I'm reminded of a comment a biker friend of mine made about his Harley. It was made during the AMF days, which are generally viewed by the Harley types as a very dark period. But Skip pointed out that, although the bikes actually produced during that time may have been substandard, without the money AMF invested in a money-losing operation, there wouldn't be ANY Harley's in production today. Harley would have folded like every other American motorcycle manufacturer.
Actually, I think you may have put your finger on something. I think that part of the reason the French get reviled in the USA is the under-representation of French descended US citizens. Outside of Louisiana, there don't seem to be a lot of people whocan call France "the old country". Most of the rest of Europe sent waves of immigrants, but not France (well, not Spain either, but the US gets the Spanish incluence via the southwestern route.) I can only think of 1 person I've ever met whose ancestors came from France, and even he pointed out he was from the Alsace region, which he described as "more German than French."
Think of it this way - if one were to make a crack about Ireland, Italy, Germany, etc., there's a pretty good chance that someone in the immediate vicinity will take offense. When was the last time anyone you know defended France due to an ancestral tie? (Besides yourself, of course)
Or for that matter, any other country. You seem to forget that NO ONE likes France except the French (And maybe the folks in that suburb next door, what's it's name...Belgium!). Just because the US has recently eclipsed France as the Most Hated Country in the world shouldn't obscure France's long tenure at #1, and it's current solid position at #2 (there's a bad pun in there, somewhere)
Ditto here. I was on a construction site, and I was the last person on site at quitting time. I sanitized my laptop, sent my own termination notice to IT, left the keys on the desk and locked up on my way out. I figured that, even though I was leaving because my boss was an asshole, I could keep my own integrity intact.
"It's like a gun. They're not always used for murders - sometimes it might get used to defend your home, or for something like hunting. But it's primary purpose for being will always be to kill people."
Huh? There certainly are guns whose primary purpose is killing people, whether or not killing them is justified. But there are a whole shitload of guns that are not designed for killing people - trap shotguns, large caliber hunting rifles, target rifles, etc. For that matter, small caliber military arems aren't really designed to kill - they are intended to wound and disable, which tends to be more effective in a combat situation. To be sure, one can use a trap gun or a.460 Weatherby to kill a person, and some military sniper rifles make dandy long range hunting rifles, but those are secondary uses.
You seem to subscribe to the theory that objects have a moral value based on the intent of the makers. Good luck with that.
(BTW, you may want to stop using birth control - Margret Sanger was an avid eugenicist, and the original point of contraceptives was to control the "undesirable" populations.)
To say that Hillary won in NY because of her name implies that she could have won anywhere. I believe that is incorrect - her name identified her as a Democrat, and NYC votes Democrat (the rest of the state really doesn't matter when electing Senators)
The reason she chose NY per se is that the state has extremely liberal residency requirements for its politicians. IIRC correctly, establishing a domicile as of election day is enough. She bought a house in NY, and that qualified her - she didn't actually have to live in it. It's the same reason Robert Kennedy ran in New York instead of Massachusetts - it was the fastest way to the Congress.
It sounds like you've acquired the knowledge he is interested in. How about some books that offer a primer in that knowledge? That's what the OP asked for.
Also, don't forget that, due to the Baen Free Library and the CD's with extremely liberal licensing, the Honor Harrington books can be had for $0. As well as a ton of other books, including some that should appeal to girls.
You are right - the internet can't be controlled and the rest of the world could abandon the root servers.
Why then is the EU and other countries demanding that the US "give up control" of the internet? Perhaps they are equally stupid? Or perhaps they see an opportunity to perform a kind of international Eminent Domain, taking control of property (root servers) owned by someone for the greater good.
Tell me, if the EU is so concerned, why DON'T they just abandon the US root servers?
"...the iPod which is a relatively mediocre product in a sea of other mediocre products. Sure, the interface is great, the scroll wheel brilliant, but in the end it only does one thing -- play music (and videos now -- poorly)."
So your definition of a great product is one that does many things as opposed to just one thing. Others have a different aesthetic - I would rather have a device that does 1 thing REALLY well versus doing many things.
For instance, I carry a great pocketknife. You would tell me that it's a mediocre pocketknife because it's not a Leatherman. But I'm not looking to carry a Leatherman - I want a pocketknife.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think for a minute that the Republicans were proposing it from principles either. Right now, I believe the consensus among the political parties is that blogging has helped Republicans more than Democrats - the CBS memo fiasco comes to mind. Republicans see an advantage in unrestricted blogging; the Democrats don't. Thus, the vote tally.
Would you really stand there and state that, if the Democrats thought blogging was working better for them than the Republicans, that this still wouldn't have passed? Conversely, that the Republicans would have even brought it up?
I want to go on record by saying that 1) I think focussing on software and computers for Africa's problems, free or not, is a collosal waste of time. (I think the same about computers in primary and secondary education as well) 2) I HATE when people see racism everywhere.
But...
The reasoning MS gives is eerily similar to old arguements for slavery and discrimination.
"If you free the slaves, they won't know what to do with their freedom" "If you give women/blacks/18 year olds the franchise, they won't know how to vote"
"don't want to live with a situation anymore in which only one nation, the US, controls critical parts of their infrastructure"
Let me pose a question - why DO these countries rely on the internet for "critical parts of their infrastructure?" It's not like the US suddenly nationalized the DNS servers. Why is Brazil running 90% of their tax collections over a network ostensibly controlled by someone other than themselves?
Here's an answer - DNS service is free, and these other countries were taking advantage of a freebie provided by the US federal government. They have been risking their operations for years, and are just now realizing it, and their response is to demand control over something they don't own instead of developing more reliable systems in house.
As for the EU being a mediator, you are being disingenuous. Nations that don't want the US to have oversite of DNS want simply that - no US control. The EUs' "compromise" position? No US control, but UN control. So the nations that are complaining get 100% of what they want, and the US gets what? Generally, a compromise is when both parties get at least something of what they want. But in the EU scenario, the US is getting the screwing without even the consolation of a reach-around.
No, really - what does the US get out of this proposal? The US government has paid for a service that the whole world has been able to use for free, enabling almost incalculable savings and economic growth to these countries. Now the EU wants the UN to play eminent domain and take that property away "for the greater good" - how will the US government be compensated?
Here's a proposal - let's have the EU and other counties calculate what they have saved in not having to develop their own systems, and offer the US 10% of that. Now calculate the economic growth fostered by this US largess, and offer the US 1% of that. After the 1 Bajillion USD check clears, the US federal government will deliver those little DNS servers to the front door of the UN - after creating our own DNS system for our critical infrastructure (aside from the other networks we already have). Then, since the UN can't organize an orgy in a whorehouse without a multinational committee, much less set up a DNS system that's given to them (who, exactly will run it - the infighting will be endless), the rest of the world will come clamoring back to ICANN and ask to join back up.
But even in arguing against it, you are buying into the EU's most pernicious argument. You use the statement "allow nameservers elsewhere." This is the big lie that the EU is trying to promulgate - that the US has any control over what other countries do regarding nameservers. If the EU puts up its own set of name servers, wht will the US do? No, really?
The EU isn't upset that the US is exercising inapprpriate control over the root servers; they are upset that they are being DENIED that control. They want to have control over equipment they didn't purchase and people they didn't hire, not because the US is abusing them them, but because the root servers aren't being "controlled" the way the EU would see fit.
So far the argument against transferring control to the UN is that the US is a benevolent dictator and/or "if it isn't broke, don't fix it." That is already buying into the EU argument. The reality is that the EU WANTS to "break it" by installing themselves as the dictator (via the UN), and we are to simply trust that they will be benevolent
Bullshit. No one is after the "hobbyist" programmer, because "hobbiest" programmers don'r sell their services with an outrageous EULA.
In your hypothetical situation, did you charge money for your services? If so, the fact that you slapped together a script and sold it without doing the least bit of due dilligence ("So, what's this script for, anyway") means YOU are negligent, and they at least deserve their money back.
If you didn't charge for it you are in the clear - no contract, no problem.
Sorry about the idiots who want to sue your folks; they should have shot themselves, but what do stupid lawsuits have to do with contract law?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm reminded of a comment a biker friend of mine made about his Harley. It was made during the AMF days, which are generally viewed by the Harley types as a very dark period. But Skip pointed out that, although the bikes actually produced during that time may have been substandard, without the money AMF invested in a money-losing operation, there wouldn't be ANY Harley's in production today. Harley would have folded like every other American motorcycle manufacturer.
Actually, I think you may have put your finger on something. I think that part of the reason the French get reviled in the USA is the under-representation of French descended US citizens. Outside of Louisiana, there don't seem to be a lot of people whocan call France "the old country". Most of the rest of Europe sent waves of immigrants, but not France (well, not Spain either, but the US gets the Spanish incluence via the southwestern route.) I can only think of 1 person I've ever met whose ancestors came from France, and even he pointed out he was from the Alsace region, which he described as "more German than French."
Think of it this way - if one were to make a crack about Ireland, Italy, Germany, etc., there's a pretty good chance that someone in the immediate vicinity will take offense. When was the last time anyone you know defended France due to an ancestral tie? (Besides yourself, of course)
"You must be from U.S.A."
Or Britain.
Or Germany.
Or Canada (Well, the non-Quebec parts, anyway).
Or Russia.
Or for that matter, any other country. You seem to forget that NO ONE likes France except the French (And maybe the folks in that suburb next door, what's it's name...Belgium!). Just because the US has recently eclipsed France as the Most Hated Country in the world shouldn't obscure France's long tenure at #1, and it's current solid position at #2 (there's a bad pun in there, somewhere)
Abortion isn't legal in the US? I thought that the big hairy deal here was that abortion IS legal.
But hey, whatever one needs to say to make one's point...
1) Talk up a Google buyout
2) Stock price increases
3) Insiders sell stock
4) PROFIT (for some...)
Ditto here. I was on a construction site, and I was the last person on site at quitting time. I sanitized my laptop, sent my own termination notice to IT, left the keys on the desk and locked up on my way out. I figured that, even though I was leaving because my boss was an asshole, I could keep my own integrity intact.
"It's like a gun. They're not always used for murders - sometimes it might get used to defend your home, or for something like hunting. But it's primary purpose for being will always be to kill people."
.460 Weatherby to kill a person, and some military sniper rifles make dandy long range hunting rifles, but those are secondary uses.
Huh? There certainly are guns whose primary purpose is killing people, whether or not killing them is justified. But there are a whole shitload of guns that are not designed for killing people - trap shotguns, large caliber hunting rifles, target rifles, etc. For that matter, small caliber military arems aren't really designed to kill - they are intended to wound and disable, which tends to be more effective in a combat situation. To be sure, one can use a trap gun or a
You seem to subscribe to the theory that objects have a moral value based on the intent of the makers. Good luck with that.
(BTW, you may want to stop using birth control - Margret Sanger was an avid eugenicist, and the original point of contraceptives was to control the "undesirable" populations.)
"They should have a non partisan agency to advise them about these issues -- then perhaps stuff like this wouldn't be overlooked."
they did - it was called the Office of Technology Assessment. http://www.access.gpo.gov/ota/
Congress got rid of it.
To say that Hillary won in NY because of her name implies that she could have won anywhere. I believe that is incorrect - her name identified her as a Democrat, and NYC votes Democrat (the rest of the state really doesn't matter when electing Senators)
The reason she chose NY per se is that the state has extremely liberal residency requirements for its politicians. IIRC correctly, establishing a domicile as of election day is enough. She bought a house in NY, and that qualified her - she didn't actually have to live in it. It's the same reason Robert Kennedy ran in New York instead of Massachusetts - it was the fastest way to the Congress.
It sounds like you've acquired the knowledge he is interested in. How about some books that offer a primer in that knowledge? That's what the OP asked for.
Also, don't forget that, due to the Baen Free Library and the CD's with extremely liberal licensing, the Honor Harrington books can be had for $0. As well as a ton of other books, including some that should appeal to girls.
"the correct pronunciation of my name is more like "goat-toe.""
Is that anything like camel toe?
They told me never to use GoTo statements in my Fortran class at Lehigh. Lying bastards!
A "sneak" paek isn't the problem - it's when it becomes not so sneaky.
That's OK, I'll take the zero.
Although I think I once caught a female classmate jilling off in the middle of class using the crossed legs trick.
"just factor in the extra cost of having your SUV keyed every couple of months"
Yeah, THAT will put you on the moral high ground.
"Assignment Earth" - an 18 year old Terri Garr in her first role. Mmmmmm.
You are right - the internet can't be controlled and the rest of the world could abandon the root servers.
Why then is the EU and other countries demanding that the US "give up control" of the internet? Perhaps they are equally stupid? Or perhaps they see an opportunity to perform a kind of international Eminent Domain, taking control of property (root servers) owned by someone for the greater good.
Tell me, if the EU is so concerned, why DON'T they just abandon the US root servers?
Why?
"...the iPod which is a relatively mediocre product in a sea of other mediocre products. Sure, the interface is great, the scroll wheel brilliant, but in the end it only does one thing -- play music (and videos now -- poorly)."
So your definition of a great product is one that does many things as opposed to just one thing. Others have a different aesthetic - I would rather have a device that does 1 thing REALLY well versus doing many things.
For instance, I carry a great pocketknife. You would tell me that it's a mediocre pocketknife because it's not a Leatherman. But I'm not looking to carry a Leatherman - I want a pocketknife.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think for a minute that the Republicans were proposing it from principles either. Right now, I believe the consensus among the political parties is that blogging has helped Republicans more than Democrats - the CBS memo fiasco comes to mind. Republicans see an advantage in unrestricted blogging; the Democrats don't. Thus, the vote tally.
Would you really stand there and state that, if the Democrats thought blogging was working better for them than the Republicans, that this still wouldn't have passed? Conversely, that the Republicans would have even brought it up?
The Dems must have decided that the Republicans get more advantage from blogging than they do.
No principles here, move along...
I want to go on record by saying that
1) I think focussing on software and computers for Africa's problems, free or not, is a collosal waste of time. (I think the same about computers in primary and secondary education as well)
2) I HATE when people see racism everywhere.
But...
The reasoning MS gives is eerily similar to old arguements for slavery and discrimination.
"If you free the slaves, they won't know what to do with their freedom"
"If you give women/blacks/18 year olds the franchise, they won't know how to vote"
Not buying it.
Search for it; it's what you need. Not cheap, but doing something the right way rarely is.
"don't want to live with a situation anymore in which only one nation, the US, controls critical parts of their infrastructure"
Let me pose a question - why DO these countries rely on the internet for "critical parts of their infrastructure?" It's not like the US suddenly nationalized the DNS servers. Why is Brazil running 90% of their tax collections over a network ostensibly controlled by someone other than themselves?
Here's an answer - DNS service is free, and these other countries were taking advantage of a freebie provided by the US federal government. They have been risking their operations for years, and are just now realizing it, and their response is to demand control over something they don't own instead of developing more reliable systems in house.
As for the EU being a mediator, you are being disingenuous. Nations that don't want the US to have oversite of DNS want simply that - no US control. The EUs' "compromise" position? No US control, but UN control. So the nations that are complaining get 100% of what they want, and the US gets what? Generally, a compromise is when both parties get at least something of what they want. But in the EU scenario, the US is getting the screwing without even the consolation of a reach-around.
No, really - what does the US get out of this proposal? The US government has paid for a service that the whole world has been able to use for free, enabling almost incalculable savings and economic growth to these countries. Now the EU wants the UN to play eminent domain and take that property away "for the greater good" - how will the US government be compensated?
Here's a proposal - let's have the EU and other counties calculate what they have saved in not having to develop their own systems, and offer the US 10% of that. Now calculate the economic growth fostered by this US largess, and offer the US 1% of that. After the 1 Bajillion USD check clears, the US federal government will deliver those little DNS servers to the front door of the UN - after creating our own DNS system for our critical infrastructure (aside from the other networks we already have). Then, since the UN can't organize an orgy in a whorehouse without a multinational committee, much less set up a DNS system that's given to them (who, exactly will run it - the infighting will be endless), the rest of the world will come clamoring back to ICANN and ask to join back up.
But even in arguing against it, you are buying into the EU's most pernicious argument. You use the statement "allow nameservers elsewhere." This is the big lie that the EU is trying to promulgate - that the US has any control over what other countries do regarding nameservers. If the EU puts up its own set of name servers, wht will the US do? No, really?
The EU isn't upset that the US is exercising inapprpriate control over the root servers; they are upset that they are being DENIED that control. They want to have control over equipment they didn't purchase and people they didn't hire, not because the US is abusing them them, but because the root servers aren't being "controlled" the way the EU would see fit.
So far the argument against transferring control to the UN is that the US is a benevolent dictator and/or "if it isn't broke, don't fix it." That is already buying into the EU argument. The reality is that the EU WANTS to "break it" by installing themselves as the dictator (via the UN), and we are to simply trust that they will be benevolent
Bullshit. No one is after the "hobbyist" programmer, because "hobbiest" programmers don'r sell their services with an outrageous EULA.
In your hypothetical situation, did you charge money for your services? If so, the fact that you slapped together a script and sold it without doing the least bit of due dilligence ("So, what's this script for, anyway") means YOU are negligent, and they at least deserve their money back.
If you didn't charge for it you are in the clear - no contract, no problem.
Sorry about the idiots who want to sue your folks; they should have shot themselves, but what do stupid lawsuits have to do with contract law?