If the book is free, why does it matter if the binding is strong? Also,
check the bindings of your modern books. There are no weak bindings anymore.
The library has a database of records of books, already; there is no
additional cost.
The cost mentioned by the librarians, $30, is a lie. Only that. They are told
to tell that lie every time someone asks.
All of the responses to my original (grandparent) post are putting a huge
amount of energy into exploring all the ways I can be wrong. That's why there
is so little progress in the world. The abused argue among themselves, and no
improvements are decided.
I have offered books that the library needed, that the librarian said was in
short supply at that library, that was already cataloged because they had
other copies, and have been told that it would be sold rather than added to
the library's collection. The reason given was nonsense.
I have situations where the librarian said the library needed the book, but that they could not accept the donation of a copy from me for adding to their collection. The library would sell the book.
Everyone seems to be missing the point. The libraries are selling the
books rather than putting them on the shelves!
They do this because of commercial pressure. If everyone donated their old CDs
and videos to the library, it would be unnecessary to rent or buy any of the
older ones; you could borrow them. Somehow the people who want to corrupt the
system, apparently publishers, have gotten control over the libraries. Have
your ever noticed that the CDs and videos in the library are never the latest
albums and movies? Certainly by now some family has decided not to let their
children watch "Finding Nemo" any more times.
Everyone posting is so willingly believing that all the donated books are ones
no one would want to check out of a library. But that's not so. For example,
there are many books I would donate if I knew I could check them out later.
However, the librarians of the Multnomah County Central Library (in Portland,
Oregon, U.S.A.) have told me that putting a book in their system costs $30,
and somehow it is cheaper to buy a new one! Over the years I have often
mentioned the illogic in this. But all of them continue parroting the same
line.
Consider the doctrine of first sale, in which you are allowed to do anything you want
with your legally purchased copyrighted material, if you do not make a copy.
Publishers have corrupted the doctrine of first sale so that copying
into RAM to listen it or view it has been considered an illegal copy.
"The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world,
some 686 per 100,000 of the national population,..."
In the U.S., the anger level is such that there is strong support for keeping
people in small cages, at great taxpayer expense, but little support for
fixing social problems.
From the parent post: "Getting rid of your idiot president would be a good
start."
As others have said, at least there is what appears to be a good alternative:
Howard
Dean for President
The point is: Use a completely compiled language, instead of a pseudo-compiled language. There is a eason why huge companies push pseudo-compiled languages. It allows them to easily determine the business logic of other companies.
It's not the "government". It's the National
Cancer Institute (NCI). Says so at the bottom of the Usability Guidelines page. If you aren't doing research on cancer using U.S. government money, they don't have any authority over you. So, relax, everyone.
It's a mistake to think that because I didn't mention something I don't know
it. Everything below is from an October 1 email message to the CEO I mentioned in the grandparent
post:
"I regularly use decompilers for Java classes. The last library I decompiled
is TupleSpace from IBM, a library for network communication (useful if doing
clustering). The result was of a shocking clarity.:) Thank you IBM.
"That was especially easy because the code had few local variables (in the
bytecode, local variables have an identifier that is a number) and no
obfuscation."
Was supporting open source Lou Gerstner's idea?
on
GUI Designer For Eclipse
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
From the parent post: "Personally, I intend to put up an IBM logo to
worship next to my desk, as a thank you for the Eclipse!:-)"
The underlying point here is that supporting open source software is an
extremely good way for a company to get positive publicity.
Ten dollars of support for open source is probably more powerful than $1000 of
stupid TV ad campaigns in which stupid-looking people go around in
stupid-looking "space" suits. (IBM needs a better advertising agency. I saw an
interview on the Charlie Rose show of the woman who heads the agency IBM uses.
She knows nothing about technical things, obviously doesn't care about
technical things, and obviously believes that technically knowledgeable people
are her social inferiors. She is disgustingly destructive toward her client,
IBM. While they're considering this, IBM should fire its marketing manager for
letting that happen. Could I do better? Yes, wake me up any day at four
o'clock in the morning and I could do better before I was completely awake.)
At one time, IBM was hated as much as Microsoft is now, because of IBM's
extremely adversarial business methods. There were many technically
knowledgeable people who would not consider working for IBM. That seems to be
changing now.
Was supporting open source Lou Gerstner's idea? I don't know. However,
it was an excellent idea.
Recently, a CEO asked me what I thought of Microsoft's.NET. I told him the
biggest drawback was that using.NET means that you are a partner of
Microsoft. (The second is that.NET programs are easily de-compiled; other
people can easily examine your business logic if they have a copy of your
program.)
People like me influence purchasing decisions of highly technical products.
People like me say that it doesn't matter how much money Microsoft has, or how
strong a virtual monopoly, Microsoft is on the way down. I remember
Microsoft's adversarial behavior. I remember Novell's adversarial behavior, and I
will never, never forget, even though I don't do business with Novell any
longer.
The point is that supporting open source software impresses me and other
technically knowledgeable people who 1) influence purchases, and 2) are the
kind of people a technical company might want to hire.
So, two rules for running a technically knowledgeable company: 1) Find some way
of making money that doesn't involve any instances of doing harm. 2) Build a
positive attitude toward your company by supporting the work of the world:
Open Source.
Please post any links you have to reasonably priced plug strips. (They are also called power strips.) I don't see why 12 outlets should cost about 2 dollars per outlet.
Rich and powerful interests don't want good patent examinations. They want the control that comes from having spurious patent approvals, which must be contested in expensive court proceedings. Those interests make sure that the U.S. patent and trademark office is under-funded. Twenty years ago there was better funding.
This is just one more example of the rapidly widening corruption in the U.S. government. Another example: Vice-president Dick Cheney, when he worked in the defense department, had the rules changed about procuring services during times of war. Then, as Vice-president, he pushed for a war with Iraq, and made sure the services went to his former company, Halliburton.
As David Letterman said, when you write a check for your part of the $87 billion that will be used to "rebuild" Iraq (after bombing it), remember that there are two Ls in Halliburton.
The law is meant to be owned by all of us.
on
Who Is An ISP?
·
· Score: 1
Adding to my parent post: It is very common that people who comment on Slashdot call each other idiots. However, it is likely that almost all of those who read Slashdot are of above average intelligence.
Those who have commented on the parent post have said I don't understand the law! Whoa! Such a big need to find that someone else is less intelligent!
The law is meant to be owned by all of us. If the average people of us cannot understand a law, it should be re-written. Generally, when a law is difficult to understand, those who wrote it don't want it to be understood.
If you can't understand a law, it is a corrupt law
on
Who Is An ISP?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you read a law and can't understand it, it is by that very fact a corrupt law. The reason you can't understand the "anti-spam" law is that they don't want you to understand it. It is intended to accomplish some hidden purpose.
One more example of U.S. government corruption.
on
Who Is An ISP?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
My impression of the "anti-spam" legislation is that it is pro-spam, and one more example of U.S. government corruption.
Dave Letterman said, "When you make out your part of the check for $87,000,000,000 to help Iraq, remember that there are two Ls in Halliburton." (Halliburton is Vice-President Dick Cheney's company.)
There are many, many things wrong with XP. But it doesn't crash like you say. You should suspect a hardware problem. The most common issue is that when a computer is moved, the case flexes enough that one or more of the adapter cards stops making full reliable contact.
Just open the case and pull all the cards out a sixteenth of an inch or 2 millimeters. Then push the cards back in. (You will need to loosen the screws.) Do the same with the memory and the cable connectors.
Once the hardware is reliable, you may need to do a re-load of XP, but maybe not.
You said, "... U.S. policy... encourages the situation to foment, and
causes the radicalization of both sides."
Exactly right. This is a VERY BIG ISSUE. It is extremely dangerous for those,
who want stability in the world for the Jewish cultures, to allow themselves
to be influenced by U.S. policy. See my other comment about this: #7565331.
"U.S. policy" regarding the Jews is largely composed of ignorance and greed.
It should not be considered friendly guidance, and it cannot be perverted or
converted into friendly guidance.
You said, saying the opposite of what you believe, "Confronting hatred
doesn't acomplish anything after all...." The situation of the Blacks in
Boston may be a situation of "confronting hatred". If it can be done
successfully, fine.
What's happening in Israel is not "confronting hatred". Whenever people see
Israelis on TV firing on Palestinians in the street from U.S.-made helicopter
gunships, that is not "confronting hatred". That is breeding hatred. It is
breeding hatred even if a panel of a hundred judicial experts would decide
that the helicopters were being used in defense.
It's not what you say, and nothing in my previous post led to what you said.
It's interesting that you are attacking me for repeating quotes from a Jewish
web site. Maybe the real issue is that Jews don't want non-Jews to comment
about anything having to do with Jewish affairs. It there something it is
necessary to hide?
Few people in the U.S. understand anything about Jewish history, or have any
problem with Jews. Except the "Christian" extremists. They want all Jews to be
killed or converted. Jewish leaders know that, and take the Christian money
anyway. At least that what they say when they are interviewed on TV. I have no
other information about this than watching the interviews.
Other than the Christian extremists, the other groups in the U.S.
that want Israeli violence have no interest in or concern with religion. These
other groups are: 1) Secret departments of the U.S. government, like the CIA
operations department. They get more money and promotions when there is more
trouble. 2) U.S. Weapons manufacturers. They want the profits, and don't care
who kills who. 3) Those who have special interests in oil profits. They sell
oil to the U.S. military. They also want violence as a way of arranging oil
holdings that would otherwise be illegal or too expensive. 4) Those who like
any violence, because they have problems with anger.
So, except for the large
number of "Christian" extremists, there is absolutely no involvement of
religion or ethnic issues.
My understanding of the U.S. culture is
that most Americans are happy with the contribution of Jews to the American
society. I've said this twice before in previous comments in this thread.
I think it is reasonable to suppose that, when most Americans learn
about their government's support for Jewish violence, there will be a decrease
in that support for Jews. But, I don't control this, obviously, or have all
the facts.
If you agree with this view, then you may think that it
was a public relations mistake for Jews to take money from the U.S.
government. A famous Jewish leader, I forget who now, said that U.S. government money was
like pouring gasoline on a fire. I'm only repeating the view of many Jews. If
they hadn't said it first, it would have taken longer to develop my own
understandings.
So, Jewish integration into U.S. society is an
example of what works. Jewish integration into middle east society is an
example of what doesn't work. Aren't there lessons to be learned from this?
Why not stay with what works?
Also: I wasn't there in 1882, obviously. I was only taking the first sentence of a description from an Israeli, Jewish web page: "Under Ottoman Rule 1882 - 1917 -- From the beginning Jewish settlement met with opposition from the local Arabs."
It doesn't matter who is "right". Jews weren't wanted, and Jews didn't care enough that they weren't wanted. They didn't take enough care with their relationships with the people who already lived there. And now Jewish public relations are falling fast, as the perception grows that Jews are violent people. I did not say that they are violent people, only that the perception that they are violent is growing.
Anyhow, don't be upset with me. I don't have any control over any of this.
I'm definitely not blaming the Jews for Arab craziness. I'm not blaming whites for Black craziness. I'm not blaming Jews or Blacks for Caucasian craziness. But the craziness is there, nevertheless, and it cannot be ignored. No amount of talking about who is right changes the fact that the craziness exists. Stay clear of craziness; don't get involved with it, particularly when there are 14 million of you and 1.1 billion Muslims.
Each side believes that it is right. However, when Israelis shoot at Arabs on the ground with U.S.-made helicopter gunships, and everyone in the U.S., Europe, and Arab lands see that on TV, it plays badly, very badly. No matter who is right, it looks bad.
Actually, it is a term from England, where the government produces rough drafts called greenpapers. In that context it, has meaning. In the U.S., it has no meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
If the book is free, why does it matter if the binding is strong? Also, check the bindings of your modern books. There are no weak bindings anymore.
The library has a database of records of books, already; there is no additional cost.
The cost mentioned by the librarians, $30, is a lie. Only that. They are told to tell that lie every time someone asks.
All of the responses to my original (grandparent) post are putting a huge amount of energy into exploring all the ways I can be wrong. That's why there is so little progress in the world. The abused argue among themselves, and no improvements are decided.
I have offered books that the library needed, that the librarian said was in short supply at that library, that was already cataloged because they had other copies, and have been told that it would be sold rather than added to the library's collection. The reason given was nonsense.
I have situations where the librarian said the library needed the book, but that they could not accept the donation of a copy from me for adding to their collection. The library would sell the book.
Everyone seems to be missing the point. The libraries are selling the books rather than putting them on the shelves!
They do this because of commercial pressure. If everyone donated their old CDs and videos to the library, it would be unnecessary to rent or buy any of the older ones; you could borrow them. Somehow the people who want to corrupt the system, apparently publishers, have gotten control over the libraries. Have your ever noticed that the CDs and videos in the library are never the latest albums and movies? Certainly by now some family has decided not to let their children watch "Finding Nemo" any more times.
Everyone posting is so willingly believing that all the donated books are ones no one would want to check out of a library. But that's not so. For example, there are many books I would donate if I knew I could check them out later.
However, the librarians of the Multnomah County Central Library (in Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.) have told me that putting a book in their system costs $30, and somehow it is cheaper to buy a new one! Over the years I have often mentioned the illogic in this. But all of them continue parroting the same line.
Consider the doctrine of first sale, in which you are allowed to do anything you want with your legally purchased copyrighted material, if you do not make a copy. Publishers have corrupted the doctrine of first sale so that copying into RAM to listen it or view it has been considered an illegal copy.
I kept track for two years of the money I spent because of seeing something advertised on TV. In two years, the total was something like $6.82.
I'm in favor of micropayments for shows. Five cents to watch an hour-long show would pay more than the present system.
From the PDF file referenced in the parent post, the World Prison Population List:
"The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 686 per 100,000 of the national population,
In the U.S., the anger level is such that there is strong support for keeping people in small cages, at great taxpayer expense, but little support for fixing social problems.
From the parent post: "Getting rid of your idiot president would be a good start."
As others have said, at least there is what appears to be a good alternative: Howard Dean for President
The point is: Use a completely compiled language, instead of a pseudo-compiled language. There is a eason why huge companies push pseudo-compiled languages. It allows them to easily determine the business logic of other companies.
It's not the "government". It's the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Says so at the bottom of the Usability Guidelines page. If you aren't doing research on cancer using U.S. government money, they don't have any authority over you. So, relax, everyone.
I've never understood this. Why not praise someone who posts useful information?
It's a mistake to think that because I didn't mention something I don't know it. Everything below is from an October 1 email message to the CEO I mentioned in the grandparent post:
Java Decompilers
A friend wrote this:
"I regularly use decompilers for Java classes. The last library I decompiled is TupleSpace from IBM, a library for network communication (useful if doing clustering). The result was of a shocking clarity.
"That was especially easy because the code had few local variables (in the bytecode, local variables have an identifier that is a number) and no obfuscation."
From the parent post: "Personally, I intend to put up an IBM logo to worship next to my desk, as a thank you for the Eclipse!
The underlying point here is that supporting open source software is an extremely good way for a company to get positive publicity.
Ten dollars of support for open source is probably more powerful than $1000 of stupid TV ad campaigns in which stupid-looking people go around in stupid-looking "space" suits. (IBM needs a better advertising agency. I saw an interview on the Charlie Rose show of the woman who heads the agency IBM uses. She knows nothing about technical things, obviously doesn't care about technical things, and obviously believes that technically knowledgeable people are her social inferiors. She is disgustingly destructive toward her client, IBM. While they're considering this, IBM should fire its marketing manager for letting that happen. Could I do better? Yes, wake me up any day at four o'clock in the morning and I could do better before I was completely awake.)
At one time, IBM was hated as much as Microsoft is now, because of IBM's extremely adversarial business methods. There were many technically knowledgeable people who would not consider working for IBM. That seems to be changing now.
Was supporting open source Lou Gerstner's idea? I don't know. However, it was an excellent idea.
Recently, a CEO asked me what I thought of Microsoft's
People like me influence purchasing decisions of highly technical products. People like me say that it doesn't matter how much money Microsoft has, or how strong a virtual monopoly, Microsoft is on the way down. I remember Microsoft's adversarial behavior. I remember Novell's adversarial behavior, and I will never, never forget, even though I don't do business with Novell any longer.
The point is that supporting open source software impresses me and other technically knowledgeable people who 1) influence purchases, and 2) are the kind of people a technical company might want to hire.
So, two rules for running a technically knowledgeable company: 1) Find some way of making money that doesn't involve any instances of doing harm. 2) Build a positive attitude toward your company by supporting the work of the world: Open Source.
Several. There have been representatives from the other companies complaining that they normally do the same work for less.
But, also, a big issue is that the contracts were all decided in secret.
Please post any links you have to reasonably priced plug strips. (They are also called power strips.) I don't see why 12 outlets should cost about 2 dollars per outlet.
Note that a plug strip should have the outlet orientation that allows plugging in three outlet adapters without the adapter outlets interfering with each other.
DD copies from or to a stream, which can be a file.
Rich and powerful interests don't want good patent examinations. They want the control that comes from having spurious patent approvals, which must be contested in expensive court proceedings. Those interests make sure that the U.S. patent and trademark office is under-funded. Twenty years ago there was better funding.
This is just one more example of the rapidly widening corruption in the U.S. government. Another example: Vice-president Dick Cheney, when he worked in the defense department, had the rules changed about procuring services during times of war. Then, as Vice-president, he pushed for a war with Iraq, and made sure the services went to his former company, Halliburton.
As David Letterman said, when you write a check for your part of the $87 billion that will be used to "rebuild" Iraq (after bombing it), remember that there are two Ls in Halliburton.
Adding to my parent post: It is very common that people who comment on Slashdot call each other idiots. However, it is likely that almost all of those who read Slashdot are of above average intelligence.
Those who have commented on the parent post have said I don't understand the law! Whoa! Such a big need to find that someone else is less intelligent!
The law is meant to be owned by all of us. If the average people of us cannot understand a law, it should be re-written. Generally, when a law is difficult to understand, those who wrote it don't want it to be understood.
If you read a law and can't understand it, it is by that very fact a corrupt law. The reason you can't understand the "anti-spam" law is that they don't want you to understand it. It is intended to accomplish some hidden purpose.
My impression of the "anti-spam" legislation is that it is pro-spam, and one more example of U.S. government corruption.
Dave Letterman said, "When you make out your part of the check for $87,000,000,000 to help Iraq, remember that there are two Ls in Halliburton." (Halliburton is Vice-President Dick Cheney's company.)
There are many, many things wrong with XP. But it doesn't crash like you say. You should suspect a hardware problem. The most common issue is that when a computer is moved, the case flexes enough that one or more of the adapter cards stops making full reliable contact.
Just open the case and pull all the cards out a sixteenth of an inch or 2 millimeters. Then push the cards back in. (You will need to loosen the screws.) Do the same with the memory and the cable connectors.
Once the hardware is reliable, you may need to do a re-load of XP, but maybe not.
You said, "... U.S. policy
Exactly right. This is a VERY BIG ISSUE. It is extremely dangerous for those, who want stability in the world for the Jewish cultures, to allow themselves to be influenced by U.S. policy. See my other comment about this: #7565331.
"U.S. policy" regarding the Jews is largely composed of ignorance and greed. It should not be considered friendly guidance, and it cannot be perverted or converted into friendly guidance.
You said, saying the opposite of what you believe, "Confronting hatred doesn't acomplish anything after all...." The situation of the Blacks in Boston may be a situation of "confronting hatred". If it can be done successfully, fine.
What's happening in Israel is not "confronting hatred". Whenever people see Israelis on TV firing on Palestinians in the street from U.S.-made helicopter gunships, that is not "confronting hatred". That is breeding hatred. It is breeding hatred even if a panel of a hundred judicial experts would decide that the helicopters were being used in defense.
It's not what you say, and nothing in my previous post led to what you said.
It's interesting that you are attacking me for repeating quotes from a Jewish web site. Maybe the real issue is that Jews don't want non-Jews to comment about anything having to do with Jewish affairs. It there something it is necessary to hide?
Few people in the U.S. understand anything about Jewish history, or have any problem with Jews. Except the "Christian" extremists. They want all Jews to be killed or converted. Jewish leaders know that, and take the Christian money anyway. At least that what they say when they are interviewed on TV. I have no other information about this than watching the interviews.
Other than the Christian extremists, the other groups in the U.S. that want Israeli violence have no interest in or concern with religion. These other groups are: 1) Secret departments of the U.S. government, like the CIA operations department. They get more money and promotions when there is more trouble. 2) U.S. Weapons manufacturers. They want the profits, and don't care who kills who. 3) Those who have special interests in oil profits. They sell oil to the U.S. military. They also want violence as a way of arranging oil holdings that would otherwise be illegal or too expensive. 4) Those who like any violence, because they have problems with anger.
So, except for the large number of "Christian" extremists, there is absolutely no involvement of religion or ethnic issues.
My understanding of the U.S. culture is that most Americans are happy with the contribution of Jews to the American society. I've said this twice before in previous comments in this thread.
I think it is reasonable to suppose that, when most Americans learn about their government's support for Jewish violence, there will be a decrease in that support for Jews. But, I don't control this, obviously, or have all the facts.
If you agree with this view, then you may think that it was a public relations mistake for Jews to take money from the U.S. government. A famous Jewish leader, I forget who now, said that U.S. government money was like pouring gasoline on a fire. I'm only repeating the view of many Jews. If they hadn't said it first, it would have taken longer to develop my own understandings.
So, Jewish integration into U.S. society is an example of what works. Jewish integration into middle east society is an example of what doesn't work. Aren't there lessons to be learned from this? Why not stay with what works?
Also: I wasn't there in 1882, obviously. I was only taking the first sentence of a description from an Israeli, Jewish web page: "Under Ottoman Rule 1882 - 1917 -- From the beginning Jewish settlement met with opposition from the local Arabs."
It doesn't matter who is "right". Jews weren't wanted, and Jews didn't care enough that they weren't wanted. They didn't take enough care with their relationships with the people who already lived there. And now Jewish public relations are falling fast, as the perception grows that Jews are violent people. I did not say that they are violent people, only that the perception that they are violent is growing.
Anyhow, don't be upset with me. I don't have any control over any of this.
Not true. Israel has received far more aid from the U.S. government than any other country.
I'm definitely not blaming the Jews for Arab craziness. I'm not blaming whites for Black craziness. I'm not blaming Jews or Blacks for Caucasian craziness. But the craziness is there, nevertheless, and it cannot be ignored. No amount of talking about who is right changes the fact that the craziness exists. Stay clear of craziness; don't get involved with it, particularly when there are 14 million of you and 1.1 billion Muslims.
Each side believes that it is right. However, when Israelis shoot at Arabs on the ground with U.S.-made helicopter gunships, and everyone in the U.S., Europe, and Arab lands see that on TV, it plays badly, very badly. No matter who is right, it looks bad.
Actually, it is a term from England, where the government produces rough drafts called greenpapers. In that context it, has meaning. In the U.S., it has no meaning.