At a bank maybe. Most mininum wage earning cashier types could care less if you paid them with real money, home printed money, or monopoly money. I know, I've worked at plenty of grocery stores and convenience stores back in the high-school and college days... and I for one never bothered to carefully inspect a bill, and I never saw anyone else do it either.
Once in a blue moon now, I'll have the cashier at a store examine my 20 dollar (or larger) bill, but it's VERY uncommon for them to do so.
Once Google goes public, expect greedy investors to destroy the things we like about it. I predict the technical side of Google will be outsourced to India within two years of it's IPO.
I'd say your prediction has a pretty good chance of coming true, based on this.
'm also ENTJ. I would say that that particular web survey is flawed, but I've taken the real MBTI before, and it came out the same way. So I guess that means that link has a bit of credibility doesn't it?
Hmmmm... I took it twice, just because I didn't feel a simple "YES/NO" response was appropriate for some of the questions... that is, I could see going either way, depending on context.
First time, I came out as an INFJ, second time as an INTP. After reading the descriptions of the types, INTP seems more in line with my actual personality, but I can definitely see elements of both.
Herein lies the problem however. How is this different from freaking astrology? People who believe in that stuff, and read horoscopes and all that crap, will readily tell you that they "see" the truth in that as well. And they do, because A. the stuff is so vague and general as to be meaningless, and B. since they want to believe, they map what they read onto themselves mentally.
I got that same general impression when reading the writeups on the different personality types. Like, "Yeah, ANYBODY who reads this is gonna say that it sorta matches them."
And then you had the questions like:
You generally like giving instructions? YES / NO
Well, it depends on what you mean by "giving instructions," IMHO. I don't like "telling people what to do" or "giving order" too much... which is one way to view it... but I do very much enjoy instructing people in the sense of teaching, or showing somebody how to do something. FWIW, that's one of the ones I changed my answer on... first time, I picked NO, second time I picked YES.
So what does all that mean? Nothing, I'm just bored and felt like rambling...:-)
IANAL, but he was clearly in violation with his domain name, especially by admitting that he was doing it to get attention for his contracting skills (which would make him money). Any way you cut it, his domain name did not pass the nomitive test for fair use, and MS was well within their legal rights to go after him. Glad it turned out okay for Mike, but he was wrong.
IANAL either, but I call bullshit. His fucking NAME is Mike Rowe, for crying out loud. And if this was technically illegal under existing law, then the law is broken and needs to be changed.
If Microsoft enforcing its trademark against MikeRoweSoft is an evil-empire action, what kind of precedent are we setting for other companies? I'm just going to start companies called Banc ov Amerika, Koka-Kola, Jonsen and Jonsen, Redd Hat Linucks, and Appul.
This guy said himself that he intentionally made a homophone of Microsoft just to mess with them. It's a clear-cut case of trademark infringement. I don't see the problem here.
<IANAL>
If you started a company called Appul that sold microcomputers and related software, then Apple might have a case.. but if your Appul company sold fertilizer or hand-tools, they'd have nothing. Likewise for Jonsen and Jonsen... do that and sell barbed-wire or plastic soda bottles, and you're not infringing anything.
In Mike Rowe's case, he's not selling personal computer operating systems and productivity software, and it's just weird that his name, said real fast, sounds like half of Microsoft.
In the case of your fictional Banc of Amerika, or Redd Hat Linucks, I think you might get in trouble, because they're still the exact same words as the name of the "real" company, just spelled different... and the made up versions don't have any real meaning, unlike "Mike Rowe" which is somebody's name. </IANAL>
Translation: this country occasionally becomes as authoritarian and police-controlled as the system the terrorists want to put in place.
At this rate, pretty soon the entire country will be an authoritarian police state, 24x7. Everytime we sacrifice a bit of civil liberties in the name of the "War on Terrorism" the terrorists win...
Oh, my God... how in the blue fucking hell did these two clowns get a patent for this shit????
I knew the USPTO was full of 'tards, but this just takes the fucking cake.. Only a freaking chimpanzee could think this patent deserved to be granted... no, wait, I take that back... a moderately intelligent chimp could see through this...
AAaaagggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These fools are gonna cause me to pull every last hair I have out of my head....
Yeah, that sounds like the best aspect of this, to me. I've often wanted to mount NFS shares from Windows, but didn't want to shell out big bucks for an NFS package... this one will almost certainly become the defacto one now, which is a probably more or less a good thing.
From what I hear, Silicon Valley isnt so hot any more, but other areas, like Conn. and Raleigh/Durham, NC are much better.
Better is, of course, a relative term... but I have to admit, my first reaction at reading that and seeing Raleigh / Durham mentioned was something like:
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHA!! ROFLMFAO!!! LOLOLOLOLOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAA!!! I HOPE THIS GUY DOESN'T TRUST WHOEVER TOLD HIM THAT LIE!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! WOOHOOHOOOO!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Seriously, the job market in the Triangle region of NC is still pretty damn weak. This area got flooded with techies when Nortel, Cisco, IBM, C&W, etc. laid of about a bazillion people back in 2001-2002. There have been a few promising signs that hiring is SLLLOOOWWWLLYYYYY starting to pickup again, but definitely do not move to RTP expecting to find techie-job nirvana, cause it ain't here.
Actually, I'd suggest anybody looking at moving to RTP period, forget it. After all, I don't want you here competing with moi for what few jobs there are!:-)
Just make it federal law that you must pay your employees the minimum wage, or higher, regardless of their citizenship, place of work, or whatever.
That's a pretty good point. If the U.S. feels that mininum wage should be, say $5.25 / hour, then a U.S. company should be required to pay ANY of their workers that much, regardless of where in the world they are...
Brilliant!
The law should be worded so that it includes subcontractors though... so greedy, evil U.S. Megacorporation (ie, HP) can't just contract the work out to an India based shop for a flat-rate of X U.S. dollars per year, while the programmers make 50 cents / day...
Of course, we all know this will never happen... but it would certainly be a step in the right direction...
This is why we have to be concerned about the economic conditions of the third world, and need to support their right to organize. Our decent jobs are going to be much less likely to cross overseas and become sweatshop jobs if we give support to people in the third world who are trying to form unions.
Absolutely true. You should be modded +10 Ultra Insightful.
The best thing that could happen would be for workers in these countries to stop settling for working for $10.00 / day, and demand a respectable salary as well... that would help wages equalize between the U.S. and India (or wherever) and make things more equitable.
The problem is, it probably won't happen. The cost of living is lower there, the expected standard of living is lower, and the Indian workers will probably always be willing to work for 30% of what the equivelant U.S. salary would be, because they can live (by comparison to their fellow Indians) like royalty on that....
I will no longer be purchasing any HP product, ever, for any reason. No job may be America's God-given right, but American companies have a responsibility to American workers, whether you realize it or not. After all, once all Americans are unemployed due to outsourcing / offshoring, what do you think is going to happen to the market for your goods, when the US economy collapses? Ooops.
Also, if offshoring is such a good idea, why aren't you investigating offshoring your own position? I'm sure you can find an Indian to work as CEO for MUCH less than your current salary. If you genuinely believe that your sole commitment at HP is to the stock-holders, then by failing to offshore your highly paid executive position, you are failing in that commitment. If I were an HP shareholder, I would be outraged at what you are doing.
I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know you just increased the competition for any scholarship that might get mentioned by about 10X.
Probably not... most people are too fvcking lazy to apply for the damn scholarship, even if you filled out the forms for them, gave them a stamped, addressed envelope and said "here, sign this, put it in the envelope, seal it, and stick it in the maildrop."
Mod parent up, please... this is the absolute truth. It's just not realistic to expect ANY software company to keep supporting EVERY version of their stuff, forever.
For example, do you think Novell is still putting out patches for Netware 2.x? Nope, don't think so. Is Borland releasing fixes for Turbo C++ 3.0 for DOS? Nope...
This is really a non-issue... If you're on 98, deal with the lack of support or switch.
That said, this does demonstrate what I consider to be the single biggest advantage of the FOSS model. The source is out there, so somebody else has the option to step in and provide maintenance for old software, or you can pay somebody to provide a specific fix, or you can fix it yourself, etc.
You could probably implement what you want using some type of message queuing server, like IBM Websphere MQ, or equivelant.
As a mental exercise, and to make sure I'm not talking out my ass, let's run down your list of requirements:
equirements are:
1. object oriented
Well, in the case of Websphere MQ, I'd say "yes" to this one, at least partially. There is a C++ based client library, IIRC, a (IBM specific) Java client library, and a JMS client. And even if the client libraries weren't OO, you could write OO wrappers for procedural calls more easily than writing your own RPC mechanism from scratch, I think.
2. extensible
Check. If you use pub/sub messaging instead of point to point messaging, even more so. And if you use a message type (MapMessage in JMS) that is based on name / value pairs, it's easy to extend your messages without breaking backwards compatibility.
3. platform independent
Not completely, but with both Java and C++ clients available, you should be able to support most everything.
4. supports signatures for integrity and sender checking
Not sure if it has native support for signatures, but a signature can always be added to a message as a property.
5. supports privacy of the message contents (i.e. encryption)
Again, using Websphere MQ as an example, it does support the use of SSL for communications, if that helps meet your requirements.
6. time sensitive: I should be able to detect a dead server and do failover while the user is waiting for the response
You're right, that's the tricky one. I think there are ways to achieve this goal using message passing servers, but it might take some work.
7. bandwidth efficient, as I am looking to deploy it in wireless environments
I think this requirement is met as well. Most messaging products support a message type that is nothing more than a stream of bytes that you interpret as you will... and even if you use a slightly move involved message type (MapMessage or StreamMessage to use JMS types as examples) you're still not carrying a lot of overhead.
Now #1-3 are no problem, #4 and #5 can be found, and #7 rules out anything XML-based. #6 seems to be the killer, as this rules out anything over TCP, and at that point the list gets pretty short.
Depending on just how "time sensitive" #6 really is, I do think you could come up with a solution using a message passing server. If you're able to use Java for the clients, JMS makes doing an RPC style messaging very easy, using the QueueRequestor and TopicRequestor interfaces. And even if you can't use Java, it shouldn't be to hard to cook up your own request / reply mechanism, built on top of the messaging system.
Actually, yes. I'd rather him be armed with something less than an AK-47.
Gun control won't help with that. Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. Laws about who can own what kind of gun ONLY affect law abiding gun owners. Granted, in my scenario above the "raging lunatic" could be an otherwise lawful citizen who just happens to snap when he finds out you're banging his wife / sister / daughter / whatever... but in general, the idea that "gun-control" affects the "bad guys" is mostly a myth.
Also, I'd rather not be armed and make true the "most weapons in the house are used to shoot family members" argument.
Obviously you accept that widely quoted argument. I on the other hand, am not convinced that it is true. Like a famous man (Mark Twain?) said "there are three kinds of lies... lies, damned lies and statistics." I think that "most guns in the household kill other family members" argument is an example of "lying with statistics." For example, I'm pretty sure I read that those numbers include suicides committed via gun. Obviously an intentional suicide isn't the same as accidentally killing your wife trying to shoot a burglar.
I'd rather give up everything I own than be forced to kill.
I can relate to that sentiment, I just don't feel quite the same way.
I'm no murderer.
Self-defense isn't murder, IMHO.
A life is a life, wether its a petty theif or a rapist. Nothing gives you the right to kill someone (IMHO), unless you're a judge in certain states
Well you certainly are entitled to your opinion. My feeling is that if a man attacks me, with the intention to seriously harm or kill me (or a family member) then he has forfeited his right to life if I can kill him before he does whatever it is he's trying to do.
Please don't get the idea that I'm blood-thirsty or anything though. Far from it. I hate the idea of ever having blood on my hands, and hope like hell I'm never put in a situation where I have to take another human life. But, I still remain aware that there are circumstances where I would do so (although I'm sure I'd feel a certain sense of regret afterwards, even if it was self-defense).
Nonetheless, I object to your saying that a society without the Second Amendment translates into a "restrictive, totalitarian, authoritative government," and that said society would be your only alternative from living in the United States.
I'm not saying it **automatically** translates so... just that our 2nd Amendment, and private firearms ownership is one part of the equation when it comes to making sure that we *don't* become that (hypothetical) evil, totalitarian, repressive country that I'm describing.
And personally, I'll take living in a country with a few more gun deaths, to have the comfort of knowing it's less likely that we will collapse into that state.
We're democratic here,
Us too... the question is, will you always be? (Or will we, for that matter... which is really what this is all about)
The only thing is, we don't generally think of having the guns there for use against other human beings (at least, not any of the general population that I know).
So you're telling me that all Canadians who own guns own them exclusively for hunting and sport shooting? Uuhhhhh, Ok... if you say so.
The very point of a democratic system is that if we don't like our leadership we vote them out or break the law if we can't. For example, if we needed weapons to fight a corrupt dictatorship that had taken over our government, we'd get them one way or another, since likely, even if we had a law or constitutional guarantee that we could obtain one, said dictator would probably repeal it.
Sure voting them out is fine in theory. We can do the same thing of course. The idea behind having private firearms ownership is a "last defense" against tyranny. I mean, don't get me wrong.. I'm not advocating a new American Civil War or anything... It's just the principle that having a well armed populace helps ensure that we always have a **free** populace. It's not a guarantee, of course... again, it's just one more part of the equation.
As for "We'd get them anyway"... IF, the day came when the citizens of Canada needed guns for a revolution, don't you think it would be easier if a large percentage ALREADY HAD THEM, than everybody having to go out and acquire them on the spot? Also, what about training and experience shooting? All these (hypothetical) would-be "revolutionaries" need to learn to shoot, develop some accuracy, learn to clean / repair their weapons, etc. Again, don't you think you'd be better off with a population of people who already have these skills?
The argument about assault rifles being sufficient to ensure the success of a revolt against a tyranical government is a fantasy. Against troops with heavy weapons and armoured vehicles/body armour they are virtually useless (as confirmed by recent events in Iraq).
I'm not saying they're sufficient, I'm saying they're necessary. And keep in mind, our own American Revolution showed how a determined band of rag-tag part-time "soldiers" can defeat a much better equipped, trained and armed force...
Anyway, even an all-out "overthrow" of the existing government might not be necessary... a variety of smaller revolts, which were quenched, still had an effect on American history. Maybe the day will come when the same thing needs to happen again... Or not.
I'm tempted to apply for their open position for a Software Engineer... just in hopes that they'd offer me the job, so I could turn around and tell them "You're smoking crack if you think I'd work for you fucking scumbags... LOLOLOLOLOLOL"
Hmmm... a job interview getting modded -1 Troll, has it ever happened before?
If the ownership of firearms were restricted to "official" -- that is, under the control of the federal government -- militias, then there would be no way for individuals to ensure the security of a free state.
That doesn't protect individuals. It protects militias, which, by definition, aren't individuals.
There are valid arguments on both sides of whether or not the Framers meant the 2nd Amendment to apply to individuals, as opposed to an organized (by the state) militia of some sort. I happen to believe that the arguments in favor of the view that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, are much stronger than the others. You are of course, welcome to your own interpretation...
Best done by... a well organized militia. Not a single nut going on a rampage in the white house.
Nice strawman. I don't recall saying anything about nuts going on rampages in the white house. Since you brought it up, I'll just say that the White House is heavily guarded by armed security people for a reason. Your house, on the other hand, is not. So, what happens when some raging lunatic (maybe he thinks your sleeping with his wife / daughter / sister / whatever ) decides to go on a rampage in YOUR house? Still so in favor of gun-control?
Yes, I said the 2nd Amendment is primarily about keeping the power in the hands of the people, but self-defense is a nice perk as well...
Agreed. That being said -- it was all about letting the north military beat the hell out of the south. Never about an individual nut being able to own an AK-47. There's a reason those words are present there. They weren't just put in for flowery reasons.
IF, and again, this is unlikely to ever happen, but IF an armed rebellion against the government should ever become necessary, it would be nice if the good guys have weapons that give them a somewhat realistic chance of winning. Does that mean I advocate private ownership of assault rifles? Absolutely. Does it mean I advocate private ownership of atomic bombs? No, because atomic weapons would never be used in an internal war inside the borders of our nation, by either side...
Odd that someone with a.co.uk address would talk about the 2nd amendment. In any case, the 2nd amenment doesn't say: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear the tools necessary to commit a massacre, shall not be infringed."
First of all, I'm American, not British. The.co.uk TLD is a lark.
Secondly, the same weapons necessary to wage war, if that need should arise, just happen to be the same ones that would conceivably allow one to commit a massacre. It's a (somewhat) unfortunate truth that living in a country with great freedom also entails a certain amount of danger, and maybe a little bit of self-responsibility. You worried about a gunman walking into the McDonalds where you and your family are eating, and beginning to spray bullets? Ok, get yourself a concealed carry permit and a nice legal, properly licensed handgun, and when that event happens, take the safety of you and your own into you own hands.
The other alternative is to move to a country with a restrictive, totalitarian, authoritative, government that protects you day in and day out, from cradle to grave. But god-damnit, leave those of us who love the freedoms that make America great, the hell alone. Quit being part of the system that's trying to systematically turn US into that totalitarian country referenced above.
Slashdot Mirror
At a bank maybe. Most mininum wage earning cashier types could care less if you paid them with real money, home printed money, or monopoly money. I know, I've worked at plenty of grocery stores and convenience stores back in the high-school and college days... and I for one never bothered to carefully inspect a bill, and I never saw anyone else do it either.
Once in a blue moon now, I'll have the cashier at a store examine my 20 dollar (or larger) bill, but it's VERY uncommon for them to do so.
Going by the inevitable flame wars that break out every time someone mentions gun control on Slashdot, we've got the guns too...
Thank God for small favors....
Once Google goes public, expect greedy investors to destroy the things we like about it.
I predict the technical side of Google will be outsourced to India within two years of it's IPO.
I'd say your prediction has a pretty good chance of coming true, based on this.
'm also ENTJ. I would say that that particular web survey is flawed, but I've taken the real MBTI before, and it came out the same way. So I guess that means that link has a bit of credibility doesn't it?
:-)
Hmmmm... I took it twice, just because I didn't feel a simple "YES/NO" response was appropriate for some of the questions... that is, I could see going either way, depending on context.
First time, I came out as an INFJ, second time as an INTP. After reading the descriptions of the types, INTP seems more in line with my actual personality, but I can definitely see elements of both.
Herein lies the problem however. How is this different from freaking astrology? People who believe in that stuff, and read horoscopes and all that crap, will readily tell you that they "see" the truth in that as well. And they do, because A. the stuff is so vague and general as to be meaningless, and B. since they want to believe, they map what they read onto themselves mentally.
I got that same general impression when reading the writeups on the different personality types. Like, "Yeah, ANYBODY who reads this is gonna say that it sorta matches them."
And then you had the questions like:
You generally like giving instructions? YES / NO
Well, it depends on what you mean by "giving instructions," IMHO. I don't like "telling people what to do" or "giving order" too much... which is one way to view it... but I do very much enjoy instructing people in the sense of teaching, or showing somebody how to do something. FWIW, that's one of the ones I changed my answer on... first time, I picked NO, second time I picked YES.
So what does all that mean? Nothing, I'm just bored and felt like rambling...
Dozens of invitations are already up for sale on
E-Bay and can be had quite inexpensively, it would appear.
IANAL, but he was clearly in violation with his domain name, especially by admitting that he was doing it to get attention for his contracting skills (which would make him money). Any way you cut it, his domain name did not pass the nomitive test for fair use, and MS was well within their legal rights to go after him. Glad it turned out okay for Mike, but he was wrong.
IANAL either, but I call bullshit. His fucking NAME is Mike Rowe, for crying out loud. And if this was technically illegal under existing law, then the law is broken and needs to be changed.
If Microsoft enforcing its trademark against MikeRoweSoft is an evil-empire action, what kind of precedent are we setting for other companies? I'm just going to start companies called Banc ov Amerika, Koka-Kola, Jonsen and Jonsen, Redd Hat Linucks, and Appul.
This guy said himself that he intentionally made a homophone of Microsoft just to mess with them. It's a clear-cut case of trademark infringement. I don't see the problem here.
<IANAL>
If you started a company called Appul that sold microcomputers and related software, then Apple might have a case.. but if your Appul company sold fertilizer or hand-tools, they'd have nothing. Likewise for Jonsen and Jonsen... do that and sell barbed-wire or plastic soda bottles, and you're not infringing anything.
In Mike Rowe's case, he's not selling personal computer operating systems and productivity software, and it's just weird that his name, said real fast, sounds like half of Microsoft.
In the case of your fictional Banc of Amerika, or Redd Hat Linucks, I think you might get in trouble, because they're still the exact same words as the name of the "real" company, just spelled different... and the made up versions don't have any real meaning, unlike "Mike Rowe" which is somebody's name.
</IANAL>
Translation: this country occasionally becomes as authoritarian and police-controlled as the system the terrorists want to put in place.
At this rate, pretty soon the entire country will be an authoritarian police state, 24x7. Everytime we sacrifice a bit of civil liberties in the name of the "War on Terrorism" the terrorists win...
Oh, my God... how in the blue fucking hell did these two clowns get a patent for this shit????
I knew the USPTO was full of 'tards, but this just takes the fucking cake.. Only a freaking chimpanzee could think this patent deserved to be granted... no, wait, I take that back... a moderately intelligent chimp could see through this...
AAaaagggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These fools are gonna cause me to pull every last hair I have out of my head....
FINALLY, an NFS client for win!
Yeah, that sounds like the best aspect of this, to me. I've often wanted to mount NFS shares from Windows, but didn't want to shell out big bucks for an NFS package... this one will almost certainly become the defacto one now, which is a probably more or less a good thing.
From what I hear, Silicon Valley isnt so hot any more, but other areas, like Conn. and Raleigh/Durham, NC are much better.
:-)
Better is, of course, a relative term... but I have to admit, my first reaction at reading that and seeing Raleigh / Durham mentioned was something like:
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHA!! ROFLMFAO!!! LOLOLOLOLOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAA!!! I HOPE THIS GUY DOESN'T TRUST WHOEVER TOLD HIM THAT LIE!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! WOOHOOHOOOO!!!! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Seriously, the job market in the Triangle region of NC is still pretty damn weak. This area got flooded with techies when Nortel, Cisco, IBM, C&W, etc. laid of about a bazillion people back in 2001-2002. There have been a few promising signs that hiring is SLLLOOOWWWLLYYYYY starting to pickup again, but definitely do not move to RTP expecting to find techie-job nirvana, cause it ain't here.
Actually, I'd suggest anybody looking at moving to RTP period, forget it. After all, I don't want you here competing with moi for what few jobs there are!
Just make it federal law that you must pay your employees the minimum wage, or higher, regardless of their citizenship, place of work, or whatever.
That's a pretty good point. If the U.S. feels that mininum wage should be, say $5.25 / hour, then a U.S. company should be required to pay ANY of their workers that much, regardless of where in the world they are...
Brilliant!
The law should be worded so that it includes subcontractors though... so greedy, evil U.S. Megacorporation (ie, HP) can't just contract the work out to an India based shop for a flat-rate of X U.S. dollars per year, while the programmers make 50 cents / day...
Of course, we all know this will never happen... but it would certainly be a step in the right direction...
This is why we have to be concerned about the economic conditions of the third world, and need to support their right to organize. Our decent jobs are going to be much less likely to cross overseas and become sweatshop jobs if we give support to people in the third world who are trying to form unions.
Absolutely true. You should be modded +10 Ultra Insightful.
The best thing that could happen would be for workers in these countries to stop settling for working for $10.00 / day, and demand a respectable salary as well... that would help wages equalize between the U.S. and India (or wherever) and make things more equitable.
The problem is, it probably won't happen. The cost of living is lower there, the expected standard of living is lower, and the Indian workers will probably always be willing to work for 30% of what the equivelant U.S. salary would be, because they can live (by comparison to their fellow Indians) like royalty on that....
Here's the message I sent her:
a p/ 20040107/ap_on_bi_ge/technology_jobs_5
Ms. Fiorina,
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that, as a result of comments made by yourself, and quoted in this article:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/
I will no longer be purchasing any HP product, ever, for any reason. No job may be America's God-given right, but American companies have a responsibility to American workers, whether you realize it or not. After all, once all Americans are unemployed due to outsourcing / offshoring, what do you think is going to happen to the market for your goods, when the US economy collapses? Ooops.
Also, if offshoring is such a good idea, why aren't you investigating offshoring your own position? I'm sure you can find an Indian to work as CEO for MUCH less than your current salary. If you genuinely believe that your sole commitment at HP is to the stock-holders, then by failing to offshore your highly paid executive position, you are failing in that commitment. If I were an HP shareholder, I would be outraged at what you are doing.
Thank You,
Phillip Rhodes
Chapel Hill, NC
I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know you just increased the competition for any scholarship that might get mentioned by about 10X.
Probably not... most people are too fvcking lazy to apply for the damn scholarship, even if you filled out the forms for them, gave them a stamped, addressed envelope and said "here, sign this, put it in the envelope, seal it, and stick it in the maildrop."
Mod parent up, please... this is the absolute truth. It's just not realistic to expect ANY software company to keep supporting EVERY version of their stuff, forever.
For example, do you think Novell is still putting out patches for Netware 2.x? Nope, don't think so. Is Borland releasing fixes for Turbo C++ 3.0 for DOS? Nope...
This is really a non-issue... If you're on 98, deal with the lack of support or switch.
That said, this does demonstrate what I consider to be the single biggest advantage of the FOSS model. The source is out there, so somebody else has the option to step in and provide maintenance for old software, or you can pay somebody to provide a specific fix, or you can fix it yourself, etc.
I checked the page and lo and behold, my name was just dragged through the interplanetary mud, so to speak.
Good, now when the Martians come looking for revenge for us polluting their planet with our junk, your name will be on "the list."
You could probably implement what you want using
some type of message queuing server, like IBM Websphere MQ, or equivelant.
As a mental exercise, and to make sure I'm not talking out my ass, let's run down your list of requirements:
equirements are:
1. object oriented
Well, in the case of Websphere MQ, I'd say "yes" to this one, at least partially. There is a C++ based client library, IIRC, a (IBM specific) Java client library, and a JMS client. And even if the client libraries weren't OO, you could write OO wrappers for procedural calls more easily than writing your own RPC mechanism from scratch, I think.
2. extensible
Check. If you use pub/sub messaging instead of point to point messaging, even more so. And if you use a message type (MapMessage in JMS) that is based on name / value pairs, it's easy to extend your messages without breaking backwards compatibility.
3. platform independent
Not completely, but with both Java and C++ clients available, you should be able to support most everything.
4. supports signatures for integrity and sender checking
Not sure if it has native support for signatures, but a signature can always be added to a message as a property.
5. supports privacy of the message contents (i.e. encryption)
Again, using Websphere MQ as an example, it does support the use of SSL for communications, if that helps meet your requirements.
6. time sensitive: I should be able to detect a dead server and do failover while the user is waiting for the response
You're right, that's the tricky one. I think there are ways to achieve this goal using message passing servers, but it might take some work.
7. bandwidth efficient, as I am looking to deploy it in wireless environments
I think this requirement is met as well. Most messaging products support a message type that is nothing more than a stream of bytes that you interpret as you will... and even if you use a slightly move involved message type (MapMessage or StreamMessage to use JMS types as examples) you're still not carrying a lot of overhead.
Now #1-3 are no problem, #4 and #5 can be found, and #7 rules out anything XML-based. #6 seems to be the killer, as this rules out anything over TCP, and at that point the list gets pretty short.
Depending on just how "time sensitive" #6 really is, I do think you could come up with a solution using a message passing server. If you're able to use Java for the clients, JMS makes doing an RPC style messaging very easy, using the QueueRequestor and TopicRequestor interfaces. And even if you can't use Java, it shouldn't be to hard to cook up your own request / reply mechanism, built on top of the messaging system.
Actually, yes. I'd rather him be armed with something less than an AK-47.
Gun control won't help with that. Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. Laws about who can own what kind of gun ONLY affect law abiding gun owners. Granted, in my scenario above the "raging lunatic" could be an otherwise lawful citizen who just happens to snap when he finds out you're banging his wife / sister / daughter / whatever... but in general, the idea that "gun-control" affects the "bad guys" is mostly a myth.
Also, I'd rather not be armed and make true the "most weapons in the house are used to shoot family members" argument.
Obviously you accept that widely quoted argument. I on the other hand, am not convinced that it is true. Like a famous man (Mark Twain?) said "there are three kinds of lies... lies, damned lies and statistics." I think that "most guns in the household kill other family members" argument is an example of "lying with statistics." For example, I'm pretty sure I read that those numbers include suicides committed via gun. Obviously an intentional suicide isn't the same as accidentally killing your wife trying to shoot a burglar.
I'd rather give up everything I own than be forced to kill.
I can relate to that sentiment, I just don't feel quite the same way.
I'm no murderer.
Self-defense isn't murder, IMHO.
A life is a life, wether its a petty theif or a rapist. Nothing gives you the right to kill someone (IMHO), unless you're a judge in certain states
Well you certainly are entitled to your opinion. My feeling is that if a man attacks me, with the intention to seriously harm or kill me (or a family member) then he has forfeited his right to life if I can kill him before he does whatever it is he's trying to do.
Please don't get the idea that I'm blood-thirsty or anything though. Far from it. I hate the idea of ever having blood on my hands, and hope like hell I'm never put in a situation where I have to take another human life. But, I still remain aware that there are circumstances where I would do so (although I'm sure I'd feel a certain sense of regret afterwards, even if it was self-defense).
Nonetheless, I object to your saying that a society without the Second Amendment translates into a "restrictive, totalitarian, authoritative government," and that said society would be your only alternative from living in the United States.
I'm not saying it **automatically** translates so... just that our 2nd Amendment, and private firearms ownership is one part of the equation when it comes to making sure that we *don't* become that (hypothetical) evil, totalitarian, repressive country that I'm describing.
And personally, I'll take living in a country with a few more gun deaths, to have the comfort of knowing it's less likely that we will collapse into that state.
We're democratic here,
Us too... the question is, will you always be? (Or will we, for that matter... which is really what this is all about)
The only thing is, we don't generally think of having the guns there for use against other human beings (at least, not any of the general population that I know).
So you're telling me that all Canadians who own guns own them exclusively for hunting and sport shooting? Uuhhhhh, Ok... if you say so.
The very point of a democratic system is that if we don't like our leadership we vote them out or break the law if we can't. For example, if we needed weapons to fight a corrupt dictatorship that had taken over our government, we'd get them one way or another, since likely, even if we had a law or constitutional guarantee that we could obtain one, said dictator would probably repeal it.
Sure voting them out is fine in theory. We can do the same thing of course. The idea behind having private firearms ownership is a "last defense" against tyranny. I mean, don't get me wrong.. I'm not advocating a new American Civil War or anything... It's just the principle that having a well armed populace helps ensure that we always have a **free** populace. It's not a guarantee, of course... again, it's just one more part of the equation.
As for "We'd get them anyway"... IF, the day came when the citizens of Canada needed guns for a revolution, don't you think it would be easier if a large percentage ALREADY HAD THEM, than everybody having to go out and acquire them on the spot? Also, what about training and experience shooting? All these (hypothetical) would-be "revolutionaries" need to learn to shoot, develop some accuracy, learn to clean / repair their weapons, etc. Again, don't you think you'd be better off with a population of people who already have these skills?
The argument about assault rifles being sufficient to ensure the success of a revolt against a tyranical government is a fantasy. Against troops with heavy weapons and armoured vehicles/body armour they are virtually useless (as confirmed by recent events in Iraq).
I'm not saying they're sufficient, I'm saying they're necessary. And keep in mind, our own American Revolution showed how a determined band of rag-tag part-time "soldiers" can defeat a much better equipped, trained and armed force...
Anyway, even an all-out "overthrow" of the existing government might not be necessary... a variety of smaller revolts, which were quenched, still had an effect on American history. Maybe the day will come when the same thing needs to happen again... Or not.
I'm tempted to apply for their open position for a Software Engineer... just in hopes that they'd offer me the job, so I could turn around and tell them "You're smoking crack if you think I'd work for you fucking scumbags... LOLOLOLOLOLOL"
Hmmm... a job interview getting modded -1 Troll, has it ever happened before?
If the ownership of firearms were restricted to "official" -- that is, under the control of the federal government -- militias, then there would be no way for individuals to ensure the security of a free state.
Exactly.
That doesn't protect individuals. It protects militias, which, by definition, aren't individuals.
There are valid arguments on both sides of whether or not the Framers meant the 2nd Amendment to apply to individuals, as opposed to an organized (by the state) militia of some sort. I happen to believe that the arguments in favor of the view that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, are much stronger than the others. You are of course, welcome to your own interpretation...
Best done by... a well organized militia. Not a single nut going on a rampage in the white house.
Nice strawman. I don't recall saying anything about nuts going on rampages in the white house. Since you brought it up, I'll just say that the White House is heavily guarded by armed security people for a reason. Your house, on the other hand, is not. So, what happens when some raging lunatic (maybe he thinks your sleeping with his wife / daughter / sister / whatever ) decides to go on a rampage in YOUR house? Still so in favor of gun-control?
Yes, I said the 2nd Amendment is primarily about keeping the power in the hands of the people, but self-defense is a nice perk as well...
Agreed. That being said -- it was all about letting the north military beat the hell out of the south. Never about an individual nut being able to own an AK-47. There's a reason those words are present there. They weren't just put in for flowery reasons.
IF, and again, this is unlikely to ever happen, but IF an armed rebellion against the government should ever become necessary, it would be nice if the good guys have weapons that give them a somewhat realistic chance of winning. Does that mean I advocate private ownership of assault rifles? Absolutely. Does it mean I advocate private ownership of atomic bombs? No, because atomic weapons would never be used in an internal war inside the borders of our nation, by either side...
Odd that someone with a .co.uk address would talk about the 2nd amendment. In any case, the 2nd amenment doesn't say: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear the tools necessary to commit a massacre, shall not be infringed."
.co.uk TLD is a lark.
First of all, I'm American, not British. The
Secondly, the same weapons necessary to wage war, if that need should arise, just happen to be the same ones that would conceivably allow one to commit a massacre. It's a (somewhat) unfortunate truth that living in a country with great freedom also entails a certain amount of danger, and maybe a little bit of self-responsibility. You worried about a gunman walking into the McDonalds where you and your family are eating, and beginning to spray bullets? Ok, get yourself a concealed carry permit and a nice legal, properly licensed handgun, and when that event happens, take the safety of you and your own into you own hands.
The other alternative is to move to a country with a restrictive, totalitarian, authoritative, government that protects you day in and day out, from cradle to grave. But god-damnit, leave those of us who love the freedoms that make America great, the hell alone. Quit being part of the system that's trying to systematically turn US into that totalitarian country referenced above.