Re:The Environment is a Property-Rights Issue
on
Natural Capitalism
·
· Score: 1
> Nice shooting, Tex.
Snicker.
> "totalitarian socialism" is an oxymoron. > You seriously need to read some socialist > literature.
You seriously need to read on capitalist literature.
Thus we arrive at an impass. Which is how it always is. Perhaps you should read a book called "the True Believer" by Eric Hoffer.
Your worldview (what little I have inferred about it) is to me a horrible collectivist hell, devaluing all individuals (except perhaps 'the leaders' for the betterment of "the group," -- which includes all individuals generally but none specifically. I'm sure mine, what little you think you know of it, strikes you in a similar fashion. I think my worldview is based on the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, whereas yours is based on deciding in a mob (majority)-rules manner who gets their noses busted -- because no one has the night to not have their nose busted unless the group says so.
Pointing to "the people" is still an exercise left to the reader...
The principality of SEALAND has been in existence as an undisputed sovereign state with a liberal democratic constitutional system for more than 30 years. The government never intended to assume an official role within the framework of the community of nations. This is why the principality does not intend to win other states over for official (de jure) recognition of the principality. This would be tantamount to renouncing or limiting sovereign rights.
EU countries have already raised objections against the possibility of SEALAND becoming a European tax haven in the event of de jure recognition!
De facto, SEALAND is recognised by many countries even without special agreement. One indicator to this fact is extensive correspondence between SEALAND and other states on a government level. The interest other states show in SEALAND is, however, based on purely commercial grounds due to the extraordinary credit worthiness of its citizens a majority of whom is organised in the SEALAND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS FOUNDATION (SIBF).
The government of the Principality of Sealand supports the activities of the SIBF members inter alia by issuing diplomatic passports. The beneficiaries of these diplomatic passports should not be considered as diplomats in the usual sense but they should rather be considered honourable representatives of a small state the primary task of whom is to boost the esteem of the government on a high level. These passports are not yet considered to be travelling documents.
... they sound like more of a business club than a country. With their own clubhouse and membership cards. But not really a nation, per se.
Wonder who will be providing internet connectivity. No doubt their "damn the torpedoes" stance will come to nothing when their external connectivity is simply shut off -- because other governments DO have jurisdiction over that!
I'll be interested to see what they mean by that. If they're going to be hosting sites fro free-speach reasons, that's one thing. To traffic in stolen property makes them pirates. We'll see how long that holds up... The Napster/metallica stuff might put them on a poor footing, foreign-relations wise. Imagine if they are declared to be a "rogue state."
You've done so much reading on economics, you've never heard the term "State Capitalism." Now that's funny, you learned individual.;-) Just a prelininary search found this: http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/ socfrombel/sfb_6.htm
Heh. From the title page:
by David McNally Published September 1984. Second printing September 1986. International Socialist Organization, PO Box 16085, Chicago, Illinois 60616. First published
December 1980 by the International Socialists, Canada. Hardcopy Version Printed by East End Offset (TU all depts), London E3. from back cover: Socialism is a new society of freedom--or it is nothing. This is the central argument of this pamphlet. Tracing the fate of revolutionary socialism through the past 100 years, David McNally shows that there are two currents in the socialist tradition. One is "socialism from above," that of the "leave to us" reformers in the West and the anti- democratic bureaucracies of the East. Neither has brought the world any closer to socialism. The other is socialism from below, the living tradition of workers' struggle which has been hidden in the years of compromise and betrayal. With world capitalism again in deep political and economic crisis, humanity stands in desperate need of this tradition, of a transformation of the world order from below.
Ah yes... the Carter Years...
Yeah, the crisis is, "How do we spend it all?" And I never said I hadn't heard the term. I said it was an oxymoron. And you have the gall to question my "learnedness," when you don't even read my posts carefully before replying. You've "qouted" all kinds of things I've not actually said.
Re:The Environment is a Property-Rights Issue
on
Natural Capitalism
·
· Score: 2
Please, tell me what social rights capitalism gurantees me. Apparently in my study of economics I neglected to read the Capitalist Bill Of Rights, that gurantees me political freedoms, as opposed its idealogical theory being based upon economic freedoms.
Capitalism is not a political system. Governments aren't based on it. However, capitalism can only exist in a politically free society where there is a government. "Capitalist" countries are republics or democracies, because those types of political systems allow enough freedom for capitalism to exist in some form, however "mixed."
Please, inform me as to how you'll alter any of what I said, without a vote in the activities of the corporation, and without using the Government. Show me how radical consumerist beliefs alter the behavior of corporations. After all, corporations are so nice today, aren't they?
I said nothing about not using the government. In fact, I specifically said a government is required. Sue them. Present evidence to the EPA or other oversight agencies. That's what they're there for, and that's their proper function in a capitalist system.
*sigh* Please read a little about U.S. corporations that have setup shop in China to take advantage of their cheap, exploitable labor. Our corporations are very much capitalists.
I have. And those corporations may or may not be capitalist; it's kind of funny to term a coporation "capitalist" anyway. It's not like it's a real person, or anything. I know of one corporation, a chemical company, that pays its Chinese workers a multiple of the local going rate -- the maximum the laws allow. They are actually capped by the chinese government from paying more. However, those chinese workers are making much more than they otherwise would. Can you say that's a bad thing? I don't know about all the companies over there. I know some, like Nike, and Kathie Lee Gifford, have engaged in reprehensible behaviour involving bad working conditions and child labor. But you can't tar all companies doing business over there with the same brush. Also, in 'free' countries, the government protects the rights of citizens (which includes 'workers'). In China, the government represses and abuses those workers. Go try to unionize in China. See what happens. With no 'adversiarial' government to go to, how are the Chinese citizens going to escape the abuse of corporations? They might get shot or sent to a labor camp if they complain about the wrong company to the wrong person.
*sigh* Please read a little about U.S. corporations that have setup shop in China to take advantage of their cheap, exploitable labor. Our corporations are very much capitalists. Also, I'd suggest you actually learn a little about Chinese economics, just for good measure. You'd think with all of the talk over PNTR, even someone with superficial knowledge of world economics would pick something up.
Establishing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China means that we will no longer threaten them with an annual trade (tariff) war over human rights. It means that the U.S. government thinks that China is now on the right path, and that pushing capital into China will now do more good than would browbeating the Chinese leadership and emperiling the growing market over there. And they're probably right. China will not become a free and open society overnight, or even over a decade. But it's been making slow improvements for a while. Mao's death was a good thing. Deng Xiopeng did a lot of good for China.
Ugh. This has nothing to do with Government investment of funds to gain interest, in order to lower tax burdens on PEOPLE. Do yourself a favor, go to your next town meeting, and ask someone about it. I'll gurantee you that they gain interest on any funds that they hold for any period of time. This helps *everyone*, not businesses.
I understand that. It's the argument made any time the issue of spending public money on private facilities comes up. A lot of times, it works. That doesn't make it right. THe ends do not justify the means.
I'm afraid your opinion isn't very well informed, and at best informed from a very small pool of information. I'd suggest you stop looking at your equally uneducated peers for information, and take to reading a few books, and perhaps a few college classes. As for your insult, I think that's rather unfair. I was only trying to offer you advice, so that you'd not say things like "there's no socialist party," "China and the U.S.S.R are commies," or "the U.S. Government is trying to buy corporations with social security money!" Hell, if you watched c-span you'd know more than that.
I had no idea you were "offering advice," mainly because it sounded like an insult. ANd I never said "China and the U.S.S.R are commies," or "the U.S. Government is trying to buy corporations with social security money!" You didn't even read the post you're replying to carefully! Pot, kettle, etc. C-Span has taught me that the British have a lot more fun with their government than we do with ours. When was the last time the House broke out in a paperwad fight? Since when does the President go engage in an actualy debate with Congress?
Quoted from http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/contemp/pamsetc/ socfrombel/sfb_6.htm In 1929, the first Five-Year Plan was introduced. The aim Stalin announced, was to 'catch up and overtake' the West. In order to take control of food production, several million peasants were slaughtered. In the towns, workers' wages were cut in half between 1930 and 1937. A rate of growth of 40 per cent was declared. Such a growth rate could only be achieved through ruthless exploitation of the working class--by forcing workers to produce more and more output for lower and lower wages. [...] International socialism had thus been supplanted by state capitalism. All of economic life was subordinated to the objective of competing with western capitalism. The satisfaction of human needs was not the aim of production. Rather, production was geared to constructing steel mills and tank factories that could rival those of the West. [...] The pressure of world capitalist competition -- both military and economic-- shapes the structure and direction of Russian society. Russia is thereby reduced to little more than a state-owned economy that has adapted itself to the capitalist system as a whole.
Yeah, forced industrialization sucks. Its was a stupid thing for them to do. Blaming the slaughter of millions of your own citizens on people in a land far away is a nice trick. "State Capitalism" is an oxymoron. What the Soviets, et al, had, was totalitarian socialism and forced industrialization. By no stretch of the imagination was it "capitalism." Yes, they were reactionary, and tried to gear up in response to Capitalist successes. That does not make then capitalists. I think that the author of the article is trying to pass off states as the participants in a marketplace and then declare the system "capitalist." People who tend towards collectivism -- particularly apologists for Soviet atrocities -- always speak of molding the people into one. So it seems natural to me that the author of that article would portray governments as the participants in some type of "international capitalism", because the governments "speak for the people" in Soviet-type societies.
As an exercise for the reader, point to "the people".
Re:The Environment is a Property-Rights Issue
on
Natural Capitalism
·
· Score: 2
Propose and explain exactly how one or even a significant majority of consumers can force G.E. to spend money to remove PCBs for water supplies.
Did you ever see the movie "a civil action?" Sue them. Present evidence to the EPA or other oversight agencies and let 'em go at it.
In other words, facism, not socialism.
I call it participatory slavery, but you're essentially right. Nazi Germany was also fascist, as is the U.S., to an increasing degree.
In practice, the Soviets were less socialist than France or modern day Japan -- which both have large Socialist parties, incidentally.
Yes, but the government does not own all of the industry. Which means they are mixed economies. Whatever industry the Soviets did not own, they didn't own through either mismanagement or not knowing about it. It's not like they allowed the citizens to start businesses.
In a true free market economy, as he pointed out, corporations are feudal states.
THis is simply not true. Fuedal states have power to enforce their laws through punishment -- jail time, stocks, confiscation of property, executions, etc. Feudal states tax and rule their citizenry, with no higher power. Corporations in a capitalist economy ("free market" gives people all kinds of bad ideas) pay their employees, and have no enforcement powers beyond not paying their employees any more. They also answer to a higher power -- the government -- although they are not controlled by it, merely limited. Checks and balances. The government and the government alone as a monopoly on the initiation of force in a capitalist system.
Face reality. While China is more controlling of the market, it's just as much a hybrid market as that of most of the "free world."
Face reality. China is not "just as much a hybrid" as the "free world" economies. It's much farther from capitalist than any "free world" country. Don't get caught protesting. I'm all for China opening up; it's going to be gradual, but it's much better than having another "cultiral revolution."
If you've been just a thorough in your research and polite and thoughful in your discussions as you have been here, it's no wonder you're spouting off uninformed. As another poster pointed out, maybe you should do some more research. The conspiracy theories of government investment via the Social Security fund show just how little you knew about the actual issue.
Pot. Kettle. Bush's plan is to allow people to invest part of their taxes in the market if they choose. Previous plans were to have the government do the investing. I'm not spouting a conspiracy theory. If the social security taxes are used to buy portions of U.S. coprorations via the stock market, as more and more money is invested, t he government will own more and more of those companies. Eventually, they will own a majority. Legally, they will then control the corporation more or less absolutely. Do governments, and/or politicians ever willingly give up power? Rarely. Are you saying that, if the government finds itself in direct partial to full control of a large number of corporations, they will never use that power? Explain why, if you would.
The real solution to the "Social Security Crisis" is to close the program. Don't allow any more enrollees.
Re:The Environment is a Property-Rights Issue
on
Natural Capitalism
·
· Score: 2
Capitalism has a lot to do with political freedoms. Perhaps you should read up on socioeconomic systems a little.
If you would, please make G.E. remove the PCBs from our lakes and rivers.
People always use the excuse "one person can make no difference" to justify either inaction or throwing away the system and starting over. Both are silly.
You often confuse Capitalism with Democracy, since Capitalism makes no claims as to protecting "human rights."
You don't know me. I never confuse democracy with capitalism. And democracy does not necessarily protect human rights, either. Look at Greece. They voted to kill everyone on and island a few days' voyage away. Democracy in action. Democracy, while more likely to protect some rights than other systems, tends to protect to rights that the majority values for the portion of the people the majority likes at any given moment. Democracy is a dictatorship with more than one foot on your neck.
Socialism has nothing to do with the U.S.S.R or China, which use a totalitarian "State Capitalism."
Haha! That's rich. "StateCapitalism" is an oxymoron. What they practiced is socialism, without the "power is exercised by the whole community" bit.
Reagan is seen as some sort of icon
So? Who mentioned Reagan? Clinton is in many respects a better president. He's a little more honest about being a lying power-hungry thug than other recent presidents.
Government could simply enforce contracts, and capitalism would flourish. For a good example, take a look at the corporations with factories in China
Hmm. Yes. Well, the chinese army certainly makes a lot of money, but I don't see how you could construe the chinese situation as "capitalism." It's not like they have a free market over there.
This may come as a shock to you, but the Government (local, state, federal) already invest storages of money in various ways, in order to make a profit. The goal of this is usually to lower a tax burden, or prevent an increase in the tax burden. It has nothing to do with the Government trying to buy corporations.
And it's wrong. It thought you would have picked up on that from my post. For instance, the ADM Subsidy (ethanol fund). Bad. Sports arenas being paid for by taxpayers and the profits going to the teams and private owners. Bad. Tax breaks to relocate your business. Bad. "End coprorate welfare and statism now."
I suggest you read a little about Capitalism, Socialism, the English and U.S. Industrial Revolution, and the Russian revolution. It's all quite interesting, and you'll have a more informed perspective.
I have. I've also read a lot of other things. I've even thought about things myself, and talked them over with others who have different viewpoints. Which is why I have an informed opinion. Maybe you should try it?
"Convential capitalism" really means "corporate statism," not "capitalism." Just like "communism" means "totalitarian socialism" in the current language. Read this post and see if you agree.
What most people mean with they say "capitalism" is not actually capitalism. It's more corporate statism. this post and re-evaluate your statements...
The Environment is a Property-Rights Issue
on
Natural Capitalism
·
· Score: 2
The environment is a property-rights issue. In a capitalist system, each owner/lessor/etc of property has a right to not have that asset devalued by others against their will. If someone ran into your house and released a could of poinsonous gas, you could shorgun them right then and there, and rightly claim self-defense. How is it different when, a mile down the road, a poisonous gas gets released and then floats into your living room? Would it be different if, from a mile away, someone sent a mortar shell into your living room that then released a poisonous gas?
Capitalist countries have MUCH cleaner environments than non-free countries. ANd it's because, under the capitalist system, people have rights and the means with which to defend themselves, and/or collect recompense after the event. People often lament the 'litiguousness' of the U.S. Believe it or not, that is in the main a good thing. Sure, there's crackpot get-rich-quick lawsuits, but most are for real reasons.
Here, we can protest. We can not buy products. We can ruin the stock price of companies that harm us, assuiming we have the will. In forced-industrialized countries like China and Russia, industry can do whatever it wants because it is also the government. And it often does. There is a 10-mile radius of fibrous waste around one industrial site in Russia (starts with a 'K'... forget the name right now). It takes a LONG TIME to cause that much damage! And it went unchecked. In a capitalist system, the government is reponsible for protecting the rights of all parties in contracts and enforcing basic human rights. Capitalism doesn't work without a government.
To put it simply, in a capitalist system, the government is in charge of keeping a watch on business. In Socialist (corparatist/communist/fascist/choose your own synonym for 'collecitvist') countries, government IS business. Which do you think will work out better?
A lot of people complain that the U.S. is becoming or has become a corporate state, and then lay the blame for that at the feet of capitalism, when it doesn't belong there. There is no socialist party in the U.S. any longer because its entire platform was enacted into law. Socialism blurs the line between government and business.
Take, for instance, the currently fashionable idea of 'investing' social security taxes in the stock market. If the people advocating that came right out and said they wanted to nationalise U.S. businesses -- bring them under direct government control -- the citizens would balk. But by "investing the funds for our retirement" for us, it's okay. THe end result is the same though: government ownsership of business. If they just nationalize, it's simply a faster way of doing it than by taxing the citizens and businesses, and then using the money to buy the stock of those businesses. Either way, the government will eventually end up with a controlling share of U.S. businesses.
With the government then concerned about profitability, in order to fill its tax coffers to be able to pay for its programs, how much oversight do you think they will be providing?
Ziff-Davis loves Microsoft because all the little changes, upgrades, inconsistencies, etc. have given them a grand opportunity to do lots of reviews, articles, recommendations, etc. MS is a wet dream for the circulation department at ZD. With minimal to no research they can make important and official-sounding reports on the marketplace.
At every turn, they judge a product's quality in light of the existing Microsoft product. For instance, in the article currently in question, which I read last week in "eWeek", they review various Non-MS Office scenarios. One was particularly telling. A company had chosen to go with Macs and use the AppleWorks (nee ClarisWorks) programs that were bundled with the machines, because they suited their needs and were free (bundled). The ZD writer sadly recounted how their untenable position faltered when they began having to cope with Microsoft documents, and that they ended up relenting somewhat and buying a single copy of office with which to do format conversions. The ZD writer remarked on how that was still a bad idea, the implication being that they wouldn't have gotten with it until they went for an all MS-Office installation.
The assumption ZD made throughout the whole article is that is reasonable that everyone should have to use proprietary, undocumented file formats simply because they are prevelant in the market. The correct response when someone delivers a document in a proprietary format, excpecting you to just cope with it, is to mail back your own favorite proprietary document format. And then ask the sender to use a standard format, like RTF, the next time.
If we can, through simple peer pressure, encourage everyone to use standard, open formats, then it will not matter what word processors and other programs people use. The whole reason MS started using "OLE Structured Storage" for its file formats is not that it's a good format, but rather that it implies Windows, or at least MS office products (MS ported COM to the Mac in order to support office).
Encourage open formats, and everyone will have choice!
Because this special type of bacteria naturally produces methane, it may be used to start a new colony on Mars. It could also be used to produce an environment close to Earth's. Methane is a greenhouse gas, which means it can warm the surface.
Nasa let us walk on the Moon in bulky, expensive spacesuits in the 60s. Its mission for this millenium should be to make Mars habitable! Terraform Mars!
It looks like he might have patented (or intended to patent) RPC/RMI/SOAP/etc, not just GET/POST. He has a whole "remote object" section (section 3): The following is a list of examples of different Remote Object systems. It is not an all-inclusive list of Remote Object systems, but shows a number of possible applications of the present invention.
3.8 Remote Market Object
A Remote Object system where the Desired Utility Service further comprises, for example, functionality to place a want ad, make a purchase, make a purchase from a catalog, or locate available real property:
A Remote Object system for supplying artificial reality-based services from a remote host. A Remote Reality Simulation Object has a Desired Utility Service which provides artificial reality-based services on the remote host. The Remote Object Client in this system interacts with the Desired Utility Service, and in turn issues requests to the Human Interface Server on the Local Host, to create the illusion of an artificial reality system running on the Local Host.
3.10 Remote Entertainment Object
A Remote Database Object system where the Desired Utility Service further comprises the functionality to:
Request and have presented on Local Host, a
Motion Picture preview,
A full length motion picture, or
A Video
Request a video game executing on Remote Host
Request to obtain a book review
Request to participate in a computer-based Treasure Hunt.
3.11 Remote Museum Object
A Remote Database Object system where the Desired Utility Service further comprises a database containing digital representations of museum objects where such representations can be delivered to the Local Host and experienced in any of the five senses.
"Remote reality-simulation object". Heh. The Sims, Halflife servers, etc.
You didn't, by chance, click on the "download browser enhancement" link, did you?
I've got IE5 and Outlook2k on my Win2k box... and nothing happened by just looking at the site. Are your IE security settings set to "bend me over again"?
Imagine if your bank were to declare that your deposits with them were not physical, but electronic, and as such were merely forms of information that were the product of your contract with the bank. Therefore, they actually owned your money, allowing you to use it at their "sole discretion", and if you tried to move it to another bank, they had no legal responsibility if the "information" somehow ended up in the hands of a third party.
Umm... it is already this way. When you make a deposit at a bank, you are loaning the bank your money, and they have no obligation, legally, to give it back. They nearly always do, of course, but once you deposit it, it is not your money.
Here is a Depost Account Contract. Read it carefully.
Deposit: Money given in advance to show intention to complete the purchase of a property. Also, money transferred into a customer's account at a financial institution. see also American Depositary Receipt, Global Depositary Receipt, certificate of deposit, demand deposit, depository trust company, earnest money, escrow, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, margin call, near money, savings account, savings deposits, security deposit, time deposit.
In short, once you give it to the bank, the bank owns it.
New versions of the Windows operating system and Office applications software that could offer protection from outside attacks would "be much harder for computer users to obtain," Gates wrote in "Viewpoint." The issue will be on newsstands Monday.
"Such as virus writers":
The front line of defense against such sophisticated viruses is a continually evolving computer-operating system that attracts the efforts of eager software developers, Gates said.
Bullshit:
The breakup order also would end improvements to the Internet software in Windows and cripple company efforts to develop a write-on tablet that allows notes to be transferred seamlessly to a personal computer, Gates said.
... a write-on tablet that allows notes to be transferred seamlessly to a personal computer?!?!?!. Oh, like the crosspad. Except that it will run "Pocket Bloatlook."
Sounds like another attempt to ship an intentionally crippled and broken product for the sole purpose of then saying, "see, we told you so":
To address the finding that Microsoft broke the law by tying the Internet browser to the Windows operating system, Microsoft intends to propose offering a version of Windows that "hides" browser access, the Post reported.
Bust them up! Any company so fat and arrogant that they feel safe making threats at their customers, the economy and the justice system needs to be spanked and put in the corner... three or four separate corners.
Honk if you hate Microsoft
Motif not dead? AIEEE! HOW DO WE KILL IT?
on
Motif's Not Dead
·
· Score: 5
Motif set about to capture the 'visual elegance' of Windows (pre-95), and has been stuck there ever since. The stupid drop-down fly-out menus (as opposed to drop down - scroll) Motif has are grounds enough for shooting someone. Motif does not "provide a GUI for Unix applications" -- it makes UNIX look retarded! It says, "Warning! This system is unusable! Try your toaster instead!"
http://yawara.anime.net/gaijinFAQ/n etscape.html It being the case that Motif sucks beyond belief, and that Netscape Navigator uses Motif, you basically have to maim it to let it display Japanese in things like the Menu-bar, Bookmarks, and Forms.
http://www.catalog.com/hopkins/ simcity/keynote.html It wouldn't have been possible to port SimCity to X11 using Open Software Foundation's Motif toolkit. It just absolutely sucks. It's not open, and you have to pay for the source code, and it's not being maintained.
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/03/01/0644222.shtml I'm a professional X11 programmer, and GTK+ is one of the nicest widget sets about. Combined with GNOME it has the potential to beat even the object frameworks produced by Less Palatable Companies. For people who have never done professional X11 programming, Motif is CRAP. Everybody hates it. It was designed by a committee, and damn it shows. There's a reason it's called Bloatif. Even the addon packages to make Motif more usable (by giving it workable file dialogs, tree views, and a drag and drop you don't have to implement 90% by hand) are buggy, slow and memory hungry.
http://slashdot.org/books/99/03/22/0826250.shtml If it weren't for GTK I'd probably be programming Motif (well, OK, actually I'd be programming in QT, but that's besides the point). Motif is much like raw X Window System calls, except that Motif is MUCH MUCH WORSE! Motif is much like the stinky dead fish that your dog insists on digging up every time you try to throw it away. The world needs more Motif applications like I need a hole in my head. I can go on and on about this. Really, I can. Moral of the story: Learn a toolkit. Believe me on this one. I've made dumber comments, but few have been more true. Just don't do Motif.:^) [...] BTW, I agree about Motif. I think it was the worst thing to happen to Unix, ever. I think it did more to harm Unix as a platform than anything else that ever occurred during the 30+ years that Unix has been in existence. [...] Motif/Lesstif is arguably worse than gtk, and I programmed a lot of Motif.
If the designers of X-Windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same principles -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful feature, that. - Marus J. Ranum, Digital Equipment Corporation
http://ecco.bsee.swin.edu.au/un ix/uh/x-windows.html The Motif Self-Abuse Kit X gave Unix vendors something they had professed to want for years: a standard that allowed programs built for different computers to interoperate. But it didn't give them enough. X gave programmers a way to display windows and pixels, but it didn't speak to buttons, menus, scroll bars, or any of the other necessary elements of a graphical user interface. Programmers invented their own. Soon the Unix community had six or so different interface standards. A bunch of people who hadn't written 10 lines of code in as many years set up shop in a brick building in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that was the former home of a failed computer company and came up with a "solution:" the Open Software Foundation's Motif. What Motif does is make Unix slow. Real slow. A stated design goal of Motif was to give the X Window System the window management capabilities of HP's circa-1988 window manager and the visual elegance of Microsoft Windows. We kid you not. Recipe for disaster: start with the Microsoft Windows metaphor, which was designed and hand coded in assembler. Build something on top of three or four layers of X to look like Windows. Call it "Motif." Now put two 486 boxes side by side, one running Windows and one running Unix/Motif. Watch one crawl. Watch it wither. Watch it drop faster than the putsch in Russia. Motif can't compete with the Macintosh OS or with DOS/Windows as a delivery platform.
http://123nc.com/ "123nc connects you to every courthouse in North Carolina. 123nc contracts with the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to provide you with access to these records."
...looking for a reason to hate someone? Check here! I can't WAIT until this is as mandatory as voluntarily providing your secret social security number currently is. Of course, there will be some dumbfuck saying "It's not a problem if you have nothig to hide" as there always is, to which I reply, "don't ask for help when they come for YOUR group, stinky."
Slashdot Mirror
> Nice shooting, Tex.
Snicker.
> "totalitarian socialism" is an oxymoron.
> You seriously need to read some socialist
> literature.
You seriously need to read on capitalist literature.
Thus we arrive at an impass. Which is how it always is. Perhaps you should read a book called "the True Believer" by Eric Hoffer.
Your worldview (what little I have inferred about it) is to me a horrible collectivist hell, devaluing all individuals (except perhaps 'the leaders' for the betterment of "the group," -- which includes all individuals generally but none specifically. I'm sure mine, what little you think you know of it, strikes you in a similar fashion. I think my worldview is based on the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, whereas yours is based on deciding in a mob (majority)-rules manner who gets their noses busted -- because no one has the night to not have their nose busted unless the group says so.
Pointing to "the people" is still an exercise left to the reader...
Haha! The joke's on me. And Roy and Joan, apparently.
Wonder who will be providing internet connectivity. No doubt their "damn the torpedoes" stance will come to nothing when their external connectivity is simply shut off -- because other governments DO have jurisdiction over that!
I'll be interested to see what they mean by that. If they're going to be hosting sites fro free-speach reasons, that's one thing. To traffic in stolen property makes them pirates. We'll see how long that holds up... The Napster/metallica stuff might put them on a poor footing, foreign-relations wise. Imagine if they are declared to be a "rogue state."
Yeah, the crisis is, "How do we spend it all?" And I never said I hadn't heard the term. I said it was an oxymoron. And you have the gall to question my "learnedness," when you don't even read my posts carefully before replying. You've "qouted" all kinds of things I've not actually said.
As an exercise for the reader, point to "the people".
The real solution to the "Social Security Crisis" is to close the program. Don't allow any more enrollees.
Read my post about the environment being better protected under capitalism than socialism.
Imagine wter vapor being a better green-house gas the C02... oh wait, it already is...
"Convential capitalism" really means "corporate statism," not "capitalism." Just like "communism" means "totalitarian socialism" in the current language. Read this post and see if you agree.
What most people mean with they say "capitalism" is not actually capitalism. It's more corporate statism. this post and re-evaluate your statements...
The environment is a property-rights issue. In a capitalist system, each owner/lessor/etc of property has a right to not have that asset devalued by others against their will. If someone ran into your house and released a could of poinsonous gas, you could shorgun them right then and there, and rightly claim self-defense. How is it different when, a mile down the road, a poisonous gas gets released and then floats into your living room? Would it be different if, from a mile away, someone sent a mortar shell into your living room that then released a poisonous gas?
Capitalist countries have MUCH cleaner environments than non-free countries. ANd it's because, under the capitalist system, people have rights and the means with which to defend themselves, and/or collect recompense after the event. People often lament the 'litiguousness' of the U.S. Believe it or not, that is in the main a good thing. Sure, there's crackpot get-rich-quick lawsuits, but most are for real reasons.
Here, we can protest. We can not buy products. We can ruin the stock price of companies that harm us, assuiming we have the will. In forced-industrialized countries like China and Russia, industry can do whatever it wants because it is also the government. And it often does. There is a 10-mile radius of fibrous waste around one industrial site in Russia (starts with a 'K'... forget the name right now). It takes a LONG TIME to cause that much damage! And it went unchecked. In a capitalist system, the government is reponsible for protecting the rights of all parties in contracts and enforcing basic human rights. Capitalism doesn't work without a government.
To put it simply, in a capitalist system, the government is in charge of keeping a watch on business. In Socialist (corparatist/communist/fascist/choose your own synonym for 'collecitvist') countries, government IS business. Which do you think will work out better?
A lot of people complain that the U.S. is becoming or has become a corporate state, and then lay the blame for that at the feet of capitalism, when it doesn't belong there. There is no socialist party in the U.S. any longer because its entire platform was enacted into law. Socialism blurs the line between government and business.
Take, for instance, the currently fashionable idea of 'investing' social security taxes in the stock market. If the people advocating that came right out and said they wanted to nationalise U.S. businesses -- bring them under direct government control -- the citizens would balk. But by "investing the funds for our retirement" for us, it's okay. THe end result is the same though: government ownsership of business. If they just nationalize, it's simply a faster way of doing it than by taxing the citizens and businesses, and then using the money to buy the stock of those businesses. Either way, the government will eventually end up with a controlling share of U.S. businesses.
With the government then concerned about profitability, in order to fill its tax coffers to be able to pay for its programs, how much oversight do you think they will be providing?
Ziff-Davis loves Microsoft because all the little changes, upgrades, inconsistencies, etc. have given them a grand opportunity to do lots of reviews, articles, recommendations, etc. MS is a wet dream for the circulation department at ZD. With minimal to no research they can make important and official-sounding reports on the marketplace.
At every turn, they judge a product's quality in light of the existing Microsoft product. For instance, in the article currently in question, which I read last week in "eWeek", they review various Non-MS Office scenarios. One was particularly telling. A company had chosen to go with Macs and use the AppleWorks (nee ClarisWorks) programs that were bundled with the machines, because they suited their needs and were free (bundled). The ZD writer sadly recounted how their untenable position faltered when they began having to cope with Microsoft documents, and that they ended up relenting somewhat and buying a single copy of office with which to do format conversions. The ZD writer remarked on how that was still a bad idea, the implication being that they wouldn't have gotten with it until they went for an all MS-Office installation.
The assumption ZD made throughout the whole article is that is reasonable that everyone should have to use proprietary, undocumented file formats simply because they are prevelant in the market. The correct response when someone delivers a document in a proprietary format, excpecting you to just cope with it, is to mail back your own favorite proprietary document format. And then ask the sender to use a standard format, like RTF, the next time.
If we can, through simple peer pressure, encourage everyone to use standard, open formats, then it will not matter what word processors and other programs people use. The whole reason MS started using "OLE Structured Storage" for its file formats is not that it's a good format, but rather that it implies Windows, or at least MS office products (MS ported COM to the Mac in order to support office).
Encourage open formats, and everyone will have choice!
I wonder if we could use a few billion of these to scrub Earth's atmosphere of excess CO2, so that this planet doesn't end up like Mars...
Still an Open Source victory!
Alltheweb.com is running "Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) PHP/3.0.11" on FreeBSD...
When I first saw the "powered by Dell Poweredge" sticker on their page, I briefly worried that it was going to be an NT site. Nope!
PYTHON 3000
AUTO SECURITY SYSTEMS
The Newest Technology
In Vehicle Security
giggle.
It looks like he might have patented (or intended to patent) RPC/RMI/SOAP/etc, not just GET/POST. He has a whole "remote object" section (section 3): The following is a list of examples of different Remote Object systems. It is not an all-inclusive list of Remote Object systems, but shows a number of possible
applications of the present invention.
"Remote reality-simulation object". Heh. The Sims, Halflife servers, etc.
You didn't, by chance, click on the "download browser enhancement" link, did you?
I've got IE5 and Outlook2k on my Win2k box... and nothing happened by just looking at the site. Are your IE security settings set to "bend me over again"?
Here is a Depost Account Contract. Read it carefully.
In short, once you give it to the bank, the bank owns it.
"Such as virus writers":
Bullshit:
Sounds like another attempt to ship an intentionally crippled and broken product for the sole purpose of then saying, "see, we told you so": Bust them up! Any company so fat and arrogant that they feel safe making threats at their customers, the economy and the justice system needs to be spanked and put in the corner
Honk if you hate Microsoft
Motif set about to capture the 'visual elegance' of Windows (pre-95), and has been stuck there ever since. The stupid drop-down fly-out menus (as opposed to drop down - scroll) Motif has are grounds enough for shooting someone. Motif does not "provide a GUI for Unix applications" -- it makes UNIX look retarded! It says, "Warning! This system is unusable! Try your toaster instead!"
/Forum2/HTML/000007.html :)
/03/01/0644222.shtml
/0826250.shtml :^)
http://yawara.anime.net/gaijinFAQ/n etscape.html
It being the case that Motif sucks beyond belief, and that Netscape Navigator uses Motif, you basically have to maim it to let it display Japanese in things like the Menu-bar, Bookmarks, and Forms.
http://www.catalog.com/hopkins/ simcity/keynote.html
It wouldn't have been possible to port SimCity to X11 using Open Software Foundation's Motif toolkit. It just absolutely sucks. It's not open, and you have to pay for the source code, and it's not being maintained.
http://www.mandrakeuser.org/connec t/cbrowse.html
The interface sucks. It is built with the legacy Motif library.
http://shadowrun.html.com/ubb
And I programmed in C/X-windows/Motif for ten years. The most far away I can stand from that monster, the happier I am
http://www.motifzone.com/resources/sta rt.htm
Let's face it, X/Motif are sophisticated pieces of system software with lots of flexibility and power.
http://slashdot.org/articles/99
I'm a professional X11 programmer, and GTK+ is one of the nicest widget sets about. Combined with GNOME it has the potential to beat even the object frameworks produced by Less Palatable Companies. For people who have never done professional X11 programming, Motif is CRAP. Everybody hates it. It was designed by a committee, and damn it shows. There's a reason it's called Bloatif. Even the addon packages to make Motif more usable (by giving it workable file dialogs, tree views, and a drag and drop you don't have to implement 90% by hand) are buggy, slow and memory hungry.
http://slashdot.org/books/99/03/22
If it weren't for GTK I'd probably be programming Motif (well, OK, actually I'd be programming in QT, but that's besides the point). Motif is much like raw X Window System calls, except that Motif is MUCH MUCH WORSE! Motif is much like the stinky dead fish that your dog insists on digging up every time you try to throw it away. The world needs more Motif applications like I need a hole in my head. I can go on and on about this. Really, I can. Moral of the story: Learn a toolkit. Believe me on this one. I've made dumber comments, but few have been more true. Just don't do Motif.
[...]
BTW, I agree about Motif. I think it was the worst thing to happen to Unix, ever. I think it did more to harm Unix as a platform than anything else that ever occurred during the 30+ years that Unix has been in existence.
[...]
Motif/Lesstif is arguably worse than gtk, and I programmed a lot of Motif.
If the designers of X-Windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same principles -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful feature, that. - Marus J. Ranum, Digital Equipment Corporation
http://ecco.bsee.swin.edu.au/un ix/uh/x-windows.html
The Motif Self-Abuse Kit
X gave Unix vendors something they had professed to want for years: a standard that allowed programs built for different computers to interoperate. But it didn't give them enough. X gave programmers a way to display windows and pixels, but it didn't speak to buttons, menus, scroll bars, or any of the other necessary elements of a graphical user interface. Programmers invented their own. Soon the Unix community had six or so different interface standards. A bunch of people who hadn't written 10 lines of code in as many years set up shop in a brick building in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that was the former home of a failed computer company and came up with a "solution:" the Open Software Foundation's Motif. What Motif does is make Unix slow. Real slow. A stated design goal of Motif was to give the X Window System the window management capabilities of HP's circa-1988 window manager and the visual elegance of Microsoft Windows. We kid you not. Recipe for disaster: start with the Microsoft Windows metaphor, which was designed and hand coded in assembler. Build something on top of three or four layers of X to look like Windows. Call it "Motif." Now put two 486 boxes side by side, one running Windows and one running Unix/Motif. Watch one crawl. Watch it wither. Watch it drop faster than the putsch in Russia. Motif can't compete with the Macintosh OS or with DOS/Windows as a delivery platform.
http://123nc.com/
...looking for a reason to hate someone? Check here! I can't WAIT until this is as mandatory as voluntarily providing your secret social security number currently is. Of course, there will be some dumbfuck saying "It's not a problem if you have nothig to hide" as there always is, to which I reply, "don't ask for help when they come for YOUR group, stinky."
"123nc connects you to every courthouse in North Carolina. 123nc contracts with the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to provide you with access to these records."