He may be qualified in any number of things, but he didn't show any of those qualifications here. He ran some already-written software, manually verified a handful of results, and reported what the software said. Anyone who can operate a computer can do that.
It's more like "don't code in C, because every time you bastards do, it ends up with a buffer overflow." OpenSSH, libpng, gdkpixbuf, the list goes on for quite some time.
There are plenty of problems with Wikipedia articles, but generally they converge to a middle ground faster than any alternatives I've seen. On obscure subjects you can't count on this (because it's possible there aren't enough knowledgeable people to catch errors), but on well-known subjects falsehoods get challenged pretty quickly, and the articles converge to something reasonable.
Not perfect, mind you, but better than anything else I've seen. I'd like you to show me an in-depth George W Bush biography that is better, by which I mean not overly skewed to either the "he's great" or "he's horrible" sides.
Historical bootstrapping may vary, but most high-level languages these days are written in themselves, and compiled using a previous iteration of the compiler. Lisp compilers written in Lisp; ML compilers written in ML; etc.
The issue is that C is very difficult to properly code, because it does not give compile errors for buffer overflows. Indeed, it is almost never coded without buffer overruns, even in security-critical software (like OpenSSH).
I really have no idea why people wouldn't use Ocaml, or Ada, or Haskell, or Java, or whatever the hell they want that isn't C. Parent poster is right: this isn't 1978 anymore.
Don't use C, C++, or other languages that permit buffer overflows, because chances are if you do, your code actually will have buffer overflows. Even if you audit it.
You could make it illegal to advertise using spammers, but that makes it easy to get framed: if I don't like your company, I can send out a billion spams advertising your products, and you get hit with a fine.
Anyone who thinks it is only possible to have a "minimal" sort of conversation over a textual medium is not sufficiently familiar with the medium. Nearly all languages use arbitrary symbols to convey meaning and connotations, and text-chat is no different. Sure, ":-)" a priori carries only a minimal amount of information, but use of thisand many other, non-emoticonsymbols, in context carries quite a bit more information.
It's probably reasonable to say the the bandwidth of textual communication is lower, and thus the total amount of information transmitted has to be lower, but it's not correct to say that this requires it to be a crude medium with no connotation. When you've been talking to a person or group of people over a textual medium long enough, you start to speak it fluently, and use the arbitrary symbols in a useful manner.
I'm used to "the companies are BIG BAD EVIL FOLK!" books, but this one seems like it might come from someone with some actual knowledge rather than just rhetoric. Definitely something to pick up.
Most research money does not come from federal grants. Federal grants pale in comparison to what a single "blockbuster" drug such as Prozac or Viagra makes. That's the money that funds most of these companies.
The reason the drugs cost so much has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of marketing. It is almost entirely due to the cost of research and development, which costs many billions of dollars and results in only a tiny percentage of successful drugs. Generics are produced by companies that merely copy already-successful drugs, and so obviously have no research and development costs. That is why they are cheaper.
I first got broadband, in the form of a cablemodem, in 2000. It cost $40/month for 3 Mbps down, 384 kbps up. Now it costs $50/month for the same speed.
There's dirty politics in every country, and has been for hundreds of years, and the US is no exception.
Some notable election thefts prior to the 2000 election, some of them much more blatant:
John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election largely due to ballot stuffing and double-voting organized by the Democratic Party political machines in several major cities.
John Quincy Adams, as 2nd-place finisher, won the 1824 election by basically buying the electoral votes of Henry Clay (the 4th-place finisher) in return for giving him a position in his government, thus propelling him ahead of Andrew Jackson (the 1st-place, but less-than-50%-majority, finisher).
Mayor Daley 1 and Mayor Daley 2 have collectively been mayors of Chicago for eons. Not all those elections were won fairly, as you might expect.
This probably varies by area, but even in areas that up the speed limit, people still consider whatever it is to be too low, and go at least 15-20 over on highways. Almost all highways in Texas are now speed limit 70, and most in Arizona and New Mexico are 75, and people typically go 80-90. You could raise them to 85, but then people would go 95-100. So part of the reason for keeping them lower is so that the "real" speed people go will be reasonable.
Of course, I personally would support speed limits circa 80 mph rigidly enforced. Once people got used to "the speed limit really is the limit", and the limit was reasonable, it might get rid of some of those problems.
Sonny Bono got no roll-call approval
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Sonny Bono was passed on a voice vote. The dynamics of voice votes are much different than the dynamics of roll-call votes. Especially if Clinton had vetoed it, you could expect that if the veto was overridden, it would be with far, far less than 90% support. And there'd be a good chance it wouldn't be.
Either way, it doesn't excuse Clinton signing it into law. He should at least have put up a fight. Except that he actually supported the law, which is the problem.
Many bills that pass on voice vote and are vetoed never override the veto. To override a veto requires a roll-call vote, whereas the initial voice vote does not require congresspeople to officially register how they voted (which could later be used against them). Furthermore, many members of a president's own party won't support a veto override unless it's an issue that is particularly important to them, as overriding the president tends to make him look bad. So people who would've supported the bill initially won't support it to the point of overriding their party's leader.
I don't know about you, but a shelf covered with 520 DVDs in white boxes with the name written on them in black marker is not a very impressive or nice-looking DVD collection to me.
Unions are about the incompetent people taking a cut of the competent people's paycheck.
A good example are teacher's unions. If you have skills that are in demand, like chemistry or physics or math, you could command a higher salary than if you have skills that are not very much in demand, like social studies. However, union contracts do not permit school districts to pay the chemistry teachers more, despite them having more useful and in-demand skills.
Similarly, union rules do not permit very good teachers, even those who win state- or nation-wide awards, to be paid more. The school must pay each teacher solely according to their seniority: bad teachers who have been there for 30 years get more than good teachers who have been there for 5 years.
If you got rid of teacher's unions altogether, you'd see science educations in our schools improve dramatically overnight. I personally know several science teachers who have left teaching because of that nonsense (including one who was taken to court by the union because she refused to join it, and union membership is mandatory).
Sadly, you're correct, although he did spur legislation to avoid it happening again. The FAA fined the city $100k for illegally closing the airfield, the maximum fine; that maximum has now been raised to almost $1m as a result (although it of course can't be applied retroactively).
those statistics don't tell everything
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The single worst offender of the past 15 years on internet laws has been a Democrat: President Bill Clinton, who signed into law the Sonny Bono copyright extension, the DMCA, and the CDA. He was the single person in the best position to stop these laws, and he signed them into law.
As a pragmatist, this makes me wary of electing Democratic candidates until I see evidence that they plan to stand up for my civil liberties.
Oddly enough, the only person I've seen stringently taking a stand for online civil liberties is that old conservative Republican with whom I disagree on just about all other issues, Jesse Helms.
Unless they're hiding something, it doesn't make much sense. Things relating to national security are already exempt from the FOIA, which is why text documents requested via FOIA are often either outright denied, or released with a lot of things blacked out. If a satellite photograph shows troop movements in an ongoing conflict, the government already can exempt it from the FOIA with a simple explanation of "national security" or "that's classified".
What they want to do here is exempt unclassified things that do not impact national security. I can't see a legitimate reason for doing that. If they are things it would be dangerous to give out, they ought to be classified. If not, they ought to be subject to the FOIA.
Slashdot Mirror
He may be qualified in any number of things, but he didn't show any of those qualifications here. He ran some already-written software, manually verified a handful of results, and reported what the software said. Anyone who can operate a computer can do that.
It's more like "don't code in C, because every time you bastards do, it ends up with a buffer overflow." OpenSSH, libpng, gdkpixbuf, the list goes on for quite some time.
If he does that, there are plenty of us who currently vaguely like him who will vote against him for being a sleazy bastard.
Some of us demand you stick to issues. Not all of us, I'll grant.
There are plenty of problems with Wikipedia articles, but generally they converge to a middle ground faster than any alternatives I've seen. On obscure subjects you can't count on this (because it's possible there aren't enough knowledgeable people to catch errors), but on well-known subjects falsehoods get challenged pretty quickly, and the articles converge to something reasonable.
Not perfect, mind you, but better than anything else I've seen. I'd like you to show me an in-depth George W Bush biography that is better, by which I mean not overly skewed to either the "he's great" or "he's horrible" sides.
Historical bootstrapping may vary, but most high-level languages these days are written in themselves, and compiled using a previous iteration of the compiler. Lisp compilers written in Lisp; ML compilers written in ML; etc.
The issue is that C is very difficult to properly code, because it does not give compile errors for buffer overflows. Indeed, it is almost never coded without buffer overruns, even in security-critical software (like OpenSSH).
I really have no idea why people wouldn't use Ocaml, or Ada, or Haskell, or Java, or whatever the hell they want that isn't C. Parent poster is right: this isn't 1978 anymore.
Don't use C, C++, or other languages that permit buffer overflows, because chances are if you do, your code actually will have buffer overflows. Even if you audit it.
You could make it illegal to advertise using spammers, but that makes it easy to get framed: if I don't like your company, I can send out a billion spams advertising your products, and you get hit with a fine.
Anyone who thinks it is only possible to have a "minimal" sort of conversation over a textual medium is not sufficiently familiar with the medium. Nearly all languages use arbitrary symbols to convey meaning and connotations, and text-chat is no different. Sure, ":-)" a priori carries only a minimal amount of information, but use of thisand many other, non-emoticonsymbols, in context carries quite a bit more information.
It's probably reasonable to say the the bandwidth of textual communication is lower, and thus the total amount of information transmitted has to be lower, but it's not correct to say that this requires it to be a crude medium with no connotation. When you've been talking to a person or group of people over a textual medium long enough, you start to speak it fluently, and use the arbitrary symbols in a useful manner.
I'm used to "the companies are BIG BAD EVIL FOLK!" books, but this one seems like it might come from someone with some actual knowledge rather than just rhetoric. Definitely something to pick up.
I suppose Donald Knuth being devoutly religious means he's not a real scientist after all?
Most research money does not come from federal grants. Federal grants pale in comparison to what a single "blockbuster" drug such as Prozac or Viagra makes. That's the money that funds most of these companies.
The reason the drugs cost so much has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of marketing. It is almost entirely due to the cost of research and development, which costs many billions of dollars and results in only a tiny percentage of successful drugs. Generics are produced by companies that merely copy already-successful drugs, and so obviously have no research and development costs. That is why they are cheaper.
Considering that the armchair psychologist and the university-trained psychoanalyst dispense equal measures of bullshit.
I first got broadband, in the form of a cablemodem, in 2000. It cost $40/month for 3 Mbps down, 384 kbps up. Now it costs $50/month for the same speed.
There's dirty politics in every country, and has been for hundreds of years, and the US is no exception.
Some notable election thefts prior to the 2000 election, some of them much more blatant:
John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election largely due to ballot stuffing and double-voting organized by the Democratic Party political machines in several major cities.
John Quincy Adams, as 2nd-place finisher, won the 1824 election by basically buying the electoral votes of Henry Clay (the 4th-place finisher) in return for giving him a position in his government, thus propelling him ahead of Andrew Jackson (the 1st-place, but less-than-50%-majority, finisher).
Mayor Daley 1 and Mayor Daley 2 have collectively been mayors of Chicago for eons. Not all those elections were won fairly, as you might expect.
Etc.
This probably varies by area, but even in areas that up the speed limit, people still consider whatever it is to be too low, and go at least 15-20 over on highways. Almost all highways in Texas are now speed limit 70, and most in Arizona and New Mexico are 75, and people typically go 80-90. You could raise them to 85, but then people would go 95-100. So part of the reason for keeping them lower is so that the "real" speed people go will be reasonable.
Of course, I personally would support speed limits circa 80 mph rigidly enforced. Once people got used to "the speed limit really is the limit", and the limit was reasonable, it might get rid of some of those problems.
I don't see Harry Potter even mentioned here.
Sonny Bono was passed on a voice vote. The dynamics of voice votes are much different than the dynamics of roll-call votes. Especially if Clinton had vetoed it, you could expect that if the veto was overridden, it would be with far, far less than 90% support. And there'd be a good chance it wouldn't be.
Either way, it doesn't excuse Clinton signing it into law. He should at least have put up a fight. Except that he actually supported the law, which is the problem.
Only because there is no +6.
Many bills that pass on voice vote and are vetoed never override the veto. To override a veto requires a roll-call vote, whereas the initial voice vote does not require congresspeople to officially register how they voted (which could later be used against them). Furthermore, many members of a president's own party won't support a veto override unless it's an issue that is particularly important to them, as overriding the president tends to make him look bad. So people who would've supported the bill initially won't support it to the point of overriding their party's leader.
I don't know about you, but a shelf covered with 520 DVDs in white boxes with the name written on them in black marker is not a very impressive or nice-looking DVD collection to me.
Unions are about the incompetent people taking a cut of the competent people's paycheck.
A good example are teacher's unions. If you have skills that are in demand, like chemistry or physics or math, you could command a higher salary than if you have skills that are not very much in demand, like social studies. However, union contracts do not permit school districts to pay the chemistry teachers more, despite them having more useful and in-demand skills.
Similarly, union rules do not permit very good teachers, even those who win state- or nation-wide awards, to be paid more. The school must pay each teacher solely according to their seniority: bad teachers who have been there for 30 years get more than good teachers who have been there for 5 years.
If you got rid of teacher's unions altogether, you'd see science educations in our schools improve dramatically overnight. I personally know several science teachers who have left teaching because of that nonsense (including one who was taken to court by the union because she refused to join it, and union membership is mandatory).
Sadly, you're correct, although he did spur legislation to avoid it happening again. The FAA fined the city $100k for illegally closing the airfield, the maximum fine; that maximum has now been raised to almost $1m as a result (although it of course can't be applied retroactively).
The single worst offender of the past 15 years on internet laws has been a Democrat: President Bill Clinton, who signed into law the Sonny Bono copyright extension, the DMCA, and the CDA. He was the single person in the best position to stop these laws, and he signed them into law.
As a pragmatist, this makes me wary of electing Democratic candidates until I see evidence that they plan to stand up for my civil liberties.
Oddly enough, the only person I've seen stringently taking a stand for online civil liberties is that old conservative Republican with whom I disagree on just about all other issues, Jesse Helms.
Unless they're hiding something, it doesn't make much sense. Things relating to national security are already exempt from the FOIA, which is why text documents requested via FOIA are often either outright denied, or released with a lot of things blacked out. If a satellite photograph shows troop movements in an ongoing conflict, the government already can exempt it from the FOIA with a simple explanation of "national security" or "that's classified".
What they want to do here is exempt unclassified things that do not impact national security. I can't see a legitimate reason for doing that. If they are things it would be dangerous to give out, they ought to be classified. If not, they ought to be subject to the FOIA.