Distros should start shipping their Linux's with big yellow stickers that say "Certified 100% free of infringing SCO code, No SCO license required". SCO can't really dispute that without publically producing the offending code, at which point it can really be removed (if it truly exists).
The article talks about cashiers, these jobs tend to be filled by teenagers and college-age students, for whom $6.25 is enough (unless they are out of their parents house, but that's another story).
When I was 19, I had a job as a cashier at a supermarket earning $4.50. The supermarket was a union shop, so we had to join the Union even though we were part time, and only earning $0.25 above minimum wage at the time. Even if I got 12/hrs a week, the Union took its $17 in dues. After Taxes and dues, it wasn't worth working there, so I left and went back to school.
Point is, no one is forced to make a career out of a Walmart-type job. Of course the writer of this article is in Kansas, and maybe there aren't many other opportunities in that area, but you can always move.
Second of all there are some things that are too unethical to do research on, so saying "this is just a research project" is no excuse. Imagine for a second if some hospital tried to induce artificial genetic mutations to the babies of unwilling mothers, by bombarding
This is very different than deliberatly harming someone against their will. If suddenly the futures market is betting that some head of state will be assassinated, then that head of state will can get a heads-up that he'd better get some extra-protection
Third of all this market system is very likely to cause assassinations itself. Someone will quickly figure out that they could bet on an event happening and then cause the event to happen themselves. So essentially the result will be a killing for money scheme, funded and organized with our (us taxpayers') money.
Well for one, you are leaving a paper trail by using the system, but even if you have an elaborate laundering scheme in place, the kinds of figures that you can bet on the assassination of would be very important, therefore well-protected, and not easy to pull off an assassination of, so there's a huge risk in trying to pull it off. There are easier and less risky ways to profit from a crime than this.
1) We're not talking about predicting the market, we're talking about a market's ability to predict events. For example, just before 9/11, Re-insurer stocks tumbled dramatically, as if some knew of what was about to occur.
2) The stock market is a bad example, because it is full of average-Joe investors who tend to blindly follow the latest stock-fad, and therefore cause wild swings, the commodity-futures markets are closer to the model here, since those tend to be used by more serious investors.
It's amazing how the majority of/. readers miss the point of this system.
Futures-type markets are remarkably good at predicting future trends because they are essentially the consenses of thousands of people, who are confident enough in their outlook to put money on it. Because of this, the Pentagon launched this research project to see if they could harness that power in predicting terror. The point is not to make people rich off of terror attacks or assassinations, the point is to try to know where to focus your efforts in preventing such an attack.
Now as to whether it will work, who knows? If the investors know that the goal is the prevention of the events, therefore no payoff, will they put up the money? How will individual investors know the likeliness of various scenarios if they don't have access to top-secret intelligence, so therefore how accurate can they really be? It remains to be seen.
But again, this is only a RESEARCH project, to see if such a system is feasible, it isn't like we're betting the future of terror prevention on this.
In short, the commercials are not part of the content, and thus are perfectly acceptable to skip.
What about product placement? Am I allowed to fast forward through a portion of a movie or TV show if I see something that was put there because someone paid for it to be there?
It's sad that the entertainment industry is so out of touch that they take a case like this to court, and the EFF has to waste resources submitting friend of the court documents because the legal system is so screwed up that some judge might actually agree with them.
Of course consumers have the right to view DVDs and skip any part of it for any reason, too much sex, not enough sex, too boring, Jar Jar Binks, etc.
Next they'll tell us we aren't allowed to skip commercials or go to the kitchen while they're on, oh wait, didn't they attack TIVO on those grounds?
I had always known them to flee from people and animals, so I didn't mind when I saw them building the nest under the deck. (it's about 10' off the ground). But first we weren't allow to use the deck, then we weren't allowed to be near the nest on the ground, then it was that half of the yard, then it was the whole yard. The dogs would get clawed in the back while doing their business.
We learned we could fend the robin off with the garden hose, but we must've looked like idiots to the neighbors.;-)
Finally one of the dogs got revenge this morning. One of the baby robins flew right to the dog, and the dog killed it. Kind of sad, but no wonder the parents are so defensive, baby robins are really stupid!
How about a groundhog that eats your weeds, but not your vegitable garden. Or Robins that pay you rent if they build a nest under your deck, instead of attacking you or your pets just for wanting to be in your backyard.
As far as I'm concerned, the industry is already shipping pre-destructed material. Shoddy plotlines. Crappy acting, B-stories with A-budgets. "Adaptations" of classics. Bah.
It used to be that way, but then they started giving us quality entertainment like "Survivor", "Joe Millionaire" and the "Anna Nichole" show.
The solution is to make the alcohol cubes small enough so that they melt before they freeze the water, and don't add too many. Serving the OJ warm (yecch) also couldn't hurt
"Cities will be built around this device with restrooms on every corner so that you don't have to shit your pants when you see one go by."
Re:Clarifications on my part
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
After TMI and Chernobyl, there was no demand to build new Nuclear plants for a long time. Then around 2001, with the California energy crisis, they were starting to look attractive again, but then 9/11 happened. Too bad, it's the best solution for large-scale energy production we have right now.
That would take a lazy group (long-term welfare leeches*) and force them to become physically active, as well as consolidate two major burdens on the taxpayer (by making welfare benefits intersect with reserve pay)
Is this really who you want defending the country?
Re:The sky is not falling
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
They say that because that's what other countries WANT to hear.
It appears that the real policy is to weaken the dollar enough to help stimulate the economy, at which point the dollar would streghen on its own. A few members of the administration have stated a policy similar to this. It caused a stir in the financial markets, at which point Bush or another high ranking administration member comes out and states that we have a "strong dollar" policy.
So BMG, or another one of the major labels, who a few years ago, raised CD prices by $3 or so, and then complained that sales fell off, are going to undercut Apple to 35 cents? And use a no-DRM solution like Ogg Vorbis to boot?
BTW, the situation is not HARD in the US at all. Most countries on the planet would give anything for JUST 6% unemployment rate.
Yes, for all the whining and moaning you see these days, it's easy to forget that 6% used to be considered almost normal employment. The last two recessions featured unemployment rates around 9 or 10%
At the moment, however, I don't see the Next Big Thing that'll generate the jobs lost to automation. I don't the killer product that'll create a huge demand and'll lead to millions of jobs. Many thought, the internet would bring that on, but, as we all know now, that wasn't the case.
Of course you don't. Most people don't. If you did, you'd be off inventing it and getting rich in the future.
Don't write off the internet yet either. It will continue to be a boon for companies that have set up a successful business model around it. Yes, there really are some, Ebay, those travel sites, Amazon to a lesser extent.
Look at what happened with video games. Around 1983, Video games had a huge amount of hype then. Every company in the world wanted to produce Atari VCS games, and the market was flooded with worthless games such as "Chase the Chuckwagon" (from a Dog Food company!)
The videogame market crashed, and many game makers went out of business. The existing companies gave it up for dead, then just a few years later, Nintendo and Sega came in and started making a killing in videogames. Today the videogame market is bigger than ever, but it doesn't have the 1983-era hype surrounding it.
I see the same thing happening with the internet. The "Chase the Chuckwagon"-type dotcoms have disappeared, but many others will thrive and prosper in the coming years.
So we've reached the end of human innovation? There are no new fields to develop?
I think Scott Adams illustrated the problem with this way of thinking best when he wrote in "Dilbert Future" that the "Trend of outsourcing will continue until all of the work on the planet is done by one guy, and the global economy would collapse if he took a sick day."
Slashdot Mirror
Distros should start shipping their Linux's with big yellow stickers that say "Certified 100% free of infringing SCO code, No SCO license required". SCO can't really dispute that without publically producing the offending code, at which point it can really be removed (if it truly exists).
The article talks about cashiers, these jobs tend to be filled by teenagers and college-age students, for whom $6.25 is enough (unless they are out of their parents house, but that's another story).
When I was 19, I had a job as a cashier at a supermarket earning $4.50. The supermarket was a union shop, so we had to join the Union even though we were part time, and only earning $0.25 above minimum wage at the time. Even if I got 12/hrs a week, the Union took its $17 in dues. After Taxes and dues, it wasn't worth working there, so I left and went back to school.
Point is, no one is forced to make a career out of a Walmart-type job. Of course the writer of this article is in Kansas, and maybe there aren't many other opportunities in that area, but you can always move.
While on the topic.. Why do we STILL have to pay extra for touch tone service?
This is very different than deliberatly harming someone against their will. If suddenly the futures market is betting that some head of state will be assassinated, then that head of state will can get a heads-up that he'd better get some extra-protection
Third of all this market system is very likely to cause assassinations itself. Someone will quickly figure out that they could bet on an event happening and then cause the event to happen themselves. So essentially the result will be a killing for money scheme, funded and organized with our (us taxpayers') money.Well for one, you are leaving a paper trail by using the system, but even if you have an elaborate laundering scheme in place, the kinds of figures that you can bet on the assassination of would be very important, therefore well-protected, and not easy to pull off an assassination of, so there's a huge risk in trying to pull it off. There are easier and less risky ways to profit from a crime than this.
1) We're not talking about predicting the market, we're talking about a market's ability to predict events. For example, just before 9/11, Re-insurer stocks tumbled dramatically, as if some knew of what was about to occur.
2) The stock market is a bad example, because it is full of average-Joe investors who tend to blindly follow the latest stock-fad, and therefore cause wild swings, the commodity-futures markets are closer to the model here, since those tend to be used by more serious investors.
It's amazing how the majority of /. readers miss the point of this system.
Futures-type markets are remarkably good at predicting future trends because they are essentially the consenses of thousands of people, who are confident enough in their outlook to put money on it. Because of this, the Pentagon launched this research project to see if they could harness that power in predicting terror. The point is not to make people rich off of terror attacks or assassinations, the point is to try to know where to focus your efforts in preventing such an attack.
Now as to whether it will work, who knows? If the investors know that the goal is the prevention of the events, therefore no payoff, will they put up the money? How will individual investors know the likeliness of various scenarios if they don't have access to top-secret intelligence, so therefore how accurate can they really be? It remains to be seen.
But again, this is only a RESEARCH project, to see if such a system is feasible, it isn't like we're betting the future of terror prevention on this.
I can't think of a better advertisment for all that's wrong with the DMCA than having a major media outlet sued under it for just reporting a story.
Bring it on!
What about product placement? Am I allowed to fast forward through a portion of a movie or TV show if I see something that was put there because someone paid for it to be there?
It's sad that the entertainment industry is so out of touch that they take a case like this to court, and the EFF has to waste resources submitting friend of the court documents because the legal system is so screwed up that some judge might actually agree with them.
Of course consumers have the right to view DVDs and skip any part of it for any reason, too much sex, not enough sex, too boring, Jar Jar Binks, etc.
Next they'll tell us we aren't allowed to skip commercials or go to the kitchen while they're on, oh wait, didn't they attack TIVO on those grounds?
This is typical behavior for a large corporation whose right hand doesn't know know what their left hand is doing.
I had always known them to flee from people and animals, so I didn't mind when I saw them building the nest under the deck. (it's about 10' off the ground). But first we weren't allow to use the deck, then we weren't allowed to be near the nest on the ground, then it was that half of the yard, then it was the whole yard. The dogs would get clawed in the back while doing their business.
;-)
We learned we could fend the robin off with the garden hose, but we must've looked like idiots to the neighbors.
Finally one of the dogs got revenge this morning. One of the baby robins flew right to the dog, and the dog killed it. Kind of sad, but no wonder the parents are so defensive, baby robins are really stupid!
How about a groundhog that eats your weeds, but not your vegitable garden. Or Robins that pay you rent if they build a nest under your deck, instead of attacking you or your pets just for wanting to be in your backyard.
(sorry, these are my current problems)
It used to be that way, but then they started giving us quality entertainment like "Survivor", "Joe Millionaire" and the "Anna Nichole" show.
The solution is to make the alcohol cubes small enough so that they melt before they freeze the water, and don't add too many. Serving the OJ warm (yecch) also couldn't hurt
Bah! Nothing beats a tall glass of Liquid Nitrogen with a twist of lemon on a hot summer day.
After I drink it, I cool my CPU by breathing on it. None of this heatsink crap!
Maybe the full quote was...
"Cities will be built around this device with restrooms on every corner so that you don't have to shit your pants when you see one go by."
After TMI and Chernobyl, there was no demand to build new Nuclear plants for a long time. Then around 2001, with the California energy crisis, they were starting to look attractive again, but then 9/11 happened. Too bad, it's the best solution for large-scale energy production we have right now.
Is this really who you want defending the country?
They say that because that's what other countries WANT to hear.
It appears that the real policy is to weaken the dollar enough to help stimulate the economy, at which point the dollar would streghen on its own. A few members of the administration have stated a policy similar to this. It caused a stir in the financial markets, at which point Bush or another high ranking administration member comes out and states that we have a "strong dollar" policy.
Hahahaha Good one...
So BMG, or another one of the major labels, who a few years ago, raised CD prices by $3 or so, and then complained that sales fell off, are going to undercut Apple to 35 cents? And use a no-DRM solution like Ogg Vorbis to boot?
Explain to me again why more call centers are a good thing?
The ones you call (tech support, customer service) are mostly useless, and the ones that call you (telemarketers) are even worse.
Yes, for all the whining and moaning you see these days, it's easy to forget that 6% used to be considered almost normal employment. The last two recessions featured unemployment rates around 9 or 10%
They also save and invest. These also help the economy:
Saving is giving your money to the bank so that others can borrow and spend it.
Investing is giving your money to some company so they can expand. Expanding means creating jobs.
At the moment, however, I don't see the Next Big Thing that'll generate the jobs lost to automation. I don't the killer product that'll create a huge demand and'll lead to millions of jobs. Many thought, the internet would bring that on, but, as we all know now, that wasn't the case.
Of course you don't. Most people don't. If you did, you'd be off inventing it and getting rich in the future.
Don't write off the internet yet either. It will continue to be a boon for companies that have set up a successful business model around it. Yes, there really are some, Ebay, those travel sites, Amazon to a lesser extent.
Look at what happened with video games. Around 1983, Video games had a huge amount of hype then. Every company in the world wanted to produce Atari VCS games, and the market was flooded with worthless games such as "Chase the Chuckwagon" (from a Dog Food company!)
The videogame market crashed, and many game makers went out of business. The existing companies gave it up for dead, then just a few years later, Nintendo and Sega came in and started making a killing in videogames. Today the videogame market is bigger than ever, but it doesn't have the 1983-era hype surrounding it.
I see the same thing happening with the internet. The "Chase the Chuckwagon"-type dotcoms have disappeared, but many others will thrive and prosper in the coming years.
So we've reached the end of human innovation? There are no new fields to develop?
I think Scott Adams illustrated the problem with this way of thinking best when he wrote in "Dilbert Future" that the "Trend of outsourcing will continue until all of the work on the planet is done by one guy, and the global economy would collapse if he took a sick day."