular. And, when was the last time you ran a driver in user space, had it crash, and restarted it without taking your system down for reboot?
It's the government's proper function to prevent people from hurting and defrauding each other. When the government isn't in myriad "partnerships" with Corporate America, it can oversee them better.
There will be no power vaccuum filled by corporations.
I would really like "none of the above" to be on the ballot. A lot of people abstain because there's no choice they like. This skews the results by not counting abstentions. If "none of the above" wins, we have to have another election until candidates are produced that a majority does like. The would let people register their dissent in a meaningful way.
I'm voting Libertarian because they are the only party that actually cares about freedom. The rest want a nanny state of one type or another.
Voting Libertarian is the best campaign finance reform possible, because they will reduce government back to its constitutional limits. One the federal government isn't all-powerful anymore, there will be much less to fight over. Without corporate and personal subsidies being handed out right and left, why bribe a politician to get the rules skewed in your favor?
________________________________________
The coolest things about QNX
on
The Rise Of QNX
·
· Score: 5
No one has mentioned the coolest things about QNX -- notably its architecture. QNX is a highly reliable, real-time OS based on message passing. It really is a microkernel OS. Even device and filesystem drivers run in userspace. This makes it incredibly stable, as you can actually crash a driver, restart it, and keep going. You can also upgrade subsystems without taking the machine offline. QNX is used in systems that cannot fail, such as heart monitors.
It's also really efficiently written, and almost completely modular (as opposed to Linux' monolithic-plus-kitchen-sink approach). Their 1.44MB Floppy demo contains the bootloader and kernel, a GUI, a web wrowser, tcp/ip and PPP. No other OS can do that, because they're too bloated. Linux can be put in a floppy, but there's no way to fit a GUI and a web browser as well. YOu might be able to chuck out things like the shell and libc, and include a statically-linked version of lynx, but nothing as good as the QNX demo can be achieved.
QNX is much more suitable for PDAs and otehr small systems than is Linux. It's loads more reliable, more easily upgradable, and much more compact. Just look at the iOpener; into 16MB they fit the OS, a custom GUI built on top of the QNX GUI, web browser, email, telnet server, and other things, and hadspace left over to store files. The only other OS that could do that is WinCE, and it's much more limited than QNX (such as a limit of 32 processes, 22 of which are consumed by the system itself).
God must be the devil, too, then. Remember Robin Williams' A Night at the Met, when we was talking about the Devil being God when he's drunk, and the platypus and Darwin?
Yeah, we'll take a terminal emulator, and add a scheduler. And then we'll toss in some memory management. Yo, Tannenbaum! Suck on this!
I'll be sure to check Time for Joel Stein's latest teledildonics installment. And I suppose those Slim Jim commercials will take on a whole new disgusting reality... step into a Slim Jim!
This is good news! Intel must have finally gotten around to reading Tom's Hardware.
Maybe it's the beginning of them getting their head out of their arse. I wonder how much behind-the-scenes wrangling there has been between Intel ("make your damn memory work") and Rambus ("give us money") has gone one leading to this moment. Maybe Intel Management woke up during one of the meetings and said, "Hey! These guys are a law firm disguised as a hardware company! Argh!"
Anyway, I'm happy about this. Now, if Intel can just help shut down the Rambus crusade against all other memory makers, it'll be perfect. Find the rock that Rambus came out from under, lift it up, and chuck them back.
Linux has been around NCSU for a long time. I ran the computer labs for one of the departments for a while, and one of the first things I did was set up several linux (1.x back then) servers for the windows and mac-based student computing labs. I set up a jumpstart system for Windows 3.1 machines in the lab (stick in the floppy, power it on, and the machine is imaged from the linux servers). Although the administrators of the Netware system, which was used prior to the conversion, balked, the system worked very well, and allowed us more control than Netware did. I could actually serve Macs and Windows machines from one server with their native protocols! The Netware wonks insisted on using the Netware for Mac client, and wouldn't enable long filename support. Slackware all the way, baby!
We went on to set up Linux-based web and email servers. We were excited when we saw the first screenshots of Enlightenment. NCSU was working on a Linux distro back then, but it came to nothing. It's good to see that they're still going to Unix and open computing (and now open source!) and haven't been subsumed by the Microsoft Mentality!
Some competition would be a good thing; and since all the code is GPL, they can re-merge later. Linux has gone through fork-and-merge several times already. A lot of developers keep their own little fork going while in development. XFS, for instance, ships as a patched kernel.
It would be good for SGI, IBM, HP, and other big players to create an Advanced Linux Kernel Project. I would even host it (I'm a director at a hosting company) and contribute code (filesystem, device drivers, unicode functionality).
Even if the Linus-headed effort is the One True Way, it doesn't have to be the Only Way. They're not infallible. Let's get a second project going! It won't be a threat to Official Linux -- just a development track for enterprise situations!
Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs
.. shutting off the information flow doesn't always achieve that, and is not synonymous with personal sovreignty. I think it's important to separate one's control of one's own life from information about oneself -- because they are not one and the same. There's a lot of overlap, but not identity.
it's a little ironic to me that you wish to have freedom, yet are willing to leave your privacy open to someone else's prying eyes
I'm not sure what "privacy" means as you just used it.
were there to be a government monopoly on insurance and health care, as in the UK, there would be little to no competitive element in the health care market.
I agree your plan would be better, but not that it would be good; or that it is fundamentally different than nationalized health care. It would be the equivalent of two national space programs -- "competition" would exist, but it would all be controlled in one way or another by the same power. A power that determines the goals, and to a large extent, the means.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom.
True.
There is such a thing as practical realities
True
and practical needs of those around you.
... which aren't part of reality in the same way that gravity and entropy are.
The reason we have limits on freedom is because to have unlimited freedom is the same as anarchy. The only question is, where do you place those limits, on what justification, and why?
Anarchy: not violent chaos, as people make it out to be, but simply a state of no ruler. However, you are right. The place where freedom is limited is the place where you will infringe upon someone else's freedom. The old "the right to swing your fist ends at the start of my nose."
I believe it is worth it to surrender that freedom to not pay for something in return for the security of having stable, reliable, high-quality health care for everyone,
How nice of you to surrender my freedom as well...
"We agree that murder should be illegal, for otherwise people will live in constant fear for their lives"
No, that's not the reason at all. It's because killing someone is the ultimate infringement in their freedom.
The point is that, in a democratic society, people yield to the larger will of the electorate
to which they belong. That's why we have democracy in the first place.
America is actually a constitutional republic with democratically elected officials. And you did a nice job of pointing out that a democracy -- a real one, where the majority has unlimited power -- is simply a diffused tyrrany. The minority must always submit to the majority. That's not right, and it's one of the things our government was specifically designed to prevent.
without some form of collective action,
most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually
Um... substantiate this.
it's rather hard to live a long, healthy life as a hermit
Not being forced into collective action does not make one a hermit. As I stated before, just because I don't think people should be forced to work together doesn't mean that I think they should kept apart.
This is why we have governments -- for the common good.
We have the U.S. Government to protect life, liberty and property. Or that was its original purpose, anyway. Interesting how things are always dome "for the common good" in a collectivist vision -- the common good, as decided by who, for who?
There has never been a viable alternative for universally helping everyone
You mean, forcing everyone to help everyone else. It seems to be a common lament that mankind is not suitable enough for a good society where everyone helps everyone out of their perfect, altruistic hearts. The fallback is always that people can be forced into "helping" their fellow man "for the common good" until they are better people.
_except_ through govermental action
I.e., the use of force, as I was saying. Why do people try to force people into the altruist mold over and over again throughout history? They're not acknowledging the realities of human behavior. People are selfish, and can't be made differently. All life-forms are selfish. They're also inter-dependant. Those two things are not mutually exclusive; they arem in fact, the norm. Capitalism turns the innate selfishness of each person to the common good -- by letting each person persue his own life, without being shackled to his neighbor. The end result is improved conditions for all -- unlike with socialism, which results in a steadily declining standard of living for all. It usually has good short-term results, but when it runs out of pockets to loot, it falters.
The Catholic Church was, in large part, the government in the middle ages (off-topic).
> It's as if people think that if we could
> just point the guns at the right people in the
> right way, our problems would be solved.
Speaking of straw men and slurs...
Not trying to slur, or make a straw man. But it seems that the use of force is always trotted out as the solution to our problems; that's what I'm saying -- that, and that the initiation of force to achieve one's goals is rarely, if ever, the right thing to do.
And you would get bread back as well. Or better said, some (not all!) of your wheat is taken from you, and you get bread back. So what?
So, what gives someone else a claim to my wheat?
If the people votes for the plan, at least a majority, then it isn't being forced to use it.
Yes, they are. If someone who voted with the majority changes their mind later, they will be forced to comply. The minority is forced to comply from the outset.
Or are you trying to say that every individual should just have a right to decide which laws they should obey, and which they shouldn't?
Nope. I'm saying that individuals shouldn't be forced to do things to benefit their neighbors against their will. They should be stopped from harming others, but not forced into some action to 'benefit' somebody.
Well, I hate to break this to you, but taxes are by definition there to transfer wealth
Taxes are of two types. One covers the operating expenses of the government -- paying for officers, desks, armies, etc. The other takes money from my acocunt and writes a check to someone else -- some other private citizen -- for their use. The former is fine; the latter is not.
In order to achieve goals in the public interest
Who decides what's in "the public interest?" Who's "the public?"
The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim
I can't see how a market is free if the outcome is pre-ordained. Please explain.
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted).
I vote Libertarian, which means I don't vote myself any part of your paycheck inasmuchas that's possible. As I've stated before, the taxes that go to providing a common defense and preventing people from harming other people, are legitimate. I think you're being disingenous by equating that with the receipt of a personal subsidy.
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry, Yes.
suffer disease, Yes.
be victims of violence? No.
Any "right" that must be paid for by someone else isn't a right.
magine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful.
100% doubtful, as a lot of what the government does is wasteful and destructive.
And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
I think you mean "necessary force," not "moral or legal authority." Correct my if I'm wrong. Plus, what kind of moral authority does a government have? I'm curious.
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good.
What about the minority? Who decides what "the common good is?" Does it mean simply "what is good for the majority, in the opinion of the majority?"
In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
What's "fair and just?" If the majority, who is Protestant, decided to impose a 70% income tax on all non-protestants, who are in the minority, why couldn't they?
Why *should* the government give too much of a toss about the "working young adult in a high-tech field"?
Because they pay the bills, and are citizens; not just wallets to siphon.
I do find it a little disturbing that so many of you seem to believe that the government needs to spend more of its time working on behalf of those who are already plenty well of
Not true. We want to government to do less, not more. Not for us, not for anyone. Perhaps we're tired of subsidizing other people against our will, eh?
Fine, this is Slashdot - but still, too few questions have been asked...
I agree. It seems that all the questions that have gotten modded up are about patents or copyright or something. Kinda boring. I asked how thay planned to pay for spcial security when the boomers are all on it -- by raising taxes, by inflating the money supply, or by some other method. No points. I think it's a big issue. But not, apparently, as important as asking about the DMCA five times in a row.
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments. This is why that right (which I think we agree exists, regardless of what the Constitution has to say) should be safeguarded by an amendment -- to prevent that kind of abuse or misuse.
Privacy is not always a good thing. But it is a lot of the time. For instance, it is rarely good for government (and government officials) to enjoy much privacy. I think any amendment guaranteeing a right to provacy would have be very carefully worded. I think an explicit mention of "privacy" was left out of the Constitution so as to leave it as a matter of law, which can be changed. "Privacy" has variable definition and value.
Interesting you say that mandatory collective financing is the only sane way of paying for health insurance "without forcing the Federal Government to intervene," and when I point out that, by making collective health insurance mandatory, the federal government would be intervening, you say that's obvious. I don't get it.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
People advocating forced collective endeavors always make that retort when I point out that forced collective endeavors are incompatible with freedom. It's like they assume that, since I don't want to force people to work together, I don't want them working together at all; and since I don't want to force people to be "nice" to each other, that I don't want them to be nice to each other at all. You're offering a false alternative, a straw man, and a slur all at once. I think people working together is great, but using the force of the government to make people work together is not. It's as if people think that if we could just point the guns at the right people in the right way, our problems would be solved.
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly.
Debatable at best -- the "throw your bread on the water, and it will come back 10-fold" argument. Even if that were true, it would not change the fact that under your propsed system, I wouldn't be a voluntary participant; my bread would be taken away from me by force and given to other people. The promise that, if I need bread one day then other people's bread will be taken away by force and given to me somehow doesn't comfort me. And if your plan's so good, then sell it on its merits and don't use force. People aren't dumb; they'll know a good deal when they see one. Only bad plans have to be forced on people.
Taxes are not automatically evil
True. But they're not automatically good, either. In general, the fewer of them needed, the better. And taxes should never benefit one group at the expense of another; they should never be used to "transfer wealth."
in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible
I.e., as long as they achieve the result you have pre-ordained. That's not a free market, no matter what you call it.
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
Spend some time with a dictionary.
> why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
So, because I vote myself your paycheck, that makes it okay? Are you one of those people that make the "because it's legel, it's moral" arguments? You're evading my question, I think. I'll state it differently:
Under what circumstances is it okay for the property of one person to be taken from them and given to another person?
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense.
I don't follow you. It is stated clearly in Amendment 9; why will they pay more attention to it if repeat the limitation in Amendment 28?
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK.
Two problems with that-- I'm not British, and they advocate a lot of what I don't want, such as 100% subsudized health care. "Liberals" used to be free-thinking, free-enterprise, lasseiz-faire, enlightenment-era people. Now, they are collectivists and socialists.
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds"
... by mandating health insurance, the federal government is intervening. By making everyone pay into a pool to cover people who couldn't otherwise afford that health insurance, the federal government would also be providing funds. It wouldn't go through the treasury, but because they are compeeling payment, it is a tax.
The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on.
If they don't agree to it of their own free will, but because the government has mandated that it be so, then it is a government-imposed bureaucracy -- one in the hands of private insurers, but one created, regulated and mandated by government regardless. It's a socialism vs fascism argument there -- does the state outright do it, or does it maintain a fictional private sector and just tightly regulate? The end result is about the same, as are the means.
To top it off, why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people? What makes that right? If it's the intent, then I can rob you to pay for my Aunt's mammograms -- or would that be theft? If it's the people doing it, why is state-sponsoted theft okay, but me 'redistributing' your wealth not?
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy, especially with regard to the control of personal information?
I'd like to know, so I will know who NOT to vote for. A consitutionl amendment mandating "privacy?" Do you mean personal obscurity, or personal sovreignty? Because if it's the latter, we already have that in the constitution -- it's admendment nine:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Not that legislators have given a shit about that to date.
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance
Argh!
standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy)
Or rather, to institute a federal, central bureaucracy.
standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility)
National ID cards! Track me now, Big Brother!
I would like answers to those questions as well... so I know who not to vote for. Of course, I can play it safe and continue to vote for the one party that respects people -- the Libertarian Party.
But let's not phrase the question to state or imply, "Where's our special subsidy and priviledge?"
A lot of people don't want the government doing much of anything for them -- defend them, pave roads, make sure companies and people are honest and don't hurt people, and that's about it.
I'm afraid that a lot of the candidates will read "what have you done for me lately" as "I want my check."
Nor do they defend people who aren't in their houses, or defend people from their own government. "Bwoop! Bwoop! Janet Reno has entered the house!" Hehe!
I will not give it up until the last gun is out of the last criminal's hand,
I would agree, but also add "and the government's hands." Every government.
...and my safety is guarenteed.
How?
I agree with your idealism, Fink, but don't think that people will every be perfectly nice to each other and not force others to do what they want. Until then, I must have methods for defending myself. The extension of that is, that an armed society is a safe one (not perfectly safe, but we're talking reality, not fiction, here).
How do you separate those, and how is it the proper function of the military?
Guns:
Be a man, use your hands, or a sharp implement.
Be a man, get shot while holding a pointed stick.
Just why do you need a gun? Just because someone else has one doesn't mean you need one too.
A general armament will better defend the country from outside agressors, and from internal criminals, than any army or police force. Why would anyone invade a country where essentially every citizen is armed and can defend? As far as internal defense goes, well-armed towns have lower crime rates than towns where guns are banned. Guns are a deterrent power; a leveler. They are a threat not only to invading armies and everyday criminals, but to out government and anyone else with tyrranical dreams. They mean that people will have to be persuaded, not coerced.
You don't like guns because they "take away life," and your solution is to round them all up and "dump them," but not ban them. How, exactly, would you implement it? You'd have to do it globally, and prevent people from making new ones. Would you include all projectile weapons, like bows? How about crossbows? Crossbows with flaming, poisoned, or explosive tips? Etc. Taking away all guns is unworkable and unrealistic, even with a glocal dictatorship. As well as dangerous. Guns in the hands of ordinary people will help prevent a global dictatorship (as well as local and national ones) from being attainable.
Just why do you need a gun? Just because someone else has one doesn't mean you need one too.
A general armament will better defend the country from outside agressors, and from internal criminals, than any army or police force. Why would anyone invade a country where essentially every citizen is armed and can defend? As far as internal defense goes, well-armed towns have lower crime rates than towns where guns are banned. Guns are a deterrent power; a leveler. They are a threat not only to invading armies abd everydat criminals, but to out government and anyone else with tyrranical dreams.
You don't like guns because they take away life, and your solution is to round them all up and "dump them," but not ban them. How, exactly, would you implement it? Taking away all guns is unworkable and unrealistic. As well as dangerous.
I don't want our people indoctrinated by the government... but that's what you said. You said you want the government to train people to be better workers, and promote social skills. Aren't those also the job of schools?
Guns are fine; the government should always have its citizenry as a check -- just ask the founding fathers.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," - Alexander Hamilton
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."--Thomas Jefferson
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."--Samuel Adams
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present
day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere
restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington
"A free people ought... to be armed, To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving
peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." -- George Washington
Heck, go back even farther:
"Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."--Aristotle
You may want to also consider talking to some police officers -- many of whom will tell you that the people shooting at them don't really care about handgun laws and waiting periods. Handgun laws disarm law-abiing citizens, not criminals. By definition, and in practice. What we need is training, not muddle-headed bans.
Slashdot Mirror
That it supports modules doesn't mean it's modular. And, when was the last time you ran a driver in user space, had it crash, and restarted it without taking your system down for reboot?
________________________________________
It's the government's proper function to prevent people from hurting and defrauding each other. When the government isn't in myriad "partnerships" with Corporate America, it can oversee them better.
There will be no power vaccuum filled by corporations.
________________________________________
I would really like "none of the above" to be on the ballot. A lot of people abstain because there's no choice they like. This skews the results by not counting abstentions. If "none of the above" wins, we have to have another election until candidates are produced that a majority does like. The would let people register their dissent in a meaningful way.
________________________________________
I'm voting Libertarian because they are the only party that actually cares about freedom. The rest want a nanny state of one type or another.
Voting Libertarian is the best campaign finance reform possible, because they will reduce government back to its constitutional limits. One the federal government isn't all-powerful anymore, there will be much less to fight over. Without corporate and personal subsidies being handed out right and left, why bribe a politician to get the rules skewed in your favor?
________________________________________
No one has mentioned the coolest things about QNX -- notably its architecture. QNX is a highly reliable, real-time OS based on message passing. It really is a microkernel OS. Even device and filesystem drivers run in userspace. This makes it incredibly stable, as you can actually crash a driver, restart it, and keep going. You can also upgrade subsystems without taking the machine offline. QNX is used in systems that cannot fail, such as heart monitors.
It's also really efficiently written, and almost completely modular (as opposed to Linux' monolithic-plus-kitchen-sink approach). Their 1.44MB Floppy demo contains the bootloader and kernel, a GUI, a web wrowser, tcp/ip and PPP. No other OS can do that, because they're too bloated. Linux can be put in a floppy, but there's no way to fit a GUI and a web browser as well. YOu might be able to chuck out things like the shell and libc, and include a statically-linked version of lynx, but nothing as good as the QNX demo can be achieved.
QNX is much more suitable for PDAs and otehr small systems than is Linux. It's loads more reliable, more easily upgradable, and much more compact. Just look at the iOpener; into 16MB they fit the OS, a custom GUI built on top of the QNX GUI, web browser, email, telnet server, and other things, and hadspace left over to store files. The only other OS that could do that is WinCE, and it's much more limited than QNX (such as a limit of 32 processes, 22 of which are consumed by the system itself).
QNX rocks!
________________________________________
Linux is a religion.
God must be the devil, too, then. Remember Robin Williams' A Night at the Met, when we was talking about the Devil being God when he's drunk, and the platypus and Darwin?
Yeah, we'll take a terminal emulator, and add a scheduler. And then we'll toss in some memory management. Yo, Tannenbaum! Suck on this!
________________________________________
I'll be sure to check Time for Joel Stein's latest teledildonics installment. And I suppose those Slim Jim commercials will take on a whole new disgusting reality... step into a Slim Jim!
________________________________________
This is good news! Intel must have finally gotten around to reading Tom's Hardware.
Maybe it's the beginning of them getting their head out of their arse. I wonder how much behind-the-scenes wrangling there has been between Intel ("make your damn memory work") and Rambus ("give us money") has gone one leading to this moment. Maybe Intel Management woke up during one of the meetings and said, "Hey! These guys are a law firm disguised as a hardware company! Argh!"
Anyway, I'm happy about this. Now, if Intel can just help shut down the Rambus crusade against all other memory makers, it'll be perfect. Find the rock that Rambus came out from under, lift it up, and chuck them back.
________________________________________
Linux has been around NCSU for a long time. I ran the computer labs for one of the departments for a while, and one of the first things I did was set up several linux (1.x back then) servers for the windows and mac-based student computing labs. I set up a jumpstart system for Windows 3.1 machines in the lab (stick in the floppy, power it on, and the machine is imaged from the linux servers). Although the administrators of the Netware system, which was used prior to the conversion, balked, the system worked very well, and allowed us more control than Netware did. I could actually serve Macs and Windows machines from one server with their native protocols! The Netware wonks insisted on using the Netware for Mac client, and wouldn't enable long filename support. Slackware all the way, baby!
We went on to set up Linux-based web and email servers. We were excited when we saw the first screenshots of Enlightenment. NCSU was working on a Linux distro back then, but it came to nothing. It's good to see that they're still going to Unix and open computing (and now open source!) and haven't been subsumed by the Microsoft Mentality!
________________________________________
Some competition would be a good thing; and since all the code is GPL, they can re-merge later. Linux has gone through fork-and-merge several times already. A lot of developers keep their own little fork going while in development. XFS, for instance, ships as a patched kernel.
It would be good for SGI, IBM, HP, and other big players to create an Advanced Linux Kernel Project. I would even host it (I'm a director at a hosting company) and contribute code (filesystem, device drivers, unicode functionality).
Even if the Linus-headed effort is the One True Way, it doesn't have to be the Only Way. They're not infallible. Let's get a second project going! It won't be a threat to Official Linux -- just a development track for enterprise situations!
Email me if you're interested!
________________________________________
The animation appears to have variable-length rulers... is it supposed to be like that?
________________________________________
Get your overburdened server listed on Slashdot! Have a fire extinguisher handy!
________________________________________
You're contradicting yourself, and you're not answering my questions. --snip--.
________________________________________
Privacy means a fundamental right to have control over your personal affairs
.. shutting off the information flow doesn't always achieve that, and is not synonymous with personal sovreignty. I think it's important to separate one's control of one's own life from information about oneself -- because they are not one and the same. There's a lot of overlap, but not identity.
it's a little ironic to me that you wish to have freedom, yet are willing to leave your privacy open to someone else's prying eyes
I'm not sure what "privacy" means as you just used it.
were there to be a government monopoly on insurance and health care, as in the UK, there would be little to no competitive element in the health care market.
I agree your plan would be better, but not that it would be good; or that it is fundamentally different than nationalized health care. It would be the equivalent of two national space programs -- "competition" would exist, but it would all be controlled in one way or another by the same power. A power that determines the goals, and to a large extent, the means.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom.
True.
There is such a thing as practical realities
True
and practical needs of those around you.
... which aren't part of reality in the same way that gravity and entropy are.
The reason we have limits on freedom is because to have unlimited freedom is the same as anarchy. The only question is, where do you place those limits, on what justification, and why?
Anarchy: not violent chaos, as people make it out to be, but simply a state of no ruler. However, you are right. The place where freedom is limited is the place where you will infringe upon someone else's freedom. The old "the right to swing your fist ends at the start of my nose."
I believe it is worth it to surrender that freedom to not pay for something in return for the security of having stable, reliable, high-quality health care for everyone,
How nice of you to surrender my freedom as well...
"We agree that murder should be illegal, for otherwise people will live in constant fear for their lives"
No, that's not the reason at all. It's because killing someone is the ultimate infringement in their freedom.
The point is that, in a democratic society, people yield to the larger will of the electorate
to which they belong. That's why we have democracy in the first place.
America is actually a constitutional republic with democratically elected officials. And you did a nice job of pointing out that a democracy -- a real one, where the majority has unlimited power -- is simply a diffused tyrrany. The minority must always submit to the majority. That's not right, and it's one of the things our government was specifically designed to prevent.
without some form of collective action,
most people will suffer (and all will suffer eventually
Um... substantiate this.
it's rather hard to live a long, healthy life as a hermit
Not being forced into collective action does not make one a hermit. As I stated before, just because I don't think people should be forced to work together doesn't mean that I think they should kept apart.
This is why we have governments -- for the common good.
We have the U.S. Government to protect life, liberty and property. Or that was its original purpose, anyway. Interesting how things are always dome "for the common good" in a collectivist vision -- the common good, as decided by who, for who?
There has never been a viable alternative for universally helping everyone
You mean, forcing everyone to help everyone else. It seems to be a common lament that mankind is not suitable enough for a good society where everyone helps everyone out of their perfect, altruistic hearts. The fallback is always that people can be forced into "helping" their fellow man "for the common good" until they are better people.
_except_ through govermental action
I.e., the use of force, as I was saying. Why do people try to force people into the altruist mold over and over again throughout history? They're not acknowledging the realities of human behavior. People are selfish, and can't be made differently. All life-forms are selfish. They're also inter-dependant. Those two things are not mutually exclusive; they arem in fact, the norm. Capitalism turns the innate selfishness of each person to the common good -- by letting each person persue his own life, without being shackled to his neighbor. The end result is improved conditions for all -- unlike with socialism, which results in a steadily declining standard of living for all. It usually has good short-term results, but when it runs out of pockets to loot, it falters.
The Catholic Church was, in large part, the government in the middle ages (off-topic).
> It's as if people think that if we could
> just point the guns at the right people in the
> right way, our problems would be solved.
Speaking of straw men and slurs...
Not trying to slur, or make a straw man. But it seems that the use of force is always trotted out as the solution to our problems; that's what I'm saying -- that, and that the initiation of force to achieve one's goals is rarely, if ever, the right thing to do.
And you would get bread back as well. Or better said, some (not all!) of your wheat is taken from you, and you get bread back. So what?
So, what gives someone else a claim to my wheat?
If the people votes for the plan, at least a majority, then it isn't being forced to use it.
Yes, they are. If someone who voted with the majority changes their mind later, they will be forced to comply. The minority is forced to comply from the outset.
Or are you trying to say that every individual should just have a right to decide which laws they should obey, and which they shouldn't?
Nope. I'm saying that individuals shouldn't be forced to do things to benefit their neighbors against their will. They should be stopped from harming others, but not forced into some action to 'benefit' somebody.
Well, I hate to break this to you, but taxes are by definition there to transfer wealth
Taxes are of two types. One covers the operating expenses of the government -- paying for officers, desks, armies, etc. The other takes money from my acocunt and writes a check to someone else -- some other private citizen -- for their use. The former is fine; the latter is not.
In order to achieve goals in the public interest
Who decides what's in "the public interest?" Who's "the public?"
The point of the proposal is to have a "freer" market than the alternative -- socialized medicine -- while still achieving the aim
I can't see how a market is free if the outcome is pre-ordained. Please explain.
As a matter of fact, you have voted part of my paycheck to yourself and are benefitting from it (assuming you've voted).
I vote Libertarian, which means I don't vote myself any part of your paycheck inasmuchas that's possible. As I've stated before, the taxes that go to providing a common defense and preventing people from harming other people, are legitimate. I think you're being disingenous by equating that with the receipt of a personal subsidy.
Is it moral to let people who would be otherwise useful to society to go hungry,
Yes.
suffer disease,
Yes.
be victims of violence?
No.
Any "right" that must be paid for by someone else isn't a right.
magine for a moment that the government _did_ cease all social programs and taxation. Would the private sector really take up the slack? Highly doubtful.
100% doubtful, as a lot of what the government does is wasteful and destructive.
And the only body that has that kind of moral or legal authority is -- tada! -- the government.
I think you mean "necessary force," not "moral or legal authority." Correct my if I'm wrong. Plus, what kind of moral authority does a government have? I'm curious.
Where the people's representatives (politicians) have elected to do so with the consent of a majority of the people (the voters), and are doing so for the common good.
What about the minority? Who decides what "the common good is?" Does it mean simply "what is good for the majority, in the opinion of the majority?"
In other words, through fair (i.e. equally applied) and just taxation.
What's "fair and just?" If the majority, who is Protestant, decided to impose a 70% income tax on all non-protestants, who are in the minority, why couldn't they?
________________________________________
Why *should* the government give too much of a toss about the "working young adult in a high-tech field"?
Because they pay the bills, and are citizens; not just wallets to siphon.
I do find it a little disturbing that so many of you seem to believe that the government needs to spend more of its time working on behalf of those who are already plenty well of
Not true. We want to government to do less, not more. Not for us, not for anyone. Perhaps we're tired of subsidizing other people against our will, eh?
Fine, this is Slashdot - but still, too few questions have been asked...
I agree. It seems that all the questions that have gotten modded up are about patents or copyright or something. Kinda boring. I asked how thay planned to pay for spcial security when the boomers are all on it -- by raising taxes, by inflating the money supply, or by some other method. No points. I think it's a big issue. But not, apparently, as important as asking about the DMCA five times in a row.
________________________________________
It should be painfully obvious. There is no explicit right to privacy stated in the Constitution or amendments. This is why that right (which I think we agree exists, regardless of what the Constitution has to say) should be safeguarded by an amendment -- to prevent that kind of abuse or misuse.
Privacy is not always a good thing. But it is a lot of the time. For instance, it is rarely good for government (and government officials) to enjoy much privacy. I think any amendment guaranteeing a right to provacy would have be very carefully worded. I think an explicit mention of "privacy" was left out of the Constitution so as to leave it as a matter of law, which can be changed. "Privacy" has variable definition and value.
Interesting you say that mandatory collective financing is the only sane way of paying for health insurance "without forcing the Federal Government to intervene," and when I point out that, by making collective health insurance mandatory, the federal government would be intervening, you say that's obvious. I don't get it.
Ah. So we're going to start dabbling in Social Darwinism, I see.
People advocating forced collective endeavors always make that retort when I point out that forced collective endeavors are incompatible with freedom. It's like they assume that, since I don't want to force people to work together, I don't want them working together at all; and since I don't want to force people to be "nice" to each other, that I don't want them to be nice to each other at all. You're offering a false alternative, a straw man, and a slur all at once. I think people working together is great, but using the force of the government to make people work together is not. It's as if people think that if we could just point the guns at the right people in the right way, our problems would be solved.
You miss an important factor: even though you would be paying for something in order to indirectly help someone else, you also benefit both directly and indirectly.
Debatable at best -- the "throw your bread on the water, and it will come back 10-fold" argument. Even if that were true, it would not change the fact that under your propsed system, I wouldn't be a voluntary participant; my bread would be taken away from me by force and given to other people. The promise that, if I need bread one day then other people's bread will be taken away by force and given to me somehow doesn't comfort me. And if your plan's so good, then sell it on its merits and don't use force. People aren't dumb; they'll know a good deal when they see one. Only bad plans have to be forced on people.
Taxes are not automatically evil
True. But they're not automatically good, either. In general, the fewer of them needed, the better. And taxes should never benefit one group at the expense of another; they should never be used to "transfer wealth."
in my proposal, I'm making sure that market forces still run the show as much as possible
I.e., as long as they achieve the result you have pre-ordained. That's not a free market, no matter what you call it.
And for that matter, this isn't a tax anyway, though you for some reason have latched onto that idea.
Spend some time with a dictionary.
> why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people?
Apparently you need to think a bit more about what the "rule of law" is, and how laws come to be in a democracy...
So, because I vote myself your paycheck, that makes it okay? Are you one of those people that make the "because it's legel, it's moral" arguments? You're evading my question, I think. I'll state it differently:
Under what circumstances is it okay for the property of one person to be taken from them and given to another person?
________________________________________
Which is why an additional amendment to that effect makes sense.
I don't follow you. It is stated clearly in Amendment 9; why will they pay more attention to it if repeat the limitation in Amendment 28?
Want to be "liberal" in the true sense of the word, and make sense whlie doing it? Try the Liberal Democrats of the UK.
Two problems with that-- I'm not British, and they advocate a lot of what I don't want, such as 100% subsudized health care. "Liberals" used to be free-thinking, free-enterprise, lasseiz-faire, enlightenment-era people. Now, they are collectivists and socialists.
"Argh" you may say, but it's the only way to sanely finance the health care system as a whole without forcing the Federal Government to intervene or provide funds"
... by mandating health insurance, the federal government is intervening. By making everyone pay into a pool to cover people who couldn't otherwise afford that health insurance, the federal government would also be providing funds. It wouldn't go through the treasury, but because they are compeeling payment, it is a tax.
The point is that insurers could be asked to agree to one standardized set of forms and so on.
If they don't agree to it of their own free will, but because the government has mandated that it be so, then it is a government-imposed bureaucracy -- one in the hands of private insurers, but one created, regulated and mandated by government regardless. It's a socialism vs fascism argument there -- does the state outright do it, or does it maintain a fictional private sector and just tightly regulate? The end result is about the same, as are the means.
To top it off, why must some people be forced to pay for something for other people? What makes that right? If it's the intent, then I can rob you to pay for my Aunt's mammograms -- or would that be theft? If it's the people doing it, why is state-sponsoted theft okay, but me 'redistributing' your wealth not?
________________________________________
Would you support a constitutional amendment or other legislation mandating the protection of the right to privacy, especially with regard to the control of personal information?
:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Not that legislators have given a shit about that to date.
I'd like to know, so I will know who NOT to vote for. A consitutionl amendment mandating "privacy?" Do you mean personal obscurity, or personal sovreignty? Because if it's the latter, we already have that in the constitution -- it's admendment nine
Would you support legislation requiring the following: mandated health insurance
Argh!
standardized forms and other systems of information processing in health care (to cut down on bureaucracy)
Or rather, to institute a federal, central bureaucracy.
standardized health insurance identity cards (again to cut down on bureaucracy and increase mobility)
National ID cards! Track me now, Big Brother!
I would like answers to those questions as well... so I know who not to vote for. Of course, I can play it safe and continue to vote for the one party that respects people -- the Libertarian Party.
________________________________________
But let's not phrase the question to state or imply, "Where's our special subsidy and priviledge?"
A lot of people don't want the government doing much of anything for them -- defend them, pave roads, make sure companies and people are honest and don't hurt people, and that's about it.
I'm afraid that a lot of the candidates will read "what have you done for me lately" as "I want my check."
________________________________________
Just buy an alarm system. They don't kill people.
Nor do they defend people who aren't in their houses, or defend people from their own government. "Bwoop! Bwoop! Janet Reno has entered the house!" Hehe!
________________________________________
I will not give it up until the last gun is out of the last criminal's hand,
...and my safety is guarenteed.
I would agree, but also add "and the government's hands." Every government.
How?
I agree with your idealism, Fink, but don't think that people will every be perfectly nice to each other and not force others to do what they want. Until then, I must have methods for defending myself. The extension of that is, that an armed society is a safe one (not perfectly safe, but we're talking reality, not fiction, here).
________________________________________
Guns may be a leveler, or a deterrent...but does that stop violent crime in its tracks? No. Getting rid of all guns does.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
________________________________________
/. hosed the previous one...
Training:
No, I want them how to work, not how to think.
How do you separate those, and how is it the proper function of the military?
Guns:
Be a man, use your hands, or a sharp implement.
Be a man, get shot while holding a pointed stick.
Just why do you need a gun? Just because someone else has one doesn't mean you need one too.
A general armament will better defend the country from outside agressors, and from internal criminals, than any army or police force. Why would anyone invade a country where essentially every citizen is armed and can defend? As far as internal defense goes, well-armed towns have lower crime rates than towns where guns are banned. Guns are a deterrent power; a leveler. They are a threat not only to invading armies and everyday criminals, but to out government and anyone else with tyrranical dreams. They mean that people will have to be persuaded, not coerced.
You don't like guns because they "take away life," and your solution is to round them all up and "dump them," but not ban them. How, exactly, would you implement it? You'd have to do it globally, and prevent people from making new ones. Would you include all projectile weapons, like bows? How about crossbows? Crossbows with flaming, poisoned, or explosive tips? Etc. Taking away all guns is unworkable and unrealistic, even with a glocal dictatorship. As well as dangerous. Guns in the hands of ordinary people will help prevent a global dictatorship (as well as local and national ones) from being attainable.
________________________________________
Be a man, use your hands, or a sharp implement.
Be a man, get shot while holding a pointed stick.
Just why do you need a gun? Just because someone else has one doesn't mean you need one too.
A general armament will better defend the country from outside agressors, and from internal criminals, than any army or police force. Why would anyone invade a country where essentially every citizen is armed and can defend? As far as internal defense goes, well-armed towns have lower crime rates than towns where guns are banned. Guns are a deterrent power; a leveler. They are a threat not only to invading armies abd everydat criminals, but to out government and anyone else with tyrranical dreams.
You don't like guns because they take away life, and your solution is to round them all up and "dump them," but not ban them. How, exactly, would you implement it? Taking away all guns is unworkable and unrealistic. As well as dangerous.
________________________________________
- "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," - Alexander Hamilton
- "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."--Thomas Jefferson
- "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."--Samuel Adams
-
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present
day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere
restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington
- "A free people ought
... to be armed, To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving
peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." -- George Washington
Heck, go back even farther:- "Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."--Aristotle
You may want to also consider talking to some police officers -- many of whom will tell you that the people shooting at them don't really care about handgun laws and waiting periods. Handgun laws disarm law-abiing citizens, not criminals. By definition, and in practice. What we need is training, not muddle-headed bans.________________________________________