The majority of this guy's decision to resign actually sounds like he's tired of dealing with what shareware and freeware authors have been dealing with for years, with only the good will of people to get any compensation or credit (most shareware on the Mac is not time-limited). The Mac community does have a high standard for software performance and does expect polish from its programmers.
It results in a fair amount of whinery, but it sounds like this guy is going to be shocked when he finds that users in the professional world will be just as nasty, plus they'll threaten to withhold payment.
The e-mail exchange didn't impress me a lot either--it sounded like he had one or two points that the guy was willing to concede on, but he blew up and brought other things into the mix for a flame-o-rama.
So I'm sorry that he's no longer a Mac developer, and I'd encourage him to put his studies first. On the other hand, I'm not going to get too worried about the nature of the Mac community over it.
Re:Does the Middle East get PBS?
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 2
They do, IIRC, but it is produced locally and has different, "culturally appropriate" muppets.
The originality in the "Lab" occurs during the report.
Good point.
In some (probably most) cases, that's how it's done. However, there are cases (see the reply below yours for an independent example) where the person running the lab does enough QA and monitoring to ensure that true deadweights do not get credit.
Maybe a combination of individual reports and monitored collaboration might work--and hey, in the real world, I've had to deal with people who would slough off work and I had to put in the extra time to make the client happy. (What, you mean not only do I have to program these functions but you can't even teach the client how to use our standard back-end CMS???) Life lesson learned early;-).
The hard sciences do this all the time, because that's how hard science is generally done--in a team setting.
My dad teaches occasionally at local community colleges (physics) and has labs. Sometimes he counts on the students to police one another (political but doable) and sometimes he has a monitored lab where they do something at the bench and he can observe who is just hanging back or simply copying results into the journal, etc.
So, not being in the position myself, I'd suggest bringing up the idea with some physics or chem prof who does this sort of thing who you may have run across. If they're at all clueful about computers, they might have some interesting ideas, or at least tell you enough for you to bring up a concrete idea to a CS prof you know and have a good rapport with.
This post has a very idealistic view of what a CEO or CIO is capable of.
The "big picture" you describe has been, in my experience, more often a "details of the bottom line" that is the opposite of overview-level thinking. Most CEOs are not technicians, nor have they been. They tend to graduate from one of these universities that teaches business and are dumped straight into management. They have to work their way up, but they tend to be management the entire time.
Management is quite prone to fads. Not only the Dilbertesque slogans and terminology, but also to techniques ("the one thing to keep in mind is to maximize billability"--this in a company that has 90% fixed-price contracts). The CEO who assumes they understand all the issues of a breaking technology from reading articles in CIO is going to have a dot-bomb on their hands quite soon.
Yes, there are innumerable enthusiastic young things that want to sacrifice the bottom line to whatever cool idea they've come up with, but, for example, with your example of IE versus the world, you've cut yourself off from 10-15% of your marketshare. Now, unless you know your target demographic is 100% WinIE, or you absolutely need some downloadable ActiveX control to carry out the client's part of the transaction, there are very few reasons why coding to a wider set of standards than WinIE should be a bad business decision at the "big picture" level.
I agree that an employee who knows as much as is useful about the bigger picture is a more valuable employee than someone who only knows their business, but no one comes from any education instinctively knowing the "Big Picture". The "Big Picture" is made up of judgements about a wide range of information specific to each situation as well as general trends. If you're expecting someone to come in knowing what you know by psychic phenomena and don't actually say, "Yes, in an ideal world we'd code to Mac, Linux, and Netscape, but in our market that would only gain us 2% marketshare for 5% increased cost due to additional testing, and that just doesn't make business sense," then you're going to end up with blind yes-men who will not let you know that the customer is pissed, there's a new technology that would reduce your costs, or even that half your employees are planning to leave for a company that values their input.
1) Apple stupidly gave MS a license along with access to the GUI, and it was badly written enough to be construed as giving them some rights to substantially similar. (Bad lawyers are even worse than lawyers)
2) MS did not create an "Apple" look. They stole most of the features of the interface but didn't have square buttons with lines across the top of the window, as the old Apple interface had. It would have been an open-and-shut case had they done so.
So if this guy had a license and had created a theme that used bulbous buttons but didn't substantially replicate the Apple look, he would have been scott-free.
Even in the first episode of Voyager, there was a "Wow," or at least a "Cool!" moment. This one, while it didn't suck as much as what I like to call a "Wesley Gets the Ick" story, had no real "cool!" moment.
It wasn't bad, but man, given that premise, think what Roddenberry or Serling or Straczynski could have done with it.
It's sad, Berman, really--just let it go gracefully into that good night, or at least wait until your stable of soap-opera hacks get some new ideas. Hey! Here's an idea--go to the writers of Analog magazine and then just film them.
Interesting, in my wildest dreams, I never thought that air traffic controllers (or anyone associated with the FAA, even tangentially) would be the key to space travel.
"What do you mean, you want clearance for class D airspace above 24,000? We'll have to fine you if you go that high, class D or no."
Defense contractor engineers put out of work by the end of the Cold War would be at least a little more plausible, plus give them access to out-of-work Soviet scientists.
"Damn! I need a hammer, and we're down to our last $450. Can you get them used for less than $500?"
"Da, comrade--as fraternal sacrifice, am sellink you mine for low, low price of $200, plus bottle of wodka."
And what does that have to do with the point the poster was responding to? In fact, were it true (and you stretch the definition of war to the point that I guess we should live in fear of the Confederales in Brazil coming back to retake the US because they didn't accede to the Southern surrender in 1864), it would only bolster the point: despite the fact that, by your count, we are still fighting at least two wars, we don't have a conscript army.
Correction: we did not train bin Laden. He was allied with the guerillas we trained. He hired his own mercenaries to train his Arab team. We trained various Afghanis, but no Arabs.
So if you learned that "fact" from the BBC, you might want to reconsider your sources. To be fair, I've read some of their coverage and I have yet to see that particular mistake.
First, your numbers are so rough as to be meaningless. They also aren't accurate. And you conflate military and civilian casualties--or you are simply wildly misinformed.
Knowing more would help, yes:
The CIA trained Osama bin Laden.
False. Widely-spread untruth by terrorist sympathizers, but false.
Once again, intelligence agencies were useless.
By not training him? No.
By enabling the Afghani people to kick out Soviet invaders? Last time I looked, the Soviets withdrew.
George Bush had increased U.S. support for Israel.
He reduced support for both sides as tensions increased.
Violence is assumed. An NBC poll says 83% of Americans want military action.
Violence has been committed. However, you notice there was no reflexive bombing campaign.
Weapons indicate weakness, not power. The best protection is being truly powerful.
To you, yes. To most people around the world, sadly, no. Would it were so but it's not, and that determines the nature of the conflict. Study the history of terrorism in the 70's and early 80's.
The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer.
No, sometimes a part of the answer. Most of that time was spent in the Cold War, which by the way, did not finally become World War Three.
The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years.
Finally, you got one right.
Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people.
No. There are reams of psychological research on this subject. Any arguments based on this premise are therefore wrong.
Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country?
They seem to think so. And much as I'd like to move the Jewish state to Florida, it won't happen. As long as you deal with reality, the U.S. is always asked to go into places we have no direct involvement. The alternative, isolationism, has not been successful and is also the coward's way out of not trying to influence the world to something better. The fact that we haven't been perfectly successful means we're still human.
The U.S. has a history of secret interference with the governments of other countries.
Most of which happened 30 years ago. We have a history of wearing powdered wigs, too.
There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures.
Yes. Like all things, that varies by individual, but then I've been called a fascist for suggesting we overturn the government educational system that creates it.
Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think.
No. They react more extremely than they normally would. Both to the good (Red Cross donations) and bad (bomb now). On sober reflection, they go back to donating less and not wanting indiscriminate conflict. You'll notice the government you condemn did not take the easy bomb them the first night and make ourselves feel better route.
Answers?
True power is not adversarial.
Check. But if you don't include some ability to threaten those who threaten you or others, things turn out badly. Try living in a place without police if you don't believe me.
Don't let personal anger be a problem.
Our government is doing better than our people here.
The average American cannot be held responsible for the violence of the U.S. government.
And you propose letting people who do so get away with it. Bringing them to justice in any form will require force.
The bottom line
...is that we live in a world, not a college classroom. It can be a harsh and brutal world sometimes. What's coming will not be good, but it will be less bad than the alternative. Study world history 1976-1980 for an abject lesson.
And if you've actually read anything about what bin Laden is trying to accomplish with his terrorist agenda, it's EXACTLY that--a world war between Islam and the West.
Yes, but if you'd been watching the news carefully, instead of getting hysterical buried in counter-culture spinlications preaching their own brand of hate, you'd know that he's failed.
This is not a war between Islam and the West, but it is war.
This is a war in which you have to choose sides: do you support state-sponsored terrorism, or don't you? It is a war between those who do and those who don't. It is a war in which there is little conflict of interest between the U.S. and Jordan, Isreal, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, France, Britain, or any other government that has suffered at the hands of terrorism sponsored by outlaw states.
You've gotten too far from the news--using phrases like "genocide" and "nuclear bombs" marginalizes you. In case you didn't watch, even when a more convential air war was used against Serbia, most bombs did not fall on civilians.
Before you think yourself cluefull and everyone else in the world Pollyanna, let me state that most other people know that there will be civillian casualties in the coming war. But the main difference you fail to grasp is that it will be something we seek to minimize rather than the central goal, and that is the central difference this war is about. We will also ally with governments who do not have the respect for human rights that we have. It will be necessary to win the war.
Also, if you had been following the news, you would have learned that Pakistan is cooperating--contributing intelligence, allowing overflight, cutting off aid and supplies to the Taliban. If you knew more about the tensions in the region, you would know their nuclear bombs a) can't reach here, b) aren't enough to take us out and prevent retaliation even if they were smuggled in, and c) will be held on to because India has them, too, which is why they are there in the first place.
This is not a war in which sanctions will be allowed to work. They are, ironically, the non-war alternative proposed by the same left wing that complains about their effects on civilian populations. And they are historically ineffective.
This will be a war with few examples of Baghdad-like bombing runs. When we punish, or hopefully eliminate, the governments that sponsor terrorism, there will be such things. Occasionally a terrorist camp will be eliminated, at least in part, by such methods. They will be directed against government or terrorist facilities and with every attempt made to avoid places where civilians congregate--but only insofar as that attempt still allows us to remove assets that government uses in its campaign of supporting terror and repressing its citizens.
Most Muslims, even those in the Middle East, are not fond of terrorism because in the main, it has made life worse for them rather than better. What Western and left-wing press alike fail to realize is that they are frequently the victims of such things, as the terrorists decide that a certain government isn't "Islamic enough" for them. As long as we are careful to go in and get, as you suggest (and I agree) terrorists and punish or destroy the governments that give the succor, and as long as we then, AFTER we remove the threat, resume the long, painful path to peaceful co-existence, there will be no Islam-West conflict beyond the multifaceted but usually peaceful conflict of values we have now.
Re:there's an argument to be made....
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
So why don't they hate Canada or Belgium?
Simple. We exist as the most powerful and wealthiest democratic state. Why hit the smaller players?
By the way, did you know that most of the aid we give Israel was mandated as part of the peace treaty with Egypt? How warlike was it for us to aid both Egypt (an Islamic country) and Israel?
If this were truly about who we support, Bin Laden would be our best ally since we funded other Afghans (not Bin Laden, it turns out) kicking out an invader on their soil. We funded the defense of his native country against a non-Islamic state (oh, you thought Saddam was religious? Read more.).
No, this is about attacking the symbol of freedom and self determination, which Bin Laden and selected Palestinians do not want for other ethnicities and religions.
Re:there's an argument to be made....
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Our "defense" industry is largely what caused this debacle -- the number one export for the United States is weapons.
While I'd prefer we sold more Macintoshes than weapons (either the apple or Apple breed), keep a couple of facts in mind before you get too hysterical:
1) Most of these arms sales go to warlike countries such as Canada and Belgium.
2) The arms sales in the 80's were supposed to go to factions OPPOSED to Iran's government, not the Iranian government. It was no doubt a grievous mistake, as it turns out this may have been an Iranian ruse.
3) Until environmentalists get over their hysteria about nuclear energy, we will be dependent on oil and that's the only reason we continue to be involved in the Middle East. It's easy to say with the ludicrously low prices for gasoline America enjoys that we should get out anyway, but the "energy crisis" of this past year shows that yuppies will scream bloody murder if they have to give up their gas-guzzling SUVs. No government that didn't ensure we had enough governments in the region willing to sell us oil will last. If you don't like that, campaign for nuclear energy to tide us over until we can make something safer work cost-effectively.
4) Most government assistance outside of the middle east was during the Cold War, a contest in which the right to carp about your government's policy was at stake. As much improvement as I believe the US government needs to make in this area, the other side was so much worse that it was literally a struggle between freedom and repression. Fortunately, freedom won, and we no longer have to hold our nose in supporting one side to prevent the other side from gaining another foothold in another region of the world. It is a wonderful luxury.
I do not suggest unquestioning or mindless support, but at a time like this, I suggest a sense of perspective.
Afghanistan's government (not its people) will be attacked if and only if it is found that whoever attacked was sheltered by the Taliban in the time preceding the attack.
Also, our press's lack of attention to foreign affairs is not due to government control, but due to the sad state of education and the culture of isolationism that periodically raises its head. The sad state of education may be caused by the government, but through incompetence rather than conspiracy.
You also forgot reason number 4 that we don't attack:
4) There is nothing to be gained.
That's why we don't randomly attack Britain or Canada--they haven't done anything to make us even think about it since the early 19th century. Canada has never done so since independence.
Please go to China or Russia to see what total and partial, respectively, control of the press and propaganda really looks like.
Please: slashdot "anarchists" and those who believe you're repressed and the subject of government plots--do some traveling to truly unfree places and see the difference. Just because the rest of us fail to jump to your cause may mean that we just don't buy what you're selling, not that your fantasies of repression have anything to do with reality.
The American government regularly "kicks ass" all over the world and creates a lot of resentment among the poor people who suffer because of it.
Actually, we go to more lengths than anyone to avoid hitting poor people while still actually doing something about predatory governments such as Serbia's previously. Yes, sometimes civilians get harmed in these attacks, but it is the exception now more than the rule.
Most of the people rebelling against America's involvement overseas are not poor. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire, as is Saddam, as is Khaddafi. Quite frankly, they are upset that our policies undermine their anti-human and anti-democratic regimes.
The UN court is a nice idea, but it is useless without enforcement. Right now, the only truly effective enforcement is through the US and its allies.
But let's be realistic, even if we were as nice and amoral in our international dealings as Sweden, it would continue to happen to us. We're the biggest, and the symbol of power that those who covet power wish to hurt to make themselves feel better. Fundamentally, that is what it is all about.
I was having my car serviced on US 1 just south of Crystal City, when the sales guy mentioned that a plane had hit the WTC. I thought it was a terrible accident, but assuming it was a Cessna or some such, I thought little about it.
Then he said a second one hit, and identified it as a twin-engine passenger jetliner. At that point I began, as everyone else did, to suspect terrorism. It was still a little too new, and all the sites were flooded (there wasn't a TV near).
Then, as I continued to read Analog, I thought I heard something and then heard some fire engines. I didn't connect it until someone just made a choking sound and pointed out the windows toward the direction of the Pentagon. We could just begin to see white smoke, quickly followed by gray, billow over the PTO buildings and the hill above Crystal City.
At this point we realized there was something coordinated going on, and people moved from looks of worry to upset. We went to the street to get a better view, but there wasn't much to see. I have a fatalistic bent and decided there wasn't much I could do one way or another at the moment (no EMS or relevant skills) so I went back inside but couldn't begin reading again. At this point my nearly forgotten car was brought out, and the tech, visibly upset, just waved at it.
"It's running, keys in the ignition. Just...screw the paperwork, you should be set to go." He immediately went to the more important, if less immediate news that was coming from a radio they had.
I decided it was time to go to my office, which slightly further south and closer to 395, where people were again upset (as I must have looked). Reality clearly hadn't sunk in for some. We heard additional jets but it quickly became clear that they were fighters--one went supersonic and left a boom that had us pouring out onto the street and scanning the horizon for smoke. There were cheers from the 7-11 next door when they realized there were F-16s overhead.
After that, it was just waiting and worrying and trying to wait until the phone lines were clear enough to call my folks and reassure them.
Well, I knew this was a possibility when I moved here. It's too bad--there are so many wonderful things here.
But come on, imperialism? Please go see a real empire (try ranting anti-Chinese stuff in Tibet, then rant anti-American slogans in Vietnam and see which one gets you arrested).
No, we are hit because a) we're big, and you make your name by smiting the big boy and then running away quickly and b) we matter, in which we introduce dangerous (to religious bigots and petty tyrants) ideas such as free trade and the free flow of ideas. And yes, even with its problems, Israel is still more free than any of its neighbors--even if you're a Palestinian.
I want to flay the f**kers who did this as much as the next guy, but I don't want to a) take it out on innocent women and children (and please no anarchist wannabe give me any crap about how we bomb women and children--if we wanted to, there wouldn't *be* a Serbia now), or b) take over a place that even the bloodthirsty Soviets couldn't handle. I say let them sort themselves out, maybe fund some of the more rational people there.
You should study the history of hijackings in the 1960s and 1970s before you talk about the "cycle of violence" that is perpetuated by standing up to terrorists. We appeased and appeased and negotiated and whined, and the incidents got more and more frequent until after we retaliated for the Berlin Disco bombing. And it wasn't a blind counterstrike, either. It was a very well-targeted counterstrike on the man responsible--who lives but doesn't cause us much trouble anymore.
So we know what will reduce the threat, the question is, do you have the guts to do it?
You sound afraid. Fear is generally born of ignorance. Why not try learning about it? It may be closer than you think, and not so scary when you didn't realize the difference:
what will it be like to grow up knowing you wouldn't have just "happened" the way normal kids have.
Why not ask that of your roommate, assuming you're in college? Odds are not small that he or she was conceived in a test tube and didn't "happen" the way "normal" kids have. What will you do? Will you treat him differently when you find out? Why? Is he any less human? Is the person with the genetically-determined mental retardation less than human? So how would an artificially engineered person be less than human?
Why do we build the bigger accelerator? Because we didn't find the answers to the questions we found with the smaller one. You only need a Time Magazine-level of physics knowledge to understand that.
For someone who claims to be above the "ignorant masses" on whom "technological tools are wasted," and thus fit to say what should and should not be (else what gives you the right to make the judgement?), you're displaying a fair amount of ignorance--and this is causing you to evidently lose sleep.
Rest assured, they show proper appreciation of poetry and gently introduce one to the broader world that lies outside the narrow confines of the human imagination.
Re:So let me get this straight, Apple...
on
Quicktime In Linux
·
· Score: 1
Since Quicktime isn't actually running in Linux but running under windoze with a hack...by your logic isn't it the "Linux superiority myth"?
I'm sorry, but when a teacher tells me that radio telescopes are used for "listening to the speeches of dead presidents" with a straight face, I'm not going to give them the respect I give my doctor. I similarly refuse to give respect to chelation therapists, chiropractors who claim to cure cancer, homeopaths, or other quacks.
I wish that were more the exception than the rule, but teachers in general have not behaved in a way that would engender respect for the profession. Educational requirements to become a teacher are the least stringent in universities, with the possible exception of scholarship-bearing atheletes. Educational "research" ignores even the basic rules of scientific or scholarly inquiry--most educational techniques are evaluated without a control group, much less double-blind studies. My doctor's information comes from stringent protocols, with strict licensing. If he were to ever say "You know, you have this cold because Aries is ascendant" I would immediately leave and file a complaint.
I could not leave the teacher who blathered about radio telescopes, and it was well-known what happened to "uppity" students whose parents (or, worse, they themselves) crossed teachers--continual harassment. That's public school for you.
When I have the same options I have with my doctor, I will pay all kinds of respect to teachers. When they demonstrate the kind of basic mastery of the subjects they teach that I have to display in programming (I'm not setting the bar too high here), I will pay them respect. When their unions stop demanding hourly-worker-like benefits and rules for these "professionals" who get six times the vacation I do, I will pay them respect. When they stop blocking the reforms that would enable higher pay and changes in the environment they work in, I will give them respect.
Until then I will treat a good teacher like I do an honest lawyer: a beautiful thing to behold and someone to be treasured, but hardly indicative of the profession as a whole.
It seems to me that there would probably be a clause in the DMCA that would prevent someone from claiming with no evidence that there was a DMCA violation. Otherwise, it would be easy to claim that the MPAA had pirated one of my images and immediately cut off their website, without any proof on my part.
If you provided proof that was later found to be false, what are the penalties? Is there a difference between willful and negligent misuse? Is there a penalty for negligent (i.e. unintentional) misuse?
Slashdot Mirror
The majority of this guy's decision to resign actually sounds like he's tired of dealing with what shareware and freeware authors have been dealing with for years, with only the good will of people to get any compensation or credit (most shareware on the Mac is not time-limited). The Mac community does have a high standard for software performance and does expect polish from its programmers.
It results in a fair amount of whinery, but it sounds like this guy is going to be shocked when he finds that users in the professional world will be just as nasty, plus they'll threaten to withhold payment.
The e-mail exchange didn't impress me a lot either--it sounded like he had one or two points that the guy was willing to concede on, but he blew up and brought other things into the mix for a flame-o-rama.
So I'm sorry that he's no longer a Mac developer, and I'd encourage him to put his studies first. On the other hand, I'm not going to get too worried about the nature of the Mac community over it.
They do, IIRC, but it is produced locally and has different, "culturally appropriate" muppets.
Ah, the things one remembers from the Gulf War...
The originality in the "Lab" occurs during the report.
;-).
Good point.
In some (probably most) cases, that's how it's done. However, there are cases (see the reply below yours for an independent example) where the person running the lab does enough QA and monitoring to ensure that true deadweights do not get credit.
Maybe a combination of individual reports and monitored collaboration might work--and hey, in the real world, I've had to deal with people who would slough off work and I had to put in the extra time to make the client happy. (What, you mean not only do I have to program these functions but you can't even teach the client how to use our standard back-end CMS???) Life lesson learned early
The hard sciences do this all the time, because that's how hard science is generally done--in a team setting.
My dad teaches occasionally at local community colleges (physics) and has labs. Sometimes he counts on the students to police one another (political but doable) and sometimes he has a monitored lab where they do something at the bench and he can observe who is just hanging back or simply copying results into the journal, etc.
So, not being in the position myself, I'd suggest bringing up the idea with some physics or chem prof who does this sort of thing who you may have run across. If they're at all clueful about computers, they might have some interesting ideas, or at least tell you enough for you to bring up a concrete idea to a CS prof you know and have a good rapport with.
This post has a very idealistic view of what a CEO or CIO is capable of.
The "big picture" you describe has been, in my experience, more often a "details of the bottom line" that is the opposite of overview-level thinking. Most CEOs are not technicians, nor have they been. They tend to graduate from one of these universities that teaches business and are dumped straight into management. They have to work their way up, but they tend to be management the entire time.
Management is quite prone to fads. Not only the Dilbertesque slogans and terminology, but also to techniques ("the one thing to keep in mind is to maximize billability"--this in a company that has 90% fixed-price contracts). The CEO who assumes they understand all the issues of a breaking technology from reading articles in CIO is going to have a dot-bomb on their hands quite soon.
Yes, there are innumerable enthusiastic young things that want to sacrifice the bottom line to whatever cool idea they've come up with, but, for example, with your example of IE versus the world, you've cut yourself off from 10-15% of your marketshare. Now, unless you know your target demographic is 100% WinIE, or you absolutely need some downloadable ActiveX control to carry out the client's part of the transaction, there are very few reasons why coding to a wider set of standards than WinIE should be a bad business decision at the "big picture" level.
I agree that an employee who knows as much as is useful about the bigger picture is a more valuable employee than someone who only knows their business, but no one comes from any education instinctively knowing the "Big Picture". The "Big Picture" is made up of judgements about a wide range of information specific to each situation as well as general trends. If you're expecting someone to come in knowing what you know by psychic phenomena and don't actually say, "Yes, in an ideal world we'd code to Mac, Linux, and Netscape, but in our market that would only gain us 2% marketshare for 5% increased cost due to additional testing, and that just doesn't make business sense," then you're going to end up with blind yes-men who will not let you know that the customer is pissed, there's a new technology that would reduce your costs, or even that half your employees are planning to leave for a company that values their input.
That is preventing ignorance.
If it didn't apply to M$ (as it obviously didn't)
Two key differences between these themes and MS:
1) Apple stupidly gave MS a license along with access to the GUI, and it was badly written enough to be construed as giving them some rights to substantially similar. (Bad lawyers are even worse than lawyers)
2) MS did not create an "Apple" look. They stole most of the features of the interface but didn't have square buttons with lines across the top of the window, as the old Apple interface had. It would have been an open-and-shut case had they done so.
So if this guy had a license and had created a theme that used bulbous buttons but didn't substantially replicate the Apple look, he would have been scott-free.
Funny, yes.
Impressive? Yeeawn.
Would have liked an MST version to highlight the lack of dramatic tension too.
"Hey, Mike, I'm on the edge of my seat. Guess I better scoot back a little."
Even in the first episode of Voyager, there was a "Wow," or at least a "Cool!" moment. This one, while it didn't suck as much as what I like to call a "Wesley Gets the Ick" story, had no real "cool!" moment.
It wasn't bad, but man, given that premise, think what Roddenberry or Serling or Straczynski could have done with it.
It's sad, Berman, really--just let it go gracefully into that good night, or at least wait until your stable of soap-opera hacks get some new ideas. Hey! Here's an idea--go to the writers of Analog magazine and then just film them.
Sigh.
Interesting, in my wildest dreams, I never thought that air traffic controllers (or anyone associated with the FAA, even tangentially) would be the key to space travel.
"What do you mean, you want clearance for class D airspace above 24,000? We'll have to fine you if you go that high, class D or no."
Defense contractor engineers put out of work by the end of the Cold War would be at least a little more plausible, plus give them access to out-of-work Soviet scientists.
"Damn! I need a hammer, and we're down to our last $450. Can you get them used for less than $500?"
"Da, comrade--as fraternal sacrifice, am sellink you mine for low, low price of $200, plus bottle of wodka."
In the Gulf War over yet?
And what does that have to do with the point the poster was responding to? In fact, were it true (and you stretch the definition of war to the point that I guess we should live in fear of the Confederales in Brazil coming back to retake the US because they didn't accede to the Southern surrender in 1864), it would only bolster the point: despite the fact that, by your count, we are still fighting at least two wars, we don't have a conscript army.
Correction: we did not train bin Laden. He was allied with the guerillas we trained. He hired his own mercenaries to train his Arab team. We trained various Afghanis, but no Arabs.
Read Eric S. Margolis's War at the Top of the World [amazon.com] for a good account of it.
So if you learned that "fact" from the BBC, you might want to reconsider your sources. To be fair, I've read some of their coverage and I have yet to see that particular mistake.
First, your numbers are so rough as to be meaningless. They also aren't accurate. And you conflate military and civilian casualties--or you are simply wildly misinformed.
Knowing more would help, yes:
The CIA trained Osama bin Laden.
False. Widely-spread untruth by terrorist sympathizers, but false.
Once again, intelligence agencies were useless.
By not training him? No.
By enabling the Afghani people to kick out Soviet invaders? Last time I looked, the Soviets withdrew.
George Bush had increased U.S. support for Israel.
He reduced support for both sides as tensions increased.
Violence is assumed. An NBC poll says 83% of Americans want military action.
Violence has been committed. However, you notice there was no reflexive bombing campaign.
Weapons indicate weakness, not power. The best protection is being truly powerful.
To you, yes. To most people around the world, sadly, no. Would it were so but it's not, and that determines the nature of the conflict. Study the history of terrorism in the 70's and early 80's.
The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer.
No, sometimes a part of the answer. Most of that time was spent in the Cold War, which by the way, did not finally become World War Three.
The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years.
Finally, you got one right.
Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people.
No. There are reams of psychological research on this subject. Any arguments based on this premise are therefore wrong.
Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country?
They seem to think so. And much as I'd like to move the Jewish state to Florida, it won't happen. As long as you deal with reality, the U.S. is always asked to go into places we have no direct involvement. The alternative, isolationism, has not been successful and is also the coward's way out of not trying to influence the world to something better. The fact that we haven't been perfectly successful means we're still human.
The U.S. has a history of secret interference with the governments of other countries.
Most of which happened 30 years ago. We have a history of wearing powdered wigs, too.
There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures.
Yes. Like all things, that varies by individual, but then I've been called a fascist for suggesting we overturn the government educational system that creates it.
Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think.
No. They react more extremely than they normally would. Both to the good (Red Cross donations) and bad (bomb now). On sober reflection, they go back to donating less and not wanting indiscriminate conflict. You'll notice the government you condemn did not take the easy bomb them the first night and make ourselves feel better route.
Answers?
True power is not adversarial.
Check. But if you don't include some ability to threaten those who threaten you or others, things turn out badly. Try living in a place without police if you don't believe me.
Don't let personal anger be a problem.
Our government is doing better than our people here.
The average American cannot be held responsible for the violence of the U.S. government.
And you propose letting people who do so get away with it. Bringing them to justice in any form will require force.
The bottom line
...is that we live in a world, not a college classroom. It can be a harsh and brutal world sometimes. What's coming will not be good, but it will be less bad than the alternative. Study world history 1976-1980 for an abject lesson.
And if you've actually read anything about what bin Laden is trying to accomplish with his terrorist agenda, it's EXACTLY that--a world war between Islam and the West.
Yes, but if you'd been watching the news carefully, instead of getting hysterical buried in counter-culture spinlications preaching their own brand of hate, you'd know that he's failed.
This is not a war between Islam and the West, but it is war.
This is a war in which you have to choose sides: do you support state-sponsored terrorism, or don't you? It is a war between those who do and those who don't. It is a war in which there is little conflict of interest between the U.S. and Jordan, Isreal, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, France, Britain, or any other government that has suffered at the hands of terrorism sponsored by outlaw states.
You've gotten too far from the news--using phrases like "genocide" and "nuclear bombs" marginalizes you. In case you didn't watch, even when a more convential air war was used against Serbia, most bombs did not fall on civilians.
Before you think yourself cluefull and everyone else in the world Pollyanna, let me state that most other people know that there will be civillian casualties in the coming war. But the main difference you fail to grasp is that it will be something we seek to minimize rather than the central goal, and that is the central difference this war is about. We will also ally with governments who do not have the respect for human rights that we have. It will be necessary to win the war.
Also, if you had been following the news, you would have learned that Pakistan is cooperating--contributing intelligence, allowing overflight, cutting off aid and supplies to the Taliban. If you knew more about the tensions in the region, you would know their nuclear bombs a) can't reach here, b) aren't enough to take us out and prevent retaliation even if they were smuggled in, and c) will be held on to because India has them, too, which is why they are there in the first place.
This is not a war in which sanctions will be allowed to work. They are, ironically, the non-war alternative proposed by the same left wing that complains about their effects on civilian populations. And they are historically ineffective.
This will be a war with few examples of Baghdad-like bombing runs. When we punish, or hopefully eliminate, the governments that sponsor terrorism, there will be such things. Occasionally a terrorist camp will be eliminated, at least in part, by such methods. They will be directed against government or terrorist facilities and with every attempt made to avoid places where civilians congregate--but only insofar as that attempt still allows us to remove assets that government uses in its campaign of supporting terror and repressing its citizens.
Most Muslims, even those in the Middle East, are not fond of terrorism because in the main, it has made life worse for them rather than better. What Western and left-wing press alike fail to realize is that they are frequently the victims of such things, as the terrorists decide that a certain government isn't "Islamic enough" for them. As long as we are careful to go in and get, as you suggest (and I agree) terrorists and punish or destroy the governments that give the succor, and as long as we then, AFTER we remove the threat, resume the long, painful path to peaceful co-existence, there will be no Islam-West conflict beyond the multifaceted but usually peaceful conflict of values we have now.
So why don't they hate Canada or Belgium?
Simple. We exist as the most powerful and wealthiest democratic state. Why hit the smaller players?
By the way, did you know that most of the aid we give Israel was mandated as part of the peace treaty with Egypt? How warlike was it for us to aid both Egypt (an Islamic country) and Israel?
If this were truly about who we support, Bin Laden would be our best ally since we funded other Afghans (not Bin Laden, it turns out) kicking out an invader on their soil. We funded the defense of his native country against a non-Islamic state (oh, you thought Saddam was religious? Read more.).
No, this is about attacking the symbol of freedom and self determination, which Bin Laden and selected Palestinians do not want for other ethnicities and religions.
Our "defense" industry is largely what caused this debacle -- the number one export for the United States is weapons.
While I'd prefer we sold more Macintoshes than weapons (either the apple or Apple breed), keep a couple of facts in mind before you get too hysterical:
1) Most of these arms sales go to warlike countries such as Canada and Belgium.
2) The arms sales in the 80's were supposed to go to factions OPPOSED to Iran's government, not the Iranian government. It was no doubt a grievous mistake, as it turns out this may have been an Iranian ruse.
3) Until environmentalists get over their hysteria about nuclear energy, we will be dependent on oil and that's the only reason we continue to be involved in the Middle East. It's easy to say with the ludicrously low prices for gasoline America enjoys that we should get out anyway, but the "energy crisis" of this past year shows that yuppies will scream bloody murder if they have to give up their gas-guzzling SUVs. No government that didn't ensure we had enough governments in the region willing to sell us oil will last. If you don't like that, campaign for nuclear energy to tide us over until we can make something safer work cost-effectively.
4) Most government assistance outside of the middle east was during the Cold War, a contest in which the right to carp about your government's policy was at stake. As much improvement as I believe the US government needs to make in this area, the other side was so much worse that it was literally a struggle between freedom and repression. Fortunately, freedom won, and we no longer have to hold our nose in supporting one side to prevent the other side from gaining another foothold in another region of the world. It is a wonderful luxury.
I do not suggest unquestioning or mindless support, but at a time like this, I suggest a sense of perspective.
Hey, educated superiour dude, Afghans aren't Arab.
Afghanistan's government (not its people) will be attacked if and only if it is found that whoever attacked was sheltered by the Taliban in the time preceding the attack.
Also, our press's lack of attention to foreign affairs is not due to government control, but due to the sad state of education and the culture of isolationism that periodically raises its head. The sad state of education may be caused by the government, but through incompetence rather than conspiracy.
You also forgot reason number 4 that we don't attack:
4) There is nothing to be gained.
That's why we don't randomly attack Britain or Canada--they haven't done anything to make us even think about it since the early 19th century. Canada has never done so since independence.
Please go to China or Russia to see what total and partial, respectively, control of the press and propaganda really looks like.
Please: slashdot "anarchists" and those who believe you're repressed and the subject of government plots--do some traveling to truly unfree places and see the difference. Just because the rest of us fail to jump to your cause may mean that we just don't buy what you're selling, not that your fantasies of repression have anything to do with reality.
The American government regularly "kicks ass" all over the world and creates a lot of resentment among the poor people who suffer because of it.
Actually, we go to more lengths than anyone to avoid hitting poor people while still actually doing something about predatory governments such as Serbia's previously. Yes, sometimes civilians get harmed in these attacks, but it is the exception now more than the rule.
Most of the people rebelling against America's involvement overseas are not poor. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire, as is Saddam, as is Khaddafi. Quite frankly, they are upset that our policies undermine their anti-human and anti-democratic regimes.
The UN court is a nice idea, but it is useless without enforcement. Right now, the only truly effective enforcement is through the US and its allies.
But let's be realistic, even if we were as nice and amoral in our international dealings as Sweden, it would continue to happen to us. We're the biggest, and the symbol of power that those who covet power wish to hurt to make themselves feel better. Fundamentally, that is what it is all about.
I was having my car serviced on US 1 just south of Crystal City, when the sales guy mentioned that a plane had hit the WTC. I thought it was a terrible accident, but assuming it was a Cessna or some such, I thought little about it.
Then he said a second one hit, and identified it as a twin-engine passenger jetliner. At that point I began, as everyone else did, to suspect terrorism. It was still a little too new, and all the sites were flooded (there wasn't a TV near).
Then, as I continued to read Analog, I thought I heard something and then heard some fire engines. I didn't connect it until someone just made a choking sound and pointed out the windows toward the direction of the Pentagon. We could just begin to see white smoke, quickly followed by gray, billow over the PTO buildings and the hill above Crystal City.
At this point we realized there was something coordinated going on, and people moved from looks of worry to upset. We went to the street to get a better view, but there wasn't much to see. I have a fatalistic bent and decided there wasn't much I could do one way or another at the moment (no EMS or relevant skills) so I went back inside but couldn't begin reading again. At this point my nearly forgotten car was brought out, and the tech, visibly upset, just waved at it.
"It's running, keys in the ignition. Just...screw the paperwork, you should be set to go." He immediately went to the more important, if less immediate news that was coming from a radio they had.
I decided it was time to go to my office, which slightly further south and closer to 395, where people were again upset (as I must have looked). Reality clearly hadn't sunk in for some. We heard additional jets but it quickly became clear that they were fighters--one went supersonic and left a boom that had us pouring out onto the street and scanning the horizon for smoke. There were cheers from the 7-11 next door when they realized there were F-16s overhead.
After that, it was just waiting and worrying and trying to wait until the phone lines were clear enough to call my folks and reassure them.
Well, I knew this was a possibility when I moved here. It's too bad--there are so many wonderful things here.
Man's inhumanity to man, yes.
But come on, imperialism? Please go see a real empire (try ranting anti-Chinese stuff in Tibet, then rant anti-American slogans in Vietnam and see which one gets you arrested).
No, we are hit because a) we're big, and you make your name by smiting the big boy and then running away quickly and b) we matter, in which we introduce dangerous (to religious bigots and petty tyrants) ideas such as free trade and the free flow of ideas. And yes, even with its problems, Israel is still more free than any of its neighbors--even if you're a Palestinian.
I know you were kidding, but ugh, no thanks.
I want to flay the f**kers who did this as much as the next guy, but I don't want to a) take it out on innocent women and children (and please no anarchist wannabe give me any crap about how we bomb women and children--if we wanted to, there wouldn't *be* a Serbia now), or b) take over a place that even the bloodthirsty Soviets couldn't handle. I say let them sort themselves out, maybe fund some of the more rational people there.
You should study the history of hijackings in the 1960s and 1970s before you talk about the "cycle of violence" that is perpetuated by standing up to terrorists. We appeased and appeased and negotiated and whined, and the incidents got more and more frequent until after we retaliated for the Berlin Disco bombing. And it wasn't a blind counterstrike, either. It was a very well-targeted counterstrike on the man responsible--who lives but doesn't cause us much trouble anymore.
So we know what will reduce the threat, the question is, do you have the guts to do it?
Josh-
You sound afraid. Fear is generally born of ignorance. Why not try learning about it? It may be closer than you think, and not so scary when you didn't realize the difference:
what will it be like to grow up knowing you wouldn't have just "happened" the way normal kids have.
Why not ask that of your roommate, assuming you're in college? Odds are not small that he or she was conceived in a test tube and didn't "happen" the way "normal" kids have. What will you do? Will you treat him differently when you find out? Why? Is he any less human? Is the person with the genetically-determined mental retardation less than human? So how would an artificially engineered person be less than human?
Why do we build the bigger accelerator? Because we didn't find the answers to the questions we found with the smaller one. You only need a Time Magazine-level of physics knowledge to understand that.
For someone who claims to be above the "ignorant masses" on whom "technological tools are wasted," and thus fit to say what should and should not be (else what gives you the right to make the judgement?), you're displaying a fair amount of ignorance--and this is causing you to evidently lose sleep.
For your next book, I suggest Richard Dawkins's "Unweaving the Rainbow," perhaps followed by Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World."
Rest assured, they show proper appreciation of poetry and gently introduce one to the broader world that lies outside the narrow confines of the human imagination.
Since Quicktime isn't actually running in Linux but running under windoze with a hack...by your logic isn't it the "Linux superiority myth"?
;-P
I'm sorry, but when a teacher tells me that radio telescopes are used for "listening to the speeches of dead presidents" with a straight face, I'm not going to give them the respect I give my doctor. I similarly refuse to give respect to chelation therapists, chiropractors who claim to cure cancer, homeopaths, or other quacks.
I wish that were more the exception than the rule, but teachers in general have not behaved in a way that would engender respect for the profession. Educational requirements to become a teacher are the least stringent in universities, with the possible exception of scholarship-bearing atheletes. Educational "research" ignores even the basic rules of scientific or scholarly inquiry--most educational techniques are evaluated without a control group, much less double-blind studies. My doctor's information comes from stringent protocols, with strict licensing. If he were to ever say "You know, you have this cold because Aries is ascendant" I would immediately leave and file a complaint.
I could not leave the teacher who blathered about radio telescopes, and it was well-known what happened to "uppity" students whose parents (or, worse, they themselves) crossed teachers--continual harassment. That's public school for you.
When I have the same options I have with my doctor, I will pay all kinds of respect to teachers. When they demonstrate the kind of basic mastery of the subjects they teach that I have to display in programming (I'm not setting the bar too high here), I will pay them respect. When their unions stop demanding hourly-worker-like benefits and rules for these "professionals" who get six times the vacation I do, I will pay them respect. When they stop blocking the reforms that would enable higher pay and changes in the environment they work in, I will give them respect.
Until then I will treat a good teacher like I do an honest lawyer: a beautiful thing to behold and someone to be treasured, but hardly indicative of the profession as a whole.
It seems to me that there would probably be a clause in the DMCA that would prevent someone from claiming with no evidence that there was a DMCA violation. Otherwise, it would be easy to claim that the MPAA had pirated one of my images and immediately cut off their website, without any proof on my part.
If you provided proof that was later found to be false, what are the penalties? Is there a difference between willful and negligent misuse? Is there a penalty for negligent (i.e. unintentional) misuse?