I still beg to differ. There are tons of "votes" made on the internet all of the time. Now, are they official, political votes? No. The Arizona Democratic Primary was run by a private political party to choose their nominee. While the two big political parties get to have their primaries run by the states, I believe they still pay for them. It doesn't mean that it was some official government election. I could definately be wrong though.
Regardless, I still think that a real vote, on a real issue, not just picking someone to run in a primary, is what is at issue here.
Being an Arizonan myself, I wish I could agree, but I don't think that a primary election for a party is really the same thing as an actual election (or a referendum in the case of the Swiss).
Space exploration and colonization is the next logical step for any technology based society
I like how you stated this as if there is some official book on how technology based societies are supposed to act. I'm guessing that you either got this idea from Star Trek or from the Civilization games.
My wife just recently had a baby and the hospital where she gave birth has a security system that involves the attachment of a clip to the newborns umbilical cord. This clip has a security chip that emits a radio signal. If the baby is removed from the nursery/obstetrical area, an alarm is sounded, doors are locked and elevators are stopped.
When we first heard about this security system, we thought that the chip was actually implemented in the babies bellybutton. This was due to some miscommunication. After getting the matter clarified, we gave the ok. It is something you can refuse to get, and we definately would have if it had been a permanent chip. But now I'm starting to hear about implanted tracking systems for older children. It is a scary world we are entering.
Cornering and breaking will be determined by software. Does this mean that you will get a license agreement for your car?
Of course not, this is just silly. Think of how much stuff you use that is powered by either build in software or embeddeded devices. Do you get a license agreement with them?
So we will all be driving corvettes, but they will be tuned to drive like pintos unless we but the upgrade
Again, of course not. Many parts of the automobile are already controlled by embedded hardware, making the jump to software is no big deal. They already have the ability to stick a chip in your car to limit its speed, but they don't. Why not? Because it's stupid.
Will third party/open source be legal for these cars?
Ah, so this is why this has been marked as "insightful". Make any positive, but retarded remark about open source and get modded up.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so original! You make me laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man! I like you jokes! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow... my sides are hurting with that funny, funny quip you just threw down on us like some clever maniacal funny man! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Someone will even modded you as funny to show how funny you really are to the rest of us! Quip, quip says you! Everyone! Over here! Look at the funny man! He made a funny about Microsoft making a virus! Get it?...Microsoft...virus... HAHAHAHAHA! It's a reference to Windows... yes, as a virus... HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, I am not sure where this guy is from but boy is he funny! Who invited him to the party? We gotta have this guy over more often! Honey? Come down here a second and listen to this guy 'tell it like it is' in a really funny way. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! "Microsoft releases its next OS", that's priceless. ":-)." Gold. Just pure gold. How do you do it? I mean, so many people post on Slashdot but then you see a funny gem like this. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pure hilarity. When's the last time you actually used Windows and so wittily remarked about it? Had you known it is not a virus in the first place this wouldn't actually happen and hence your joke would 'have no teeth' as it were. But the brilliance of you tying in viruses with Windows had me splitting my sides. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man. So clever, so very very clever. I'll bet you were the funny man in high school too. Wow. You still got it!
There are probably going to be a ton of responses that are redundant on this thread, but mostly because there are only two answers to this question: yes or no.
Put me in the "no" side. As you said, there are valid reasons why there is mandatory certifications required for automative repair and salon work - both of which are public safety. Now, being the libertarian-minded person I am, I don't think that it is necessary, but that is the reasoning behind requiring such certifications from those types of employees. It is very difficult to make the argument for computer repair. If Grandma's computer isn't working and she can't get to her email, people aren't going to get hurt. Now, for mission critical systems, like health care equipment and the like, there are already regulations that govern.
Let the consumer decide if certification is important enough when they choose a computer repairmen. My guess is that, because you are certified, you want the laws changed to help you get more work or be able to charge more for your work. That sounds an awful lot like some of the companies and organizations that are constantly bashed around here.
Wouldn't you say that's more akin to figuring out if your new SUV will fit in your garage by just driving it in instead of measuring the garage and the SUV first? I.e., knowing what you're doing?
We need to develop some sort of global cache list so we can add the following from the article:
Today's PCs on the other hand are infinitely more powerful than current set-top boxes...
Isn't this a bit of an exageration? Obviously, they can't be "infinately" more powerful, but are they even considerably more powerful? I'm not too familiar with the spec's on PVR's, but I would bet they aren't that weak.
Meanwhile, back in reality, you could recognize a few facts
It's funny that you should be lecturing me on journalistic integrity as you go on to tell me about "facts", most of which are your opinion. I'm going to guess that secretly you are a journalist.
News need not be free of viewpoint
But that's exactly what it is supposed to be. To "report" on event is to tell it from an unbiased and factual viewpoint. I'm not saying that it has to be "balanced" with both viewpoints, simply that it should be absent of inflamatory language, as this article clearly is not.
Other countries do it differently
That's fine, I'm just saying that historically, the reporting of the "news" was supposed to be done in a factually and unbiased manner. See above.
Not everything printed in a newspaper is news
But this was clearly labeled as such. If you want to say that something is an opinion piece or editorial, or simply a column, it should be labeled as such.
As for being "factually correct", it's interesting that this "journalist" can be so aware of the actual feelings of millions of Americans. How can the grouping of millions of Americans into one collective group that thinks and feels exactly the same way be considered "factually correct"?
I find it said that increasingly stories labelled as "news" are obviously editorialized descriptions of recent events. Take for a few quotes from the article about the Dark Materials triology:
With the sponsorship of the Bush administration, it has laid siege not only to American medicine, politics and academe - making Adam and Eve scientific fact in Kansas - it has also declared holy war on literature, targeting books written for young people.
and
Its messages militate against every branding iron that America's Christian right would forge on its anvil.
How can this kind of stuff even pretend to be "news"? Is it just because the story is talking about Christians that it gets away with this kind of writing around here?
You can make comparisons and analogies to open source software all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true (or +5 Interesting). While both television shows and open source software are (usually) under copyright, that doesn't mean they both have the same rules to cover distribution. Open Source software (at least under the GPL) is allowed to be distributed by anyone because that is what the original author, who owns the copyright, has allowed under their license. The owners of copyrights of television shows have not released their shows under the same license.
Also, as is been mentioned on several of the other threads, you have the legal right to make your own copy of a broadcast television show and timeshifing, but you have no legal right to distribute that show to anyone else.
The "Viable System for Micropayments" article describes how to setup user accounts and provides a program to parse Apache logs to "... allow you to easily see how popular an account is and whether or not you need to take action. " Plus, for his collecting payments, he says use PayPal or VeriSign. Most of the actual "system" is not automated at all. How is this news at all? What is new about this system?
ZDNet is running a story on what a lot of us already know: Linux IS cheaper than Windows.
When a study is done that says Windows has a lower TCO, it's bashed as being obviously flawed because of this very attitude. We just know that Linux MUST be cheaper. But when a study is done that shows the opposite is true, it's hailed has obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
I still beg to differ. There are tons of "votes" made on the internet all of the time. Now, are they official, political votes? No. The Arizona Democratic Primary was run by a private political party to choose their nominee. While the two big political parties get to have their primaries run by the states, I believe they still pay for them. It doesn't mean that it was some official government election. I could definately be wrong though.
Regardless, I still think that a real vote, on a real issue, not just picking someone to run in a primary, is what is at issue here.
Being an Arizonan myself, I wish I could agree, but I don't think that a primary election for a party is really the same thing as an actual election (or a referendum in the case of the Swiss).
I like how you stated this as if there is some official book on how technology based societies are supposed to act. I'm guessing that you either got this idea from Star Trek or from the Civilization games.
My wife just recently had a baby and the hospital where she gave birth has a security system that involves the attachment of a clip to the newborns umbilical cord. This clip has a security chip that emits a radio signal. If the baby is removed from the nursery/obstetrical area, an alarm is sounded, doors are locked and elevators are stopped.
When we first heard about this security system, we thought that the chip was actually implemented in the babies bellybutton. This was due to some miscommunication. After getting the matter clarified, we gave the ok. It is something you can refuse to get, and we definately would have if it had been a permanent chip. But now I'm starting to hear about implanted tracking systems for older children. It is a scary world we are entering.
From article:
Now, it does not mention what OS they were running WebLogic on in the article, but it was definately not OS/390.
George W. Bush is not a Junior. Al Gore is.
More mods on crack I see.
Of course not, this is just silly. Think of how much stuff you use that is powered by either build in software or embeddeded devices. Do you get a license agreement with them?
Again, of course not. Many parts of the automobile are already controlled by embedded hardware, making the jump to software is no big deal. They already have the ability to stick a chip in your car to limit its speed, but they don't. Why not? Because it's stupid.
Ah, so this is why this has been marked as "insightful". Make any positive, but retarded remark about open source and get modded up.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You so original! You make me laugh! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man! I like you jokes! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow... my sides are hurting with that funny, funny quip you just threw down on us like some clever maniacal funny man! You so funny! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Someone will even modded you as funny to show how funny you really are to the rest of us! Quip, quip says you! Everyone! Over here! Look at the funny man! He made a funny about Microsoft making a virus! Get it? ...Microsoft...virus... HAHAHAHAHA! It's a reference to Windows... yes, as a virus... HAHAHAHAHA! Yes, I am not sure where this guy is from but boy is he funny! Who invited him to the party? We gotta have this guy over more often! Honey? Come down here a second and listen to this guy 'tell it like it is' in a really funny way. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! "Microsoft releases its next OS", that's priceless. ":-)." Gold. Just pure gold. How do you do it? I mean, so many people post on Slashdot but then you see a funny gem like this. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pure hilarity. When's the last time you actually used Windows and so wittily remarked about it? Had you known it is not a virus in the first place this wouldn't actually happen and hence your joke would 'have no teeth' as it were. But the brilliance of you tying in viruses with Windows had me splitting my sides. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny man. So clever, so very very clever. I'll bet you were the funny man in high school too. Wow. You still got it!
This joke is older than SOVIET RUSSIA.
There are probably going to be a ton of responses that are redundant on this thread, but mostly because there are only two answers to this question: yes or no.
Put me in the "no" side. As you said, there are valid reasons why there is mandatory certifications required for automative repair and salon work - both of which are public safety. Now, being the libertarian-minded person I am, I don't think that it is necessary, but that is the reasoning behind requiring such certifications from those types of employees. It is very difficult to make the argument for computer repair. If Grandma's computer isn't working and she can't get to her email, people aren't going to get hurt. Now, for mission critical systems, like health care equipment and the like, there are already regulations that govern.
Let the consumer decide if certification is important enough when they choose a computer repairmen. My guess is that, because you are certified, you want the laws changed to help you get more work or be able to charge more for your work. That sounds an awful lot like some of the companies and organizations that are constantly bashed around here.
I wish I had mod points right now. This is the funniest AND most insightful thing I've read for a while.
I can confirm that this is a bad idea.
We need to develop some sort of global cache list so we can add the following from the article:
Isn't this a bit of an exageration? Obviously, they can't be "infinately" more powerful, but are they even considerably more powerful? I'm not too familiar with the spec's on PVR's, but I would bet they aren't that weak.
It's funny that you should be lecturing me on journalistic integrity as you go on to tell me about "facts", most of which are your opinion. I'm going to guess that secretly you are a journalist.
But that's exactly what it is supposed to be. To "report" on event is to tell it from an unbiased and factual viewpoint. I'm not saying that it has to be "balanced" with both viewpoints, simply that it should be absent of inflamatory language, as this article clearly is not.
That's fine, I'm just saying that historically, the reporting of the "news" was supposed to be done in a factually and unbiased manner. See above.
But this was clearly labeled as such. If you want to say that something is an opinion piece or editorial, or simply a column, it should be labeled as such.
As for being "factually correct", it's interesting that this "journalist" can be so aware of the actual feelings of millions of Americans. How can the grouping of millions of Americans into one collective group that thinks and feels exactly the same way be considered "factually correct"?
I find it said that increasingly stories labelled as "news" are obviously editorialized descriptions of recent events. Take for a few quotes from the article about the Dark Materials triology:
and
How can this kind of stuff even pretend to be "news"? Is it just because the story is talking about Christians that it gets away with this kind of writing around here?
You can make comparisons and analogies to open source software all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true (or +5 Interesting). While both television shows and open source software are (usually) under copyright, that doesn't mean they both have the same rules to cover distribution. Open Source software (at least under the GPL) is allowed to be distributed by anyone because that is what the original author, who owns the copyright, has allowed under their license. The owners of copyrights of television shows have not released their shows under the same license.
Also, as is been mentioned on several of the other threads, you have the legal right to make your own copy of a broadcast television show and timeshifing, but you have no legal right to distribute that show to anyone else.
The "Viable System for Micropayments" article describes how to setup user accounts and provides a program to parse Apache logs to "... allow you to easily see how popular an account is and whether or not you need to take action. " Plus, for his collecting payments, he says use PayPal or VeriSign. Most of the actual "system" is not automated at all. How is this news at all? What is new about this system?
From the submission:
When a study is done that says Windows has a lower TCO, it's bashed as being obviously flawed because of this very attitude. We just know that Linux MUST be cheaper. But when a study is done that shows the opposite is true, it's hailed has obvious.
Oh, is that all? Phew...
It's unbelievable the crap that has been modded above and below this post, yet this one is not.
Thanks for posting something intelligent.
I just used the last of my moderator points. This is the funniest thing I have read in quite a while.
Finally, someone really understands me.
I noticed that.
Who knows what they are thinking? Personally, I think my message was none of those. :-)
Is it really necessary to mention the fact that you are not a lawyer before you recommend getting one?
Or, perhaps I was correct (as you've probably noticed from the other replies. You may want to be a bit more careful about calling others morons.