I don't see it as a Republican problem. Also, I'm not a republican. I see it as an overall societal problem.
Politics won't fix this. But if it does get fixed, you'll certainly see a change in politics.
My vote will not cause a change in this problem one bit. People have to get mad, and decide not to take it anymore. One of the reasons cited that the russians never invaded the USA was that there were too many guns.. even if they won the war could they win the peace? This view was confirmed by oodles of post soviet documents released after the fall of the Berlin Wall
Things have changed since the cold war. There are not as many guns around- nor people willing to use them. I percieve a lack of backbone in our population.
"Every time an 80 year old grandmother gets felt up by the TSA, a terrorist is laughing."
As an aside, I had occasion to have dinner with an attorney that works for the TSA. You should hear what the people who work in the TSA are saying not only about the TSA, but the politics that goes on internally.
I asked him point blank: "Does the TSA need reform?"
His response, word for word: "Yes, and a high colonic."
I believe you are completely correct. The person at the airport was the best intelligence. Though, there's a chilling change in this country over the last 50 years, which is why I believe that most Americans are not watching, but rather relying on the government to be watching.
Case and point:
One has to wonder why three separate planefuls of Americans were able to stop "terrorists with box cutters" only 1/3 of the time.
Maybe this is better left unsaid, but I think there has to be a change in the way we as Americans react when threatened. The idea that some guys with box cutters can down three planes seems un-real to me. 60 years ago the passengers would have cleaned their freaking clocks. These days we are conditioned and told to wait for the authorities.
Mark Rudd, the former Weather Underground member, has been quoted as saying that Americans are conditioned to reject and abhorr violence unless it's state sanctioned. I think he's right.
That is the scariest thing to me. The idea that if some crazy guy pulls a gun on me in a mall, that my fellow citizens might just stand around waiting for the cops to show up.
We may be failing to take responsibility when situations could be influenced by our actions. I see the entire American scene as an opportunity for us to redefine what responsibility we have to our own people, and to others in the world through our policies.
QUOTE: "While Net Neutrality bill sounds like overkill, two-tier Internet bill is ought to be stopped too. If it passes freedom of speech would be seriously hampered, startups and small businesses will take a hit and we will pay higher prices for online advertising as well as goods and services delivered or sold over Internet. Do we really want that? I think not."
His conclusions in the article are dead on correct. Though I disagree with his opinion on net-neutrality.
The beauty of the internet, in my opinion, is it's ability to link people together while allowing an even playing field for small business. These have been the greatest social and economic impact points of the new technology era. Sadly, once it becomes tiered it also becomes discriminatory based on economic factors.
Sure, your blog can be seen, but if it get's too popular you'll have to pay more...
Sure, you can start a small business, but if it get's too busy you'll have to pay more...
The idea that no one "owns" the net itself should be inviolate. I already am charged for the bandwidth that comes off my servers because of the cost incurred by my ISP for upstream bandwidth.
A tiered internet would be the same as keeping the peasants out of libraries. It's a huge step *backwards*.
What ever happened to "Live free or die", "Give me liberty or give me death", or "Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither."?
Those quotes are not just platitudes... they are *good ideas*.
Keep the canned patriotism, give me my rights, and I'll just take my chances.
I hope that "extreme competence" and commitment was implied by the original post. Solving the unsolvable problem will always elevate you, because the field is concrete: It works or it doesn't.
Well, my experience has been that offshoring has had little impact on my business, which is security, deployment, and maintenance of internet facing computers.
I do a little coding. Some stays in house, some gets GPLd.
But from a services perspective, most of my clients have migrated to my company because we don't have tier 1 tech support, we have engineers- and our customers *hate* doing business with a company that offshores their support or engineering staff.
Every single client I have is a refugee from a services company with offshoring. Every Single One. They pay more... some times a lot more... for the services we provide. But we are also a lot more accountable to them.
FWIW- I've been successful in making a good living by being the opposite of the offshoring trend. But I think to make this work in the market place you have to run your own little business rather than seek employment from someone else.
On the down side- prepare to be awoken at 4:30am by a client calling your cell phone... because you have the shift... and both of your other engineers are in the Bahamas or Canada vacationing.
First off, Deforest Kelly has passed away, but according to TNG he was alive in Picard's time. Thus the question "Where did he go?"- which is not easily answered unless you use some kind of strange twist which excludes him from the story line.
And don't even get me started on Scotty and the incident at the Dyson Sphere, how do you handle that?
Star Trek is an amazing and visionary alternative universe. It's time to stop diluting it.
You are right, but you miss the point that naturally follows:
Because the operating system market is held hostage to a monopolist, the only market reaction left to those who want to compete, is to give a product away free, or at greatly reduced cost.
This removes the barrier of entry to new players who may want to innovate in the operating system market. We are now seeing the divergence of distributions in features, intended use, and many other properties.
What will we see in the future, I predict that Apple's model of development will be copied by those trying to do a "Desktop Linux":
1. Open source core OS, much like Darwin which is open source.
2. User interface and selected apps as closed source.
I think FOSS will remain dominant in the server space, because there is money to be made in the support arena. However in the desktop space a hybrid model will emerge where FOSS and non-FOSS will merge creating both a commercial opportunity for developers, and a compelling product (or range of products) for consumers.
Redhat, who supplies all of the OS for my servers, has a compelling model in the server space and are making money- as is IBM. FOSS as a business model is not only compelling, but profitable. It has not reached it's potential.
Redhat effectively taking back control of Fedora appears to me to be of little or no impact to where FOSS is going. After all, they have to bow to market realities. If they make their userbase angry, they'll lose business to other distributions with more liberal policies.
The only way you will see FOSS return a mostly "hobby OS" is of the market corrects to the point where there are multple OS choices in the same market segment. Until then, FOSS will continue to pressure commercial software in the market, and gain momentum with users and admins.
Who exactly is going to be using these patches? Think about it for a moment, since when did security savvy computer users, let alone experts, use IE?? True they may fire it up to go to a specific site or two that requires it or works better with it, but for general surfing? I don't think so. Anyone with the good sense God gave the common radish is using Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, or in the case of Macs Safari.
I can see a use for these patches in a corporate environment where (for whatever reason) IE is a necessary evil, but even then you're running the risk of getting smacked (if not sacked) by management if the patches break something.
These patches are realy useful for one thing, showing up Microsoft and making them look like incompetent boobs whose code is such a mess they can't fix it. Given the delays on Vista I'd say this perception is pretty accurate.
Actually, it's going to help my clients.
I regularly announce things like this to people who use my services whether it's hosting, or consulting... and in some cases I'm asked to make the announcement to the customers' clients also.
So the announcement gets made to about 1000 people. And 90 percent of them are not geeks.
Your view of how this information gets out and is used by the general public appears rather myopic.
Did you even READ the article??
"Just 39 percent of people who took the survey always ask whether a new partner is infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, or other STDs. Nearly one-third said they never check on a prospective partner's sexual health status, and among those with less than a high school education, almost 50 percent never discuss the issue of STDs with a new partner -- troubling statistics given the deadliness of AIDS and rising rates of genital herpes and other diseases."
This alone indicates the amount of risk people are willing to take is high!
Not to take away from people who suffer with TB. But I think there's a large social issue here.
Whether it's talked about openly or not, a disease that curtails a persons sex life gets a lot of press because it forces people to modify their behavior- which is basically against human nature (statistics tend to prove this out- people like sex, seek it out, and are generally not monogamous). We are all interested in sex.
So the idea of a drug that could make AIDS preventable is of great interest to everyone. And while conservatives may be more successful at the monogamy game than others, I would think that they would be happy a prophylactic drug is avalable for those that do not live in that manner.
Research like this is a good thing for everyone. And the knowledge gained will also be hugely helpful with other viral diseases.
This is a win for everyone on the planet even if the results are shown through further research to be marginally less positive than reported.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up... excellent screenplay adaptation!
They already did this... it was called the Chevy Vega.
He thinks he's "The Decider".
It's nothing but Mycarthyism.
We just jumped back 50 years.
Isn't this the same company that has their employees do jumping-jacks and group chants during rah rah sessions?
http://www.bestbuysux.org/
Hmm...
It also works for new Windows XP Professional installs.
Strange.
Don't know if you will read this, but FWIW:
I don't see it as a Republican problem. Also, I'm not a republican. I see it as an overall societal problem.
Politics won't fix this. But if it does get fixed, you'll certainly see a change in politics.
My vote will not cause a change in this problem one bit. People have to get mad, and decide not to take it anymore. One of the reasons cited that the russians never invaded the USA was that there were too many guns.. even if they won the war could they win the peace? This view was confirmed by oodles of post soviet documents released after the fall of the Berlin Wall
Things have changed since the cold war. There are not as many guns around- nor people willing to use them. I percieve a lack of backbone in our population.
Anyhow... that's my perception.
"Every time an 80 year old grandmother gets felt up by the TSA, a terrorist is laughing."
As an aside, I had occasion to have dinner with an attorney that works for the TSA. You should hear what the people who work in the TSA are saying not only about the TSA, but the politics that goes on internally.
I asked him point blank: "Does the TSA need reform?"
His response, word for word: "Yes, and a high colonic."
Warning- dangerous comment.... fasten seat belt.
I believe you are completely correct. The person at the airport was the best intelligence. Though, there's a chilling change in this country over the last 50 years, which is why I believe that most Americans are not watching, but rather relying on the government to be watching.
Case and point:
One has to wonder why three separate planefuls of Americans were able to stop "terrorists with box cutters" only 1/3 of the time.
Maybe this is better left unsaid, but I think there has to be a change in the way we as Americans react when threatened. The idea that some guys with box cutters can down three planes seems un-real to me. 60 years ago the passengers would have cleaned their freaking clocks. These days we are conditioned and told to wait for the authorities.
Mark Rudd, the former Weather Underground member, has been quoted as saying that Americans are conditioned to reject and abhorr violence unless it's state sanctioned. I think he's right.
That is the scariest thing to me. The idea that if some crazy guy pulls a gun on me in a mall, that my fellow citizens might just stand around waiting for the cops to show up.
We may be failing to take responsibility when situations could be influenced by our actions. I see the entire American scene as an opportunity for us to redefine what responsibility we have to our own people, and to others in the world through our policies.
"Anonymous Coward"
QUOTE:
"While Net Neutrality bill sounds like overkill, two-tier Internet bill is ought to be stopped too. If it passes freedom of speech would be seriously hampered, startups and small businesses will take a hit and we will pay higher prices for online advertising as well as goods and services delivered or sold over Internet. Do we really want that? I think not."
His conclusions in the article are dead on correct. Though I disagree with his opinion on net-neutrality.
The beauty of the internet, in my opinion, is it's ability to link people together while allowing an even playing field for small business. These have been the greatest social and economic impact points of the new technology era. Sadly, once it becomes tiered it also becomes discriminatory based on economic factors.
Sure, your blog can be seen, but if it get's too popular you'll have to pay more...
Sure, you can start a small business, but if it get's too busy you'll have to pay more...
The idea that no one "owns" the net itself should be inviolate. I already am charged for the bandwidth that comes off my servers because of the cost incurred by my ISP for upstream bandwidth.
A tiered internet would be the same as keeping the peasants out of libraries. It's a huge step *backwards*.
What have I done?
I speak out without fear in defense of *my rights* while the morons you mention watch TV.
Wasn't that apparent? Or is this another episode of "Bash the Patriot"?
Go watch TV. That's all you are good for.
What ever happened to "Live free or die", "Give me liberty or give me death", or "Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither."?
Those quotes are not just platitudes... they are *good ideas*.
Keep the canned patriotism, give me my rights, and I'll just take my chances.
Good comment...
I hope that "extreme competence" and commitment was implied by the original post. Solving the unsolvable problem will always elevate you, because the field is concrete: It works or it doesn't.
Well, my experience has been that offshoring has had little impact on my business, which is security, deployment, and maintenance of internet facing computers.
I do a little coding. Some stays in house, some gets GPLd.
But from a services perspective, most of my clients have migrated to my company because we don't have tier 1 tech support, we have engineers- and our customers *hate* doing business with a company that offshores their support or engineering staff.
Every single client I have is a refugee from a services company with offshoring. Every Single One. They pay more... some times a lot more... for the services we provide. But we are also a lot more accountable to them.
FWIW- I've been successful in making a good living by being the opposite of the offshoring trend. But I think to make this work in the market place you have to run your own little business rather than seek employment from someone else.
On the down side- prepare to be awoken at 4:30am by a client calling your cell phone... because you have the shift... and both of your other engineers are in the Bahamas or Canada vacationing.
So let me get this straight...
A critical flaw for *some* users is not patched universally.
Time is wasted while "detection logic" is coded. (Ooooh long patch time!!)
That stinks.
And what happens when the criteria for the patch is met? Does Windows XP then detect it an download it?
Just give me a patch. I don't need to be an experimental "detection logic" tester.
"If the Vulcan is greased, Roddenberry's deceased"
No one is gonna care as long as a naked Vulcan get's greased up in the decon chamber.
I mean really... Look how far it's fallen.
"Hand me the decon gel- it's not your emotions I'm interested in...."
Maybe they could get Screech to play the young Spock?
Mr. Belding as the headmaster at Star Fleet?
Add some funky porn music and some PVC you might.. Um.
Forget it.
There'd be some holes in canon with this.
First off, Deforest Kelly has passed away, but according to TNG he was alive in Picard's time. Thus the question "Where did he go?"- which is not easily answered unless you use some kind of strange twist which excludes him from the story line.
And don't even get me started on Scotty and the incident at the Dyson Sphere, how do you handle that?
Star Trek is an amazing and visionary alternative universe. It's time to stop diluting it.
Milk it.... Miiiiilk it.... Miiiiiiiiiiiilk it....
Yeesh, talk about taking a good idea and turning it into a dogmatic commercial eggroll. Egads.
What's next? "Is that a phaser, or are you just happy to see me"? I'll pass.
You mention economics.
You are right, but you miss the point that naturally follows:
Because the operating system market is held hostage to a monopolist, the only market reaction left to those who want to compete, is to give a product away free, or at greatly reduced cost.
This removes the barrier of entry to new players who may want to innovate in the operating system market. We are now seeing the divergence of distributions in features, intended use, and many other properties.
What will we see in the future, I predict that Apple's model of development will be copied by those trying to do a "Desktop Linux":
1. Open source core OS, much like Darwin which is open source.
2. User interface and selected apps as closed source.
I think FOSS will remain dominant in the server space, because there is money to be made in the support arena. However in the desktop space a hybrid model will emerge where FOSS and non-FOSS will merge creating both a commercial opportunity for developers, and a compelling product (or range of products) for consumers.
Redhat, who supplies all of the OS for my servers, has a compelling model in the server space and are making money- as is IBM. FOSS as a business model is not only compelling, but profitable. It has not reached it's potential.
Redhat effectively taking back control of Fedora appears to me to be of little or no impact to where FOSS is going. After all, they have to bow to market realities. If they make their userbase angry, they'll lose business to other distributions with more liberal policies.
The only way you will see FOSS return a mostly "hobby OS" is of the market corrects to the point where there are multple OS choices in the same market segment. Until then, FOSS will continue to pressure commercial software in the market, and gain momentum with users and admins.
Did you even READ the article?? "Just 39 percent of people who took the survey always ask whether a new partner is infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, or other STDs. Nearly one-third said they never check on a prospective partner's sexual health status, and among those with less than a high school education, almost 50 percent never discuss the issue of STDs with a new partner -- troubling statistics given the deadliness of AIDS and rising rates of genital herpes and other diseases." This alone indicates the amount of risk people are willing to take is high!
Not to take away from people who suffer with TB. But I think there's a large social issue here.
Whether it's talked about openly or not, a disease that curtails a persons sex life gets a lot of press because it forces people to modify their behavior- which is basically against human nature (statistics tend to prove this out- people like sex, seek it out, and are generally not monogamous). We are all interested in sex.
So the idea of a drug that could make AIDS preventable is of great interest to everyone. And while conservatives may be more successful at the monogamy game than others, I would think that they would be happy a prophylactic drug is avalable for those that do not live in that manner.
Research like this is a good thing for everyone. And the knowledge gained will also be hugely helpful with other viral diseases.
This is a win for everyone on the planet even if the results are shown through further research to be marginally less positive than reported.