Whether you want to accept it or not, you have created a false binary choice by saying the only 2 powers are government and corporations. The power vacuum you fear, ideally, would be filled with the power of millions of individual citizens exercising their rights of self government, and state and local governments handling the governance that was originally granted them by the Constitution. There is a valid discussion to be had over whether individuals are willing or able to do that at this point, but it is the expectation of Libertarianism, and the foundation of our Constitution.
It almost sounds like you have an anti-corporate bias and believe that the government exists to protect us from the evil corporate interests. But you forget that the government has its own history of abuses, that are backed by the rule of law. It is this kind of abuse that the founding fathers sought to protect us from. I am not a hardcore libertarian, and if you had opened your mind and eyes to read a little more of my post, you would have seen that I said complete idealistic libertarianism is not a solution. Libertarianism does have some valuable ideas that are about putting more responsibility on individuals, and creating a less intrusive, controlling government.
You are painting a false dichotomy here. The choice isn't between idealistic libertarianism and extreme corporatism. The choice is between a world where the government becomes increasing controlling and dictatorial and a world where individuals are free to make there own choices.
Many of the abuses of the industrial revolution that you cite were the result of corporations buying off corrupt politicians to get what they wanted. It took a massive uprising of individuals to transform both corporate and governmental policies. The government was as complicit in the abuses as the corporations.
In a truly libertarian society, the government would not have the power to act in the best interests of the corporations as they do today. It is even possible that many large corps would not even be able to exist in that environment. The reality is that our current political system heavily favor those with the $$$ to buy what they want, including legislation. Idealistic libertarianism would not be the perfect solution, but a good dose of libertarian common sense injected into our currently corrupt system would help tip the scales in favor of the Average Joe.
I have struggled with depression and pessimism myself, and I have read bits and pieces of this book. The author seems to be focused on Pollyanna optimists who ignore reality and believe they can conquer all. Real optimists do some contingency planning, but don't allow fear based on contingencies to keep them from action. Real optimists don't believe nothing will go wrong, but accept those things that do go wrong as part of the process, and don't let hard times bury them.
Pessimism is about fear and anxiety controlling our thought processes. Optimism is about seeing possibilities and acting in spite of fear.
Contrary to popular belief, pessimism is not an unchangeable character trait. You may be predisposed to negativity, but thanks to your power to choose, you can become a more optimistic, less fearful person.
Mortgage lenders do not create money from nothing. Banks use your deposit funds, as well as other investment funds, to back the mortgages. On top of that, many banks just end up reselling the mortgages on a secondary market to reduce their admin costs. Lenders that are "mortgage specialists" use investor dollars to back their mortgages.
There is no such thing as money from nothing. Even when the Central Bank prints more money, it devalues existing currency in exchange. The lenders have billions to lose, why do you think so many are going under? They didn't have enough liquid assets to cover the losses from defaults and foreclosures, and were therefore insolvent. I know bashing big business is popular, and I often agree, but let's make sure we are bashing them for the right reason, and have the right information to bash with.
Completely OT for this thread, but the gubment pressured the banking industry for years to provide more options for lower income/higher risk individuals to buy homes. The sub-prime market developed in part from that pressure. It is easy to blame big bad banks for the subprime meltdown, but big brother's hands are dirty too. It may even be possible to argue that without government intervention, this mortgage mess may not even exist.
I think you have touched on the main difference between technical folks, and the Average Joe. Us geeky types want to get inside and tweak and play and figure out how it all works. iTunes isn't made for us. It is made for my wife, who can plug the iPod in and sync her music, with no help from me.
If you want to configure everything, and modify source, and get a scripting interface, iTunes and the iPod aren't the tools for you. Apple didn't create them for you. Stop whining about it and buy a different product. That is the wonder of capitalism, you have a choice.
On the other hand, when things go wrong with iTunes, fixing it is a bear. Since it is so opaque, tracking down how to get the problem solved requires a bit of googling and twiddling. But, since Apple makes pretty decent products, these types of issues aren't very common. There is no perfect product for everyone, no digital music utopia. Find a product that works for you, and don't rag on others just because they don't agree.
As a person who has a wealth of traumatic experiences, I have to say that you couldn't be more wrong. I have experienced abuse, neglect, abandonment, extreme poverty and more abuse. I have also lived with depression for most of my life. I have attempted suicide, hurt myself, and lived long stretches where I was barely functional because of this illness.
I am sick of hearing that depression, or other mental illness, is somehow a character flaw. I am beyond tired of hearing that I, and others like me, need to "kick our own ass" and get up and get moving. I am sorry that you had such difficult experiences, but it is obvious that you do/did not suffer from anything like depression or PTSD because of them. Drugs have been a form of salvation for me, allowing me to live without the lingering effects of the awful things I experienced. I am able to function normally as a husband and father today because of drugs.
Before you go spouting off your Ayn Rand self-reliance, pull yourself up by your bootstraps BS, understand that the experiences of other might be different from your own. Count your blessings that you were able to survive without medication or other intervention, but refrain from judging those of us who are "weaker", and need the help.
Common sense is the judge. If 2 relatively equivalent options are available, and you choose to use the more resource intensive option, you should pay more. Since "energy" is a scarce resource, and part of the commons, it is realistic to penalize those who use more of the resources. Taxes are just a method of social engineering. If we want to change behaviors, we can use taxes to encourage one behavior over others.
I don't share the belief that most people will make the best choices. I include myself in that group as well, lest you think I am setting myself up as judge. That is why we have a system where groups of people in our society try to determine the best use of common resources. We may not always agree on what "best use" means, and that is fine. We have debates, discussions and revolutions when we indulge in an excess of regulation or deregulation.
I also don't believe that the invisible hand of the market is the perfect arbiter in this situation. Eventually, the situation would work itself out in the market. But the market has no heart, and doesn't care if large numbers of people are hurt in the working out. Effective government provides a buffer against the inevitable bumps in the road of a perfectly free market.
While purist ideology, either socialist or anarchic, sounds cool, the reality is that the most effective society lies somewhere in between. A combination of open markets with effective governance gives the greatest benefit to the most people.
I think you misunderstand the way health insurance works for most people - in the U.S. at least. If the costs of insuring the group increases, the insurance company distributes that cost across all members of the group. Everyone pays more. That is why many companies are paying for health club memberships and incentivizing physical activity.
If you were really paying for your increased use of resources, I would cook the bacon for you, buy you a case of your favorite brew and light your cigarette. What you do with your life, in your home, that you are paying for, is none of my damn business. I have too much to do already.
Bringing this back on topic, though, everyone is paying for increased emissions. The resources used to light that bulb are part of the commons. While mandating CFL's is probably going too far, it makes sense to tax the more costly (resource wise) alternative. It is simply making people pay for their increased use of resources.
Are you tired yet? It must be awfully exhausting jumping to all those conclusions;)
You are taking the medical analogy too far, and making huge assumptions about my opinions and lifestyle in the process. My analogy is based on the fact that most current health insurance distributes the cost across a large group of people - the commons. If the individual paid the increased costs of their unhealthy lifestyle, the analogy wouldn't work. There would be no commons.
There is no injustice so great as that of the person who pisses in the public pool because he is too lazy to get out and go to the bathroom.
First of all, the medical analogy is getting stretched very thin here. My only point in replying to the parent was to point out that as a society, we do penalize certain activities if they have a demonstrably negative effect on the commons. Health insurance attempts to distribute the increased cost over a very large pool, and make everyone pay for the increased costs imposed by others. If individuals paid for their own health care costs, and that cost wasn't distributed, either thru private insurance pools or socialized health care plans (Medicare), then it wouldn't matter. But, if you are going to swim in the public pool, you can't piss in the water.
White residents complaining about "undesirables" in their neighborhood is not the same thing. Being black is not a behavior, it is a genetic trait. As a society we have rightly determined that it is not acceptable to make decisions about others based on their race. But once you move into the area of behavior, the equation changes. Neighborhoods have successfully lobbied to keep sex offenders out, for example.
My point is not that the government should be able to tell people what to do. The reality is that once you begin to take common resources, those resources must be regulated and distributed according to some basic rules because they are limited. I personally believe we have too much of the commons in our society, and not enough emphasis on personal accountability.
Coming back to the original topic, though, carbon emissions and electricity usage is an unavoidable use of the commons. While mandating CFL's is probably going too far, taxing the use of incandescents because they use more resources is reasonable. It is putting the cost of using additional resources back into the pocketbook of the individual.
I think you are missing a very important point in your rant. In today's world, you eating that bacon while chugging a soda and smoking a Marlboro costs me money. When you have a heart attack, or have to take $1500 worth of meds each month to keep yourself functioning, that raises my health insurance rates. Once your actions effect the lives of others, you are no longer free to act. It is part of the social contract that we all agree to in this society.
Now, if you want to divest yourself of the protections of society, you will be free to act as you please. You just won't get the health care you need when your arteries can't push blood thru your atherosclerotic veins, or you can't suck anymore air into your emphysema scarred lungs.
I used to be quite libertarian, and think the way you do. Unfortunately, we can't have our cake and eat it too. If we want to eliminate all social constructs, and actually live the way CS Lewis did, we can follow his advice. I think, though, that CS Lewis would also agree that you have no right to act in a way that negatively impacts others.
I hope people aren't still doing this today. Most modern devices come with some form of secure printing. It may be a password protected "mailbox", or a one time pin for a document, but the feature is there. If used correctly, you could print your job, it would be stored on the hard drive, and stay until the drive died, or a service tech had to wipe the jobs. If the device stores jobs in RAM, it would be available until the power was cycled.
Of course, your print job is only as secure as your passcode. The human is always the weakest link in the security chain.
I work in the networked printer/multifunction industry. While HP is popular on desktops, other brands are gaining, and rule in the 50ppm+ arena. These devices come from other vendors like Canon, Sharp, Kyocera and Xerox. These multifunction devices provide scan, fax and print services and run a variety of OS's from VxWorks to Solaris. Yes Johnny, that means Windows XP embedded as well. Although I have to say, I haven't seen a DOS based controller in about 6 years.
We routinely receive questions about security, and help patch and configure these boxes to meet network security requirements as closely as possible. Unfortunately, we have limited access to the core OS, so we go as far as we can and workaround the rest. Many vendors, especially those using Windows, provide controller patches with security fixes included. EFI even allows an admin to RDP in and use Windows Update to keep current
These devices aren't perfect, but they have come a long way. That being said, if you haven't heard about this in the past, you have no business being in charge of network security. Multifunction devices today are just as powerful as your desktops and servers, running the same software. Admin control is limited, and vulnerabilities are a reality - note the recent Xerox vulnerability
I would say it is important to stay in contact with your local vendor/dealer to stay on top of these issues. We work with these products everyday, and receive regular notices about security issues and solutions, not to mention a wide variety of other product data. We are a resource, just like any other outside consultant, to help you get and stay secure.
It has nothing to do with racism, nationalism or any other -ism. The reality is that these companies exist in a stable society with a strong military, and all the benefits that come from this environment. These corps didn't start in Bangladesh, or Xinxao because those parts of the world can't provide the infrastructure or environment necessary for their development.
The anger we all feel over outsourcing is about betrayal. Our tax dollars, labor, devotion and social constructs allowed these companies to exist. Now, they want to keep all the benefits of a stable, capitalist society while getting a little on the side in India and China. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The other side of this argument is that a rising tide lifts all ships. As other countries become more stable both socially and economically, everyone will benefit in the long run. I think there is some validity to this argument. I also believe protectionism is an exercise in futility.
I don't have good answers, just trying to shed a little light on the feelings of people bothered by outsourcing.
This is THE major issue with allowing vendors to control the format of the data. If they don't want to publish a spec - fine (although I might be in favor of requiring that as well). But we cannot allow corps to tell us what we can do with OUR data, wherever it may originate. Once we create the data, it is ours, and we should be allowed to do format conversions, turn it into graffiti, or print it on paper and burn it in a bonfire.
This case should open the eyes of the judiciary and our legislators to see the mess they have created with the overlapping spider web of laws and legal precedent. It may even be time to go back to the drawing board with so called "Intellectual Property", to examine the underlying assumptions, and the negative effect it has had on the operation of a free market, and on consumers.
8) As for emailing everyone to tell them about re-usable code, what about people joining the team at a later point? And what about when someone comes to work on something that could find the code useful, but doesn't remember the email?
I am starting a new development group at my company, and had a similar question. Most of my work is done in C#, and I use NDoc to build class documentation. I can generate html docs, post them to an intranet site we use, and other developers can search the documentation for reusable code that does what they need. I know that similar tools exist for other languages, so take advantage of them. If you can't get your developers to consult internal resources before reinventing the wheel, you have a larger problem.
Windows has something of the equivalent of su. If you hold down the shift key, and right click on an executable, you will see a Run As option in the pop up menu. Just enter your credentials, and you are running just that process as admin. You can do something similar from the command line, it just isn't as simple as su on *NIX. It is documented at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/runas.mspx.
For the sake of all that is held dear by geekdom, please stop complaining about how large it is. If it is too large for you, don't use it. For many people the size is just right. It slides right into place, and gets the job done better than a smaller one would. For some people, bigger is better.
If you can't accomodate the size, don't buy it. If it looks like handling it would be uncomfortable, don't try to force it to fit. You won't be happy with the results.
Some of us NEED something bigger to satisfy our needs. Those small 15 inchers just don't pass muster. Of course, it may not be appropriate to haul around out in public, but we don't care. It may not fit on the plane, so what. Somebody talked about not being able to use something this large in the hull of a tanker. That isn't the first place that comes to mind when I think of this gorgeous 19 inches of bliss. I think the office or home is more appropriate. I need 19" to meet my needs, so I would buy one.;-)
Seriously, though, this is not meant as a traditional portable laptop. It is meant to take advantage of the burgeoning laptop market, by taking the relative advantages of a laptop on to the desktop. Think of people living in smaller homes, or people who move, by car, between a couple of locations, but need the screen real estate. I believe there is a market for this, and I will buy one, if the $$$$ is right.
It seems a good idea to sit in Eastern Europea
And mail out missives with a threat
"We know that you have gold, and if I may be so bold
If you send me some I will not be a threat"
And that is called running protection
And the scum who demand it defend
That you only have to pay them protection
And your enterprise won't have to end.
It is a real temptation to avoid a confrontation
And pay off the bottom sucking filth
Then the business you created won't be immolated By the bandwidth sucking zombies and their ilk
And that is called paying protection
But after you've paid up today
They'll come calling for more protection
There will never be an end to what you pay
It's a shame to whimper quietly and meet with their demand
To keep the money flowing fast and free
So when they do demand the little money in your hand
I would suggest that you repeat slowly after me.
"We never pay any scum protection
No matter how hard they may lean
For tomorrow you'll be back threatening to hack
Using any zombies you can glean "
I am no Rudyard Kipling, but I think this captures the essence of it:)
I am comfortable with Linux, Windows and BSD. I have done a little dabbling with the AS400, and worked on a mainframe in college. I have no fear of the command line, or learning a new OS. The reason I still use Windows as my desktop is STABILITY.
I know it is hard to believe that stability is an issue, but I have tried a number of Linux distros, only to have the OS go nova when I tried to install some new software, or update the base install. I am a geek, but I also have a buisness. I need my computers to work so I can bill hours. I need to be able to install new software quickly and easily without crossing my fingers and praying to $deity that my system and necessary apps will work when I am finished. In spite of all the horror stories about Windows, I have comparatively few problems with it on a daily basis.
I will continue to try updated distros, and new package systems, because I really do think Linux is an awesome concept. But until it is as reliable on the desktop as Windows, I can't make the leap.
So, all people of faith are morons. Red state hicks with no education, no idea of how the world works, and no desire to understand.
Get off of your high horse, and get out into the real world. I have 3 friends with PhD's in EE, one is a professor. I have a variety of friends, family, and acquaintances with postgrad degrees. All of the people I am talking about are people of faith, deeply involved in a church, and living their lives according to Biblical principles. I can point to just as many "humanists" with no interest in exploring alternative ideas who have no education and who like to spout off against anyone who disagrees with them. Are you one of those people?
Of course, I realize my anecdotal statements mean as little as your off the cuff remark. I am just tired of the bashing of people of faith that occurs on/. and get modded up. Those of you who engage in this behavior need to understand that the world of faith is as widely varied as the secular world. Painting with such a broad brush only serves to alienate. You claim such wisdom and openness; but it only extends as far as your own opinions. Wake up to the real world and get to know some people of faith in your own community. We don't bite, most of the time 8-)
You are trying to compare physical engineering incompatibility to software incompatibility. It is a false analogy because software can be modified at a cost significantly smaller than an entire manufacturing process.
Apple could make iTunes work with Linux for a very small incremental cost. They could make it easy to drop MP3 files into the iPod like any USB hard drive, for a very small incremental cost. It is possible to make these consumer products more open and useful, but Apple won't do it because in this case lock-in = revenue.
Now when it comes to trade secrets, I agree totally. Employess who signed NDA's should be held accountable for leaking internal info. Apple has every right to protect their trade secrets, and work to keep competitors in the dark. There may, however, be better ways of handling the issue than issuing subpoenas to fansites
I think this is why you don't store user information in a cookie, url param, or hidden field. You use a session ID, and get the user id from the session db based on session ID. The session ID is your "reasonably large random value".
Using good coding practices is one way to keep yourself safe from these types of attacks. Even with a "database" like MySQL.
I don't care how you feel about the content of television, movies, video games or any other media. If you patronize it, you are adding to the very problem you percieve. If you have children, and you find this objectionable, don't buy it. And don't buy products from companies or advertisers related to it.
The government can't save you from yourself, and shouldn't be expected to. We can't have laws governing every aspect of our existence. That's why the Constitution says any right not discussed within it is granted to states and individuals.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. If the market isn't there, no company will produce it and the products you find objectionable will disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether you want to accept it or not, you have created a false binary choice by saying the only 2 powers are government and corporations. The power vacuum you fear, ideally, would be filled with the power of millions of individual citizens exercising their rights of self government, and state and local governments handling the governance that was originally granted them by the Constitution. There is a valid discussion to be had over whether individuals are willing or able to do that at this point, but it is the expectation of Libertarianism, and the foundation of our Constitution.
It almost sounds like you have an anti-corporate bias and believe that the government exists to protect us from the evil corporate interests. But you forget that the government has its own history of abuses, that are backed by the rule of law. It is this kind of abuse that the founding fathers sought to protect us from. I am not a hardcore libertarian, and if you had opened your mind and eyes to read a little more of my post, you would have seen that I said complete idealistic libertarianism is not a solution. Libertarianism does have some valuable ideas that are about putting more responsibility on individuals, and creating a less intrusive, controlling government.
You are painting a false dichotomy here. The choice isn't between idealistic libertarianism and extreme corporatism. The choice is between a world where the government becomes increasing controlling and dictatorial and a world where individuals are free to make there own choices.
Many of the abuses of the industrial revolution that you cite were the result of corporations buying off corrupt politicians to get what they wanted. It took a massive uprising of individuals to transform both corporate and governmental policies. The government was as complicit in the abuses as the corporations.
In a truly libertarian society, the government would not have the power to act in the best interests of the corporations as they do today. It is even possible that many large corps would not even be able to exist in that environment. The reality is that our current political system heavily favor those with the $$$ to buy what they want, including legislation. Idealistic libertarianism would not be the perfect solution, but a good dose of libertarian common sense injected into our currently corrupt system would help tip the scales in favor of the Average Joe.
I have struggled with depression and pessimism myself, and I have read bits and pieces of this book. The author seems to be focused on Pollyanna optimists who ignore reality and believe they can conquer all. Real optimists do some contingency planning, but don't allow fear based on contingencies to keep them from action. Real optimists don't believe nothing will go wrong, but accept those things that do go wrong as part of the process, and don't let hard times bury them.
Pessimism is about fear and anxiety controlling our thought processes. Optimism is about seeing possibilities and acting in spite of fear.
Contrary to popular belief, pessimism is not an unchangeable character trait. You may be predisposed to negativity, but thanks to your power to choose, you can become a more optimistic, less fearful person.
Mortgage lenders do not create money from nothing. Banks use your deposit funds, as well as other investment funds, to back the mortgages. On top of that, many banks just end up reselling the mortgages on a secondary market to reduce their admin costs. Lenders that are "mortgage specialists" use investor dollars to back their mortgages.
There is no such thing as money from nothing. Even when the Central Bank prints more money, it devalues existing currency in exchange. The lenders have billions to lose, why do you think so many are going under? They didn't have enough liquid assets to cover the losses from defaults and foreclosures, and were therefore insolvent. I know bashing big business is popular, and I often agree, but let's make sure we are bashing them for the right reason, and have the right information to bash with.
Completely OT for this thread, but the gubment pressured the banking industry for years to provide more options for lower income/higher risk individuals to buy homes. The sub-prime market developed in part from that pressure. It is easy to blame big bad banks for the subprime meltdown, but big brother's hands are dirty too. It may even be possible to argue that without government intervention, this mortgage mess may not even exist.
I think you have touched on the main difference between technical folks, and the Average Joe. Us geeky types want to get inside and tweak and play and figure out how it all works. iTunes isn't made for us. It is made for my wife, who can plug the iPod in and sync her music, with no help from me.
If you want to configure everything, and modify source, and get a scripting interface, iTunes and the iPod aren't the tools for you. Apple didn't create them for you. Stop whining about it and buy a different product. That is the wonder of capitalism, you have a choice.
On the other hand, when things go wrong with iTunes, fixing it is a bear. Since it is so opaque, tracking down how to get the problem solved requires a bit of googling and twiddling. But, since Apple makes pretty decent products, these types of issues aren't very common. There is no perfect product for everyone, no digital music utopia. Find a product that works for you, and don't rag on others just because they don't agree.
As a person who has a wealth of traumatic experiences, I have to say that you couldn't be more wrong. I have experienced abuse, neglect, abandonment, extreme poverty and more abuse. I have also lived with depression for most of my life. I have attempted suicide, hurt myself, and lived long stretches where I was barely functional because of this illness.
I am sick of hearing that depression, or other mental illness, is somehow a character flaw. I am beyond tired of hearing that I, and others like me, need to "kick our own ass" and get up and get moving. I am sorry that you had such difficult experiences, but it is obvious that you do/did not suffer from anything like depression or PTSD because of them. Drugs have been a form of salvation for me, allowing me to live without the lingering effects of the awful things I experienced. I am able to function normally as a husband and father today because of drugs.
Before you go spouting off your Ayn Rand self-reliance, pull yourself up by your bootstraps BS, understand that the experiences of other might be different from your own. Count your blessings that you were able to survive without medication or other intervention, but refrain from judging those of us who are "weaker", and need the help.
Common sense is the judge. If 2 relatively equivalent options are available, and you choose to use the more resource intensive option, you should pay more. Since "energy" is a scarce resource, and part of the commons, it is realistic to penalize those who use more of the resources. Taxes are just a method of social engineering. If we want to change behaviors, we can use taxes to encourage one behavior over others.
I don't share the belief that most people will make the best choices. I include myself in that group as well, lest you think I am setting myself up as judge. That is why we have a system where groups of people in our society try to determine the best use of common resources. We may not always agree on what "best use" means, and that is fine. We have debates, discussions and revolutions when we indulge in an excess of regulation or deregulation.
I also don't believe that the invisible hand of the market is the perfect arbiter in this situation. Eventually, the situation would work itself out in the market. But the market has no heart, and doesn't care if large numbers of people are hurt in the working out. Effective government provides a buffer against the inevitable bumps in the road of a perfectly free market.
While purist ideology, either socialist or anarchic, sounds cool, the reality is that the most effective society lies somewhere in between. A combination of open markets with effective governance gives the greatest benefit to the most people.
I think you misunderstand the way health insurance works for most people - in the U.S. at least. If the costs of insuring the group increases, the insurance company distributes that cost across all members of the group. Everyone pays more. That is why many companies are paying for health club memberships and incentivizing physical activity.
If you were really paying for your increased use of resources, I would cook the bacon for you, buy you a case of your favorite brew and light your cigarette. What you do with your life, in your home, that you are paying for, is none of my damn business. I have too much to do already.
Bringing this back on topic, though, everyone is paying for increased emissions. The resources used to light that bulb are part of the commons. While mandating CFL's is probably going too far, it makes sense to tax the more costly (resource wise) alternative. It is simply making people pay for their increased use of resources.
Are you tired yet? It must be awfully exhausting jumping to all those conclusions ;)
You are taking the medical analogy too far, and making huge assumptions about my opinions and lifestyle in the process. My analogy is based on the fact that most current health insurance distributes the cost across a large group of people - the commons. If the individual paid the increased costs of their unhealthy lifestyle, the analogy wouldn't work. There would be no commons.
There is no injustice so great as that of the person who pisses in the public pool because he is too lazy to get out and go to the bathroom.
First of all, the medical analogy is getting stretched very thin here. My only point in replying to the parent was to point out that as a society, we do penalize certain activities if they have a demonstrably negative effect on the commons. Health insurance attempts to distribute the increased cost over a very large pool, and make everyone pay for the increased costs imposed by others. If individuals paid for their own health care costs, and that cost wasn't distributed, either thru private insurance pools or socialized health care plans (Medicare), then it wouldn't matter. But, if you are going to swim in the public pool, you can't piss in the water.
White residents complaining about "undesirables" in their neighborhood is not the same thing. Being black is not a behavior, it is a genetic trait. As a society we have rightly determined that it is not acceptable to make decisions about others based on their race. But once you move into the area of behavior, the equation changes. Neighborhoods have successfully lobbied to keep sex offenders out, for example.
My point is not that the government should be able to tell people what to do. The reality is that once you begin to take common resources, those resources must be regulated and distributed according to some basic rules because they are limited. I personally believe we have too much of the commons in our society, and not enough emphasis on personal accountability.
Coming back to the original topic, though, carbon emissions and electricity usage is an unavoidable use of the commons. While mandating CFL's is probably going too far, taxing the use of incandescents because they use more resources is reasonable. It is putting the cost of using additional resources back into the pocketbook of the individual.
I think you are missing a very important point in your rant. In today's world, you eating that bacon while chugging a soda and smoking a Marlboro costs me money. When you have a heart attack, or have to take $1500 worth of meds each month to keep yourself functioning, that raises my health insurance rates. Once your actions effect the lives of others, you are no longer free to act. It is part of the social contract that we all agree to in this society.
Now, if you want to divest yourself of the protections of society, you will be free to act as you please. You just won't get the health care you need when your arteries can't push blood thru your atherosclerotic veins, or you can't suck anymore air into your emphysema scarred lungs.
I used to be quite libertarian, and think the way you do. Unfortunately, we can't have our cake and eat it too. If we want to eliminate all social constructs, and actually live the way CS Lewis did, we can follow his advice. I think, though, that CS Lewis would also agree that you have no right to act in a way that negatively impacts others.
I hope people aren't still doing this today. Most modern devices come with some form of secure printing. It may be a password protected "mailbox", or a one time pin for a document, but the feature is there. If used correctly, you could print your job, it would be stored on the hard drive, and stay until the drive died, or a service tech had to wipe the jobs. If the device stores jobs in RAM, it would be available until the power was cycled.
Of course, your print job is only as secure as your passcode. The human is always the weakest link in the security chain.
I work in the networked printer/multifunction industry. While HP is popular on desktops, other brands are gaining, and rule in the 50ppm+ arena. These devices come from other vendors like Canon, Sharp, Kyocera and Xerox. These multifunction devices provide scan, fax and print services and run a variety of OS's from VxWorks to Solaris. Yes Johnny, that means Windows XP embedded as well. Although I have to say, I haven't seen a DOS based controller in about 6 years.
We routinely receive questions about security, and help patch and configure these boxes to meet network security requirements as closely as possible. Unfortunately, we have limited access to the core OS, so we go as far as we can and workaround the rest. Many vendors, especially those using Windows, provide controller patches with security fixes included. EFI even allows an admin to RDP in and use Windows Update to keep current
These devices aren't perfect, but they have come a long way. That being said, if you haven't heard about this in the past, you have no business being in charge of network security. Multifunction devices today are just as powerful as your desktops and servers, running the same software. Admin control is limited, and vulnerabilities are a reality - note the recent Xerox vulnerability
I would say it is important to stay in contact with your local vendor/dealer to stay on top of these issues. We work with these products everyday, and receive regular notices about security issues and solutions, not to mention a wide variety of other product data. We are a resource, just like any other outside consultant, to help you get and stay secure.
It has nothing to do with racism, nationalism or any other -ism. The reality is that these companies exist in a stable society with a strong military, and all the benefits that come from this environment. These corps didn't start in Bangladesh, or Xinxao because those parts of the world can't provide the infrastructure or environment necessary for their development.
The anger we all feel over outsourcing is about betrayal. Our tax dollars, labor, devotion and social constructs allowed these companies to exist. Now, they want to keep all the benefits of a stable, capitalist society while getting a little on the side in India and China. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The other side of this argument is that a rising tide lifts all ships. As other countries become more stable both socially and economically, everyone will benefit in the long run. I think there is some validity to this argument. I also believe protectionism is an exercise in futility.
I don't have good answers, just trying to shed a little light on the feelings of people bothered by outsourcing.
This is THE major issue with allowing vendors to control the format of the data. If they don't want to publish a spec - fine (although I might be in favor of requiring that as well). But we cannot allow corps to tell us what we can do with OUR data, wherever it may originate. Once we create the data, it is ours, and we should be allowed to do format conversions, turn it into graffiti, or print it on paper and burn it in a bonfire.
This case should open the eyes of the judiciary and our legislators to see the mess they have created with the overlapping spider web of laws and legal precedent. It may even be time to go back to the drawing board with so called "Intellectual Property", to examine the underlying assumptions, and the negative effect it has had on the operation of a free market, and on consumers.
8) As for emailing everyone to tell them about re-usable code, what about people joining the team at a later point? And what about when someone comes to work on something that could find the code useful, but doesn't remember the email?
I am starting a new development group at my company, and had a similar question. Most of my work is done in C#, and I use NDoc to build class documentation. I can generate html docs, post them to an intranet site we use, and other developers can search the documentation for reusable code that does what they need. I know that similar tools exist for other languages, so take advantage of them. If you can't get your developers to consult internal resources before reinventing the wheel, you have a larger problem.
Good Luck,hm
Windows has something of the equivalent of su. If you hold down the shift key, and right click on an executable, you will see a Run As option in the pop up menu. Just enter your credentials, and you are running just that process as admin. You can do something similar from the command line, it just isn't as simple as su on *NIX. It is documented at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/runas.mspx.
For the sake of all that is held dear by geekdom, please stop complaining about how large it is. If it is too large for you, don't use it. For many people the size is just right. It slides right into place, and gets the job done better than a smaller one would. For some people, bigger is better.
If you can't accomodate the size, don't buy it. If it looks like handling it would be uncomfortable, don't try to force it to fit. You won't be happy with the results.
Some of us NEED something bigger to satisfy our needs. Those small 15 inchers just don't pass muster. Of course, it may not be appropriate to haul around out in public, but we don't care. It may not fit on the plane, so what. Somebody talked about not being able to use something this large in the hull of a tanker. That isn't the first place that comes to mind when I think of this gorgeous 19 inches of bliss. I think the office or home is more appropriate. I need 19" to meet my needs, so I would buy one. ;-)
Seriously, though, this is not meant as a traditional portable laptop. It is meant to take advantage of the burgeoning laptop market, by taking the relative advantages of a laptop on to the desktop. Think of people living in smaller homes, or people who move, by car, between a couple of locations, but need the screen real estate. I believe there is a market for this, and I will buy one, if the $$$$ is right.
It seems a good idea to sit in Eastern Europea
And mail out missives with a threat
"We know that you have gold, and if I may be so bold
If you send me some I will not be a threat"
And that is called running protection
And the scum who demand it defend
That you only have to pay them protection
And your enterprise won't have to end.
It is a real temptation to avoid a confrontation
And pay off the bottom sucking filth
Then the business you created won't be immolated
By the bandwidth sucking zombies and their ilk
And that is called paying protection
But after you've paid up today
They'll come calling for more protection
There will never be an end to what you pay
It's a shame to whimper quietly and meet with their demand
To keep the money flowing fast and free
So when they do demand the little money in your hand
I would suggest that you repeat slowly after me.
"We never pay any scum protection
I am no Rudyard Kipling, but I think this captures the essence of itNo matter how hard they may lean
For tomorrow you'll be back threatening to hack
Using any zombies you can glean "
I am comfortable with Linux, Windows and BSD. I have done a little dabbling with the AS400, and worked on a mainframe in college. I have no fear of the command line, or learning a new OS. The reason I still use Windows as my desktop is STABILITY.
I know it is hard to believe that stability is an issue, but I have tried a number of Linux distros, only to have the OS go nova when I tried to install some new software, or update the base install. I am a geek, but I also have a buisness. I need my computers to work so I can bill hours. I need to be able to install new software quickly and easily without crossing my fingers and praying to $deity that my system and necessary apps will work when I am finished. In spite of all the horror stories about Windows, I have comparatively few problems with it on a daily basis.
I will continue to try updated distros, and new package systems, because I really do think Linux is an awesome concept. But until it is as reliable on the desktop as Windows, I can't make the leap.
So, all people of faith are morons. Red state hicks with no education, no idea of how the world works, and no desire to understand.
Get off of your high horse, and get out into the real world. I have 3 friends with PhD's in EE, one is a professor. I have a variety of friends, family, and acquaintances with postgrad degrees. All of the people I am talking about are people of faith, deeply involved in a church, and living their lives according to Biblical principles. I can point to just as many "humanists" with no interest in exploring alternative ideas who have no education and who like to spout off against anyone who disagrees with them. Are you one of those people?
Of course, I realize my anecdotal statements mean as little as your off the cuff remark. I am just tired of the bashing of people of faith that occurs on /. and get modded up. Those of you who engage in this behavior need to understand that the world of faith is as widely varied as the secular world. Painting with such a broad brush only serves to alienate. You claim such wisdom and openness; but it only extends as far as your own opinions. Wake up to the real world and get to know some people of faith in your own community. We don't bite, most of the time 8-)
You are trying to compare physical engineering incompatibility to software incompatibility. It is a false analogy because software can be modified at a cost significantly smaller than an entire manufacturing process.
Apple could make iTunes work with Linux for a very small incremental cost. They could make it easy to drop MP3 files into the iPod like any USB hard drive, for a very small incremental cost. It is possible to make these consumer products more open and useful, but Apple won't do it because in this case lock-in = revenue.
Now when it comes to trade secrets, I agree totally. Employess who signed NDA's should be held accountable for leaking internal info. Apple has every right to protect their trade secrets, and work to keep competitors in the dark. There may, however, be better ways of handling the issue than issuing subpoenas to fansites
.I think this is why you don't store user information in a cookie, url param, or hidden field. You use a session ID, and get the user id from the session db based on session ID. The session ID is your "reasonably large random value".
Using good coding practices is one way to keep yourself safe from these types of attacks. Even with a "database" like MySQL.
I don't care how you feel about the content of television, movies, video games or any other media. If you patronize it, you are adding to the very problem you percieve. If you have children, and you find this objectionable, don't buy it. And don't buy products from companies or advertisers related to it.
The government can't save you from yourself, and shouldn't be expected to. We can't have laws governing every aspect of our existence. That's why the Constitution says any right not discussed within it is granted to states and individuals.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. If the market isn't there, no company will produce it and the products you find objectionable will disappear.