Well, we are getting pretty deep here, philosophically but I'll play. It's hard to define the boundries of "free market" and "government" -- they both play very close to one another and affect each other. Governments have the ability to pass laws and regulations that the free market must absorb and account for. Sometimes this has good consequences and sometimes it has bad consequences. So, it's hard to determine where a given oligopoly "came from". (note: before we begin, full disclosure: I am an avid capitalist. Hate socialism. Generally think the free market works - but not in all cases.)
Oligopolies created by free markets, also known as natural monopolies, are plentiful*. See Standard Oil. See AT&T. See Microsoft. Yes, there are govt created oligopolies (govts can create just about anything they want) but to say that the free market WON'T create oligopolies doesn't match what we see in the real world. Maybe that's because our definitions of free markets are different - but that's a question for another day. In any case, go to any "free market" country and you will find many many industries that only have 1-5 players and furthermore, those 1-5 players are doing everything they can to make sure it only remains 1-5 players (rational business decisions). That is the very definition of oligopoly. Since it happens in almost every single free-market in the world, it's hard to argue that free markets don't create some oligopolies.
Now, throw in a splash of patent protection, trademark protection, and dubious copyright laws -- and you have a system that is RIPE for the creation of oligopolies.
If free markets produced LESS oligopolies, then how come the USA has so many industries that at totally dominated by 1-5 players? Why is that? I'll tell you why: because the free markets - by definition - are not regulated. And some regulation is required to keep markets fair. (even the most capitalist of capitalists recognize the need for some regulation - telcos, for example. See my previous disclaimer.)
A good illustration is AT&T and phone rentals. Way back when, AT&T decided that the ONLY devices allowed to be used on their system were phones you rented from them. That was the only (artificial) option. Of course, it's obvious, that this is in the best interests of AT&T and not consumers, right?
In a fair market, the consumers have other alternatives if they don't like what AT&T does. However, back then there were NO competitors in this area -- so consumers could take it or leave it. Some would argue that has not changed and is still the case in 2006. I point out this example because this happened in a free market (right here in the US) and at the time, there was very little regulation. And lastly, we all know what happened after that (AT&T ruled a monopoly, broken up)
Another interesting market is the world-wide market for diamonds. As you already know, DeBeers is the oligarch here. Now, nobody would claim that the market for diamonds, worldwide, is regulated. It most certainly is not as consumers have plenty of choice (or so it would seem). So answer me this: if the market is almost 100% unregulated, how does an oligarch like DeBeers come about? They don't have any worldwide government sponsorship and I am certain the S. African government is not powerful enough to force DeBeers on anyone. So how did they get into a oligarchy situation?
The bottom line is this: free-markets need some regulation. But often, if the regulation is not done correctly, the regulations themselves create an oligopolistic opporunity. It's not strictly the government that creates oligopolies. It's not strictly the free markets that creates them either. It is a combination of both that creates oligopolies.
I can safely say that if your "geek" friends can't figure out how to burn an ISO (assuming they have access to Google or any other search engine), then they aren't geeks. Instead, they are "power users" or "advanced" users. But not geeks.
Part of being a geek is figuring it out. Be it with your current software or a different application that does the same thing. And by the very definition of the word, geeks have already figured out a LOT of stuff. Otherwise, people wouldn't say they are geeks, would they?
Sorry to rant but I have trouble with self-described geeks that can't figure out the most basic of IT questions. I see this more and more in the world. There seems to be an abundance of people calling themselves geeks but a severe lack of knowledge and understanding from those same people. I wonder how/why that is?
(And just to make sure nobody thinks I am trying to be arrogant here, I too, have asked my fair share of questions. But I started with Google and went from there. Usually, I found my answer in a couple of mouse clicks. And especially with something like burning ISO's. There are, literally, hundreds of sites that tell you, exactly, how to burn an ISO. So how does a true geek miss that? Answer: they're either 100% totally lazy, or 100% not a geek. I think the latter.)
"Really? Even with AK47's, MG-3s, SAWs, full auto M16 in the hands of the people, can you really take on a military with tanks, helicopters, and B52 bombers at their disposal.
"
Yes. See Iraq. Insurgencies and guerilla tactics can be VERY effective. And Americans would be no different if they were in this position. You assume that the govt could actually USE the B-52's. And I would say: use where? After all, what good is a totally demolished country with 300 million dead people? That's not even useful for Bush and Co.
You'd have plenty of National Guard, Reservists, and other "military types" who DO have the armament and resources to fight back -- and they would most certainly help their friends, families, towns, etc. After all, they are people to. Do you really think an army officer would shoot his best friend and arrest his own family because of the orders from a President in an office halfway across the continent? What about the B-52 pilot who is ordered to drop 40K lbs of bombs on a Chicago suburb? Doubtful. (and yes, I and they would understand the consequences of ignoring such an order)
People seem to think that the military is homogenous. It's not. There are ALL kinds of people in the armed forces. Some would help the "resistance". Others would not. But one thing is for sure: there will always be those who help the people against the government.
Tax breaks for consumer electronics? Yea, ok. That'll happen about....never. The IRS does not do this and wouldn't even consider it -- regardless of how much you want to grandstand and exaggerate.
If you think the GOVERNMENT is going to give back the money they take from us so they can make us dumber when we go blow it on TV's, I think you are smoking crack. Not even I am that cynical.
And here are the reasons why:
1) The government isn't bright enough to think of it
2) The government doesn't give back money unless you forcibly take it from the (via laws or the repealing of)
3) The government loves to spend money
4) I've never seen a government mule but I hear they are well-fed
Is it just me or does anyone else wonder why a MEDIA PLAYER is even exploitable? Why is it so hard to secure an application that plays/views data files. Can't you build in some limitations to prevent this problem? I mean, after all, it's nothing more than a "viewer" of data files (streamed or local). MSFT continues to add "functionality" to it's media player and now they are reaping what they sow. Media players don't need scripting and all the other "functionality" MSFT *thinks* we need. Just play the damn file, thank you very much.
Seems like with ever iteration of MSFT Media Player, more exploits come to fruition. I miss my media player ver 6.4, which was simple and convenient.
Since ver 6.4, media player has become a steaming pile of doo-doo. Hell, I can't even open multiple video windows with MP 10 and MP 11. It's like we are going backwards with these things....and the exploits just add fuel to the fire.
Sorry, I just had to get this off my chest. Its been a peeve of mine for a long time (and yes, I now use VLC)
I think your comment is a bit extreme. Bill G didn't STEAL anything. He may have used some backhanded ways of doing business, but he most definitely did not steal anything.
I am all for bashing MSFTy when appropriate - and for legitimate concerns - but suggesting that Bill stole his wealth is disingenuous at best.
He said SMALL business. Most small businesses I know don't have in-house counsel. Hell, many are lucky if they have ANY counsel, even on retainer.
Good suggestion, but way off base for small business.
I have the same problem the GP mentioned and am not sure if this affects us or not. How would you know if you are "subject to federal lawsuits"? EEOC (discrimination) lawsuits would count as federal -- so do I need to address this or not? In theory, everyone is subject to federal suits so should everyone have to deal with this? I don't know.
You wrote, "It should pay to work. Putting someone in a situation where they get *less* for working *more* just serves as an insurance that these people won't, infact, work more." I 100% agree.
Please remember those words next time we all jump on the bandwagon to "tax the rich" more.
Instead of "health care" and "working", insert "start new businesses" and "providing jobs". It's the same thing. When you tax the rich, you provide LESS incentive for people to get out there and create businesses and jobs. Why bother to start that new company and make that extra $50K next year if you KNOW they are going to tax the crap out of it and you'll wind up taking home less money than if you never started it at all.
And keep in mind, your definition of rich and Congress's definition of rich are not the same. When you and I say rich - we are talking about the millionaire types. When Congress says rich, they mean anyone above the poverty line. Keep that in mind too...
Yes, I would expect to see some "damage" -- and perhaps that's why we aren't seeing anything in this space. Maybe it's too damaging (and loud) to be effective? I mean, if your enemy can detect seismic activity when you come to storm the beaches, there is not much point.
I think you are right about the defenses part of it though. In fact, recently, somewhere near Africa (I think) there was a cruise ship that was attacked by pirates (real pirates). They used some kind of acoustic defense to repel the attack. There weren't alot of details on it but I think this is what you are talking about.
Still, I have to wonder why this is the first time someone has mentioned it? I can't find ANY information even relating to this technology. Obviously, there is lots of acoustic information out there, but nothing that specifically addresses firing high-amplitude accoustic waves at the ground for the purposes of levitation.
I think what you meant to say is this: "since frats and sororities are not a big priority to me, I decided to use my money elsewhere." It's doubtful that you truly can't afford to join any fraternity or sorority. You may not WANT to join -- but I am sure you could afford it, if you really wanted to. Cut back on iPod downloads for a few weeks and you got it covered...
In my fraternity, at a large and well known university, we had all kinds of people in it. We had guys that came from money. And we had guys who worked to pay their dues. About 1/2 of our chapter worked part time through college so I am very familiar with your (underhanded) jab about "blue collar". I am, and come from, blue collar as well so I take offense at your comment that frats and sororities don't have "blue collar" people in them. They do...and your comment is so wrong, on so many different levels, that I can't even talk about it anymore.
Additionally, we had several different races represented and even more different backgrounds. We had small-town guys and we had "big city" guys from Houston and Dallas. About the only common thing that ALL of us had together was this: we were all enrolled and going to school at UT.
Again, you trot out the same old, tired stereotype. "Frats/sororities are nothing but rich, white guys/gals". I don't know where these chapters are that you speak of but I haven't seen too many fraternities like that in the last 30 years. Mine, and the ones I interacted with at UT-Austin were most certainly not like that. Jesus, have you ever heard of the Alphas or the Omegas (large black fraternities)or better yet, the Sigma Alpha Mu's or Zeta Beta Tau (jewish fraternities)?
Methinks you need to get better information before generalizing about a subject you clearly know nothing about.
(sidenote: there are exceptions to every rule. I am certain there are asshole frats/sororities out there somewhere. All I am saying in this post is that they are few and far between. I don't know where the frat/sorority hater attitude comes from on/. but I definitely feel it. I just think people should be a little more open minded about them, that's all. For most "greeks", the experience is very positive. Why do you hate that?)
Wanna guess when they first started pursuing this litigation?
And why hasn't there been some kind of investigation as to whether SCO did this specifically to manipulate the price of it's shares? Sure seems interesting when you look at this chart. We all know and feel it. But I don't know if you could PROVE manipulation so nothing will probably come of it.
Nobody is prohibited from making friends with non-members. Not a single fraternity or sorority espouses that thinking. Despite what you seem to think, the "greek community" on most college campuses has lots of inter-mixing of people. After all, it's a college campus, right? And those people represent the same variety that the college represents. The old days of "Biff and Buffy" a la Revenge of the Nerds are long over and in fact, I doubt they ever existed in the first place.
Jeez - get a grip! A fraternity or sorority is only ONE way for people to make lifelong friends. There are, obviously, many others.
All the GP was saying is this: frats and sororities are SOCIAL organizations. And like ANY social organization, you would meet people that you would not have met, had you not joined the organization.
Why is that so hard to understand and why are you purposely trying to twist his words?
Very cool video of them levitating all kinds of light things.
The first thing I wondered while watching is: why can't you flip that device upsidedown, increase the power, and make the ultimate hovercraft? This technology seems like it has military applications written all over it. And one poster has already mentioned Bobby Inman worked on this technology back in the 80's. Bobby Inman is definitely military (intelligence though, not R&D or skunkworks).
I'm not suggesting some super secret conspiracy, but it seems obvious that the military would be interested in something like this. So, why isn't a hovercraft like this possible, given enough power input (think: nuke on a sub) and enough downward amplification?
Has anyone ever heard of anything such as this? I haven't. There are certainly lots of acoustic applications in the military (crowd control, ship defense, etc) but I haven't ever heard of an acoustic hovercraft or transport of anykind.
The real troublesome issue here is that we again have seen the US bullying another nation into line, closely aided by (MP/RI)AA.
Do you honestly believe we are "bullying" our old cold-war partner (for 40 years) into doing something they really don't want to do? Doubtful.
This is the ex-USSR we are talking about here. Not some banana republic in the caribbean. If the USSR doesn't want to go along with us on something -- then they don't. It's that simple.
Of course the legality of downloading tv shows could be questioned, but it's not something that keeps me awake at night.
Since you are streaming it to yourself, I would be surprised if there are any copyright implications with respect to Orb. uTorrent might be a different story but as far as Orb goes, it's just software that transcodes and streams and there isn't anything in the laws that prevents one from transcoding and streaming their own videos to yourself.
So, for $15, I get to stream amateur videos to my cell phone?
How about, instead, I stream my own videos to myself using Orb and along with that, I can hit some online TV broadcasts, some internet radio, and prolly my mp3 collection (haven't tried that yet). And oh yea, one last thing: it's $0.
Listen, it's mainstream now. Back then, you didn't have many people agreeing there are problems. With the voting machine debate nowadays, you are starting to see that. And regarding the 4 companies that MAKE the machines, that's a good thing.
Wasn't the thread about voting machines and the problems going on today?
I am sitting here at my desk remembering when we here at/. first got wind of electronic voting machines and the issues associated with them. There have been countless debates about the issue on slashdot and I just want to take a moment and say:
Nice work, everyone! The American public now knows about this issue. I have no idea what the eventual outcome will be but we should all pat ourselves on the back (just a little bit) for making the public better informed about these problems. With technology issues and concerns, we constantly lament about the general public "not getting it". And in most cases, they don't. This time, however, I think they actually get it.
And that makes me smile because there was a time, not so long ago, when this issue wasn't on ANYONE's radar. Now it is.
Keep up the good work and keep the discussion going! It's the only way things will change.
Hundreds of comments and not a single one mentions that NASA is a CMMI Level 5 organization. For those that don't know (and apparently, that's a lot of you), CMMI, aka Capability Maturity Model Integration, is software ENGINEERING methodology for developing processes and technologies around IT systems. It is a very in-depth methodology for developing software and comes about as close to "engineering" as you can get in software development.
And just to put it into perspective, when I was last working with CMMI, there were only 3 companies certfied at level 5. Nasa, Motorola, and another one I can't remember. I am sure that has changed but nonetheless, it's a big deal and shows a serious effort to do things in a controlled, measureable, testable, way.
I only bring this up to counter the ridiculous "solutions" that some have proposed on this site.
"I can fix that in 3 lines of code".
Well, great. That might work at YOUR company. But please don't do that at NASA. Despite what many think here, NASA is a top-notch software development house. And I would expect nothing less given what is at stake.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we are getting pretty deep here, philosophically but I'll play. It's hard to define the boundries of "free market" and "government" -- they both play very close to one another and affect each other. Governments have the ability to pass laws and regulations that the free market must absorb and account for. Sometimes this has good consequences and sometimes it has bad consequences. So, it's hard to determine where a given oligopoly "came from". (note: before we begin, full disclosure: I am an avid capitalist. Hate socialism. Generally think the free market works - but not in all cases.)
Oligopolies created by free markets, also known as natural monopolies, are plentiful*. See Standard Oil. See AT&T. See Microsoft. Yes, there are govt created oligopolies (govts can create just about anything they want) but to say that the free market WON'T create oligopolies doesn't match what we see in the real world. Maybe that's because our definitions of free markets are different - but that's a question for another day. In any case, go to any "free market" country and you will find many many industries that only have 1-5 players and furthermore, those 1-5 players are doing everything they can to make sure it only remains 1-5 players (rational business decisions). That is the very definition of oligopoly. Since it happens in almost every single free-market in the world, it's hard to argue that free markets don't create some oligopolies.
Now, throw in a splash of patent protection, trademark protection, and dubious copyright laws -- and you have a system that is RIPE for the creation of oligopolies. If free markets produced LESS oligopolies, then how come the USA has so many industries that at totally dominated by 1-5 players? Why is that? I'll tell you why: because the free markets - by definition - are not regulated. And some regulation is required to keep markets fair. (even the most capitalist of capitalists recognize the need for some regulation - telcos, for example. See my previous disclaimer.)
A good illustration is AT&T and phone rentals. Way back when, AT&T decided that the ONLY devices allowed to be used on their system were phones you rented from them. That was the only (artificial) option. Of course, it's obvious, that this is in the best interests of AT&T and not consumers, right?
In a fair market, the consumers have other alternatives if they don't like what AT&T does. However, back then there were NO competitors in this area -- so consumers could take it or leave it. Some would argue that has not changed and is still the case in 2006. I point out this example because this happened in a free market (right here in the US) and at the time, there was very little regulation. And lastly, we all know what happened after that (AT&T ruled a monopoly, broken up)
Another interesting market is the world-wide market for diamonds. As you already know, DeBeers is the oligarch here. Now, nobody would claim that the market for diamonds, worldwide, is regulated. It most certainly is not as consumers have plenty of choice (or so it would seem). So answer me this: if the market is almost 100% unregulated, how does an oligarch like DeBeers come about? They don't have any worldwide government sponsorship and I am certain the S. African government is not powerful enough to force DeBeers on anyone. So how did they get into a oligarchy situation?
The bottom line is this: free-markets need some regulation. But often, if the regulation is not done correctly, the regulations themselves create an oligopolistic opporunity. It's not strictly the government that creates oligopolies. It's not strictly the free markets that creates them either. It is a combination of both that creates oligopolies.
Oligopolies are the result OF a free market if those markets are not regulated and made fair.
Like Highlander, there can only be One (or 3-4 in this case)
I can safely say that if your "geek" friends can't figure out how to burn an ISO (assuming they have access to Google or any other search engine), then they aren't geeks. Instead, they are "power users" or "advanced" users. But not geeks.
Part of being a geek is figuring it out. Be it with your current software or a different application that does the same thing. And by the very definition of the word, geeks have already figured out a LOT of stuff. Otherwise, people wouldn't say they are geeks, would they?
Sorry to rant but I have trouble with self-described geeks that can't figure out the most basic of IT questions. I see this more and more in the world. There seems to be an abundance of people calling themselves geeks but a severe lack of knowledge and understanding from those same people. I wonder how/why that is?
(And just to make sure nobody thinks I am trying to be arrogant here, I too, have asked my fair share of questions. But I started with Google and went from there. Usually, I found my answer in a couple of mouse clicks. And especially with something like burning ISO's. There are, literally, hundreds of sites that tell you, exactly, how to burn an ISO. So how does a true geek miss that? Answer: they're either 100% totally lazy, or 100% not a geek. I think the latter.)
"Really? Even with AK47's, MG-3s, SAWs, full auto M16 in the hands of the people, can you really take on a military with tanks, helicopters, and B52 bombers at their disposal. "
Yes. See Iraq. Insurgencies and guerilla tactics can be VERY effective. And Americans would be no different if they were in this position. You assume that the govt could actually USE the B-52's. And I would say: use where? After all, what good is a totally demolished country with 300 million dead people? That's not even useful for Bush and Co.
You'd have plenty of National Guard, Reservists, and other "military types" who DO have the armament and resources to fight back -- and they would most certainly help their friends, families, towns, etc. After all, they are people to. Do you really think an army officer would shoot his best friend and arrest his own family because of the orders from a President in an office halfway across the continent? What about the B-52 pilot who is ordered to drop 40K lbs of bombs on a Chicago suburb? Doubtful. (and yes, I and they would understand the consequences of ignoring such an order)
People seem to think that the military is homogenous. It's not. There are ALL kinds of people in the armed forces. Some would help the "resistance". Others would not. But one thing is for sure: there will always be those who help the people against the government.
That's all that is needed.
Oh good god, I stand corrected. Apparently, I am not cynical enough (never thought I would say that!)
Tax breaks for consumer electronics? Yea, ok. That'll happen about....never. The IRS does not do this and wouldn't even consider it -- regardless of how much you want to grandstand and exaggerate.
If you think the GOVERNMENT is going to give back the money they take from us so they can make us dumber when we go blow it on TV's, I think you are smoking crack. Not even I am that cynical.
And here are the reasons why:
1) The government isn't bright enough to think of it
2) The government doesn't give back money unless you forcibly take it from the (via laws or the repealing of)
3) The government loves to spend money
4) I've never seen a government mule but I hear they are well-fed
This is retarded, IMHO. While open source is good for a lot of things, I don't think this is one of them.
Are car part designs really that incumbered by patents or IP issues? So much so that someone CAN'T design their own without running afoul of the law?
After all, don't forget that Mopar (and countless others) have been knocking off manufacturer's parts for years. And they are still around.
While it's nice that the designs would be "open", I think practically speaking, they already are.
Is it just me or does anyone else wonder why a MEDIA PLAYER is even exploitable? Why is it so hard to secure an application that plays/views data files. Can't you build in some limitations to prevent this problem? I mean, after all, it's nothing more than a "viewer" of data files (streamed or local). MSFT continues to add "functionality" to it's media player and now they are reaping what they sow. Media players don't need scripting and all the other "functionality" MSFT *thinks* we need. Just play the damn file, thank you very much.
Seems like with ever iteration of MSFT Media Player, more exploits come to fruition. I miss my media player ver 6.4, which was simple and convenient.
Since ver 6.4, media player has become a steaming pile of doo-doo. Hell, I can't even open multiple video windows with MP 10 and MP 11. It's like we are going backwards with these things....and the exploits just add fuel to the fire.
Sorry, I just had to get this off my chest. Its been a peeve of mine for a long time (and yes, I now use VLC)
"Do you have any idea at all how peer-to-peer networks work? Every downloader is an uploader as well."
Not exactly, cowboy. There is one peer to peer system, that does not require upload.
Now shutup and dont tell anybody.
I think your comment is a bit extreme. Bill G didn't STEAL anything. He may have used some backhanded ways of doing business, but he most definitely did not steal anything.
I am all for bashing MSFTy when appropriate - and for legitimate concerns - but suggesting that Bill stole his wealth is disingenuous at best.
He said SMALL business. Most small businesses I know don't have in-house counsel. Hell, many are lucky if they have ANY counsel, even on retainer.
Good suggestion, but way off base for small business.
I have the same problem the GP mentioned and am not sure if this affects us or not. How would you know if you are "subject to federal lawsuits"? EEOC (discrimination) lawsuits would count as federal -- so do I need to address this or not? In theory, everyone is subject to federal suits so should everyone have to deal with this? I don't know.
That is what the GP was asking.
You wrote, "It should pay to work. Putting someone in a situation where they get *less* for working *more* just serves as an insurance that these people won't, infact, work more." I 100% agree.
Please remember those words next time we all jump on the bandwagon to "tax the rich" more.
Instead of "health care" and "working", insert "start new businesses" and "providing jobs". It's the same thing. When you tax the rich, you provide LESS incentive for people to get out there and create businesses and jobs. Why bother to start that new company and make that extra $50K next year if you KNOW they are going to tax the crap out of it and you'll wind up taking home less money than if you never started it at all.
And keep in mind, your definition of rich and Congress's definition of rich are not the same. When you and I say rich - we are talking about the millionaire types. When Congress says rich, they mean anyone above the poverty line. Keep that in mind too...
Yes, I would expect to see some "damage" -- and perhaps that's why we aren't seeing anything in this space. Maybe it's too damaging (and loud) to be effective? I mean, if your enemy can detect seismic activity when you come to storm the beaches, there is not much point.
I think you are right about the defenses part of it though. In fact, recently, somewhere near Africa (I think) there was a cruise ship that was attacked by pirates (real pirates). They used some kind of acoustic defense to repel the attack. There weren't alot of details on it but I think this is what you are talking about.
Still, I have to wonder why this is the first time someone has mentioned it? I can't find ANY information even relating to this technology. Obviously, there is lots of acoustic information out there, but nothing that specifically addresses firing high-amplitude accoustic waves at the ground for the purposes of levitation.
Like I said, we had a little of everybody. That's kinda the whole point.
I think what you meant to say is this: "since frats and sororities are not a big priority to me, I decided to use my money elsewhere." It's doubtful that you truly can't afford to join any fraternity or sorority. You may not WANT to join -- but I am sure you could afford it, if you really wanted to. Cut back on iPod downloads for a few weeks and you got it covered...
/. but I definitely feel it. I just think people should be a little more open minded about them, that's all. For most "greeks", the experience is very positive. Why do you hate that?)
In my fraternity, at a large and well known university, we had all kinds of people in it. We had guys that came from money. And we had guys who worked to pay their dues. About 1/2 of our chapter worked part time through college so I am very familiar with your (underhanded) jab about "blue collar". I am, and come from, blue collar as well so I take offense at your comment that frats and sororities don't have "blue collar" people in them. They do...and your comment is so wrong, on so many different levels, that I can't even talk about it anymore.
Additionally, we had several different races represented and even more different backgrounds. We had small-town guys and we had "big city" guys from Houston and Dallas. About the only common thing that ALL of us had together was this: we were all enrolled and going to school at UT.
Again, you trot out the same old, tired stereotype. "Frats/sororities are nothing but rich, white guys/gals". I don't know where these chapters are that you speak of but I haven't seen too many fraternities like that in the last 30 years. Mine, and the ones I interacted with at UT-Austin were most certainly not like that. Jesus, have you ever heard of the Alphas or the Omegas (large black fraternities)or better yet, the Sigma Alpha Mu's or Zeta Beta Tau (jewish fraternities)?
Methinks you need to get better information before generalizing about a subject you clearly know nothing about.
(sidenote: there are exceptions to every rule. I am certain there are asshole frats/sororities out there somewhere. All I am saying in this post is that they are few and far between. I don't know where the frat/sorority hater attitude comes from on
Check this long-term view of SCO's stock.
Wanna guess when they first started pursuing this litigation?
And why hasn't there been some kind of investigation as to whether SCO did this specifically to manipulate the price of it's shares? Sure seems interesting when you look at this chart. We all know and feel it. But I don't know if you could PROVE manipulation so nothing will probably come of it.
Nobody is prohibited from making friends with non-members. Not a single fraternity or sorority espouses that thinking. Despite what you seem to think, the "greek community" on most college campuses has lots of inter-mixing of people. After all, it's a college campus, right? And those people represent the same variety that the college represents. The old days of "Biff and Buffy" a la Revenge of the Nerds are long over and in fact, I doubt they ever existed in the first place.
Jeez - get a grip! A fraternity or sorority is only ONE way for people to make lifelong friends. There are, obviously, many others.
All the GP was saying is this: frats and sororities are SOCIAL organizations. And like ANY social organization, you would meet people that you would not have met, had you not joined the organization.
Why is that so hard to understand and why are you purposely trying to twist his words?
Very cool video of them levitating all kinds of light things.
The first thing I wondered while watching is: why can't you flip that device upsidedown, increase the power, and make the ultimate hovercraft? This technology seems like it has military applications written all over it. And one poster has already mentioned Bobby Inman worked on this technology back in the 80's. Bobby Inman is definitely military (intelligence though, not R&D or skunkworks).
I'm not suggesting some super secret conspiracy, but it seems obvious that the military would be interested in something like this. So, why isn't a hovercraft like this possible, given enough power input (think: nuke on a sub) and enough downward amplification?
Has anyone ever heard of anything such as this? I haven't. There are certainly lots of acoustic applications in the military (crowd control, ship defense, etc) but I haven't ever heard of an acoustic hovercraft or transport of anykind.
The real troublesome issue here is that we again have seen the US bullying another nation into line, closely aided by (MP/RI)AA.
Do you honestly believe we are "bullying" our old cold-war partner (for 40 years) into doing something they really don't want to do? Doubtful.
This is the ex-USSR we are talking about here. Not some banana republic in the caribbean. If the USSR doesn't want to go along with us on something -- then they don't. It's that simple.
Of course the legality of downloading tv shows could be questioned, but it's not something that keeps me awake at night.
Since you are streaming it to yourself, I would be surprised if there are any copyright implications with respect to Orb. uTorrent might be a different story but as far as Orb goes, it's just software that transcodes and streams and there isn't anything in the laws that prevents one from transcoding and streaming their own videos to yourself.
So, for $15, I get to stream amateur videos to my cell phone?
How about, instead, I stream my own videos to myself using Orb and along with that, I can hit some online TV broadcasts, some internet radio, and prolly my mp3 collection (haven't tried that yet). And oh yea, one last thing: it's $0.
But yea, this Verizon/Youtube thing is cool too.
lol...definitely fair on that one. :)
Yea, that's why I said "(just a little bit)"...
Listen, it's mainstream now. Back then, you didn't have many people agreeing there are problems. With the voting machine debate nowadays, you are starting to see that. And regarding the 4 companies that MAKE the machines, that's a good thing.
Wasn't the thread about voting machines and the problems going on today?
I am sitting here at my desk remembering when we here at /. first got wind of electronic voting machines and the issues associated with them. There have been countless debates about the issue on slashdot and I just want to take a moment and say:
Nice work, everyone! The American public now knows about this issue. I have no idea what the eventual outcome will be but we should all pat ourselves on the back (just a little bit) for making the public better informed about these problems. With technology issues and concerns, we constantly lament about the general public "not getting it". And in most cases, they don't. This time, however, I think they actually get it.
And that makes me smile because there was a time, not so long ago, when this issue wasn't on ANYONE's radar. Now it is.
Keep up the good work and keep the discussion going! It's the only way things will change.
Hundreds of comments and not a single one mentions that NASA is a CMMI Level 5 organization. For those that don't know (and apparently, that's a lot of you), CMMI, aka Capability Maturity Model Integration, is software ENGINEERING methodology for developing processes and technologies around IT systems. It is a very in-depth methodology for developing software and comes about as close to "engineering" as you can get in software development.
Here is a list of participants in this program.
And here is a general overview of what CMMI is.
And just to put it into perspective, when I was last working with CMMI, there were only 3 companies certfied at level 5. Nasa, Motorola, and another one I can't remember. I am sure that has changed but nonetheless, it's a big deal and shows a serious effort to do things in a controlled, measureable, testable, way.
I only bring this up to counter the ridiculous "solutions" that some have proposed on this site.
"I can fix that in 3 lines of code".
Well, great. That might work at YOUR company. But please don't do that at NASA. Despite what many think here, NASA is a top-notch software development house. And I would expect nothing less given what is at stake.