Ok, I have to say, as funny as your comments are, the following:
Michael Jackson: I'm Bad, so bad, oo-ee, oo-ee, bad.
So bad => good.
Bling-bling?
Junk! (Meaning good as seen/heard on Extreme Make-over.)
Gay! Meaning happy or homosexual?
Dike! The tool or????
My point is - words get redefined all of the time. Sometimes for good reasons, but mostly not for good reasons. As (IMHO) in this particular case. In this case the people in question are simply trying to muddy the waters so true science and (possibly) half-baked science can both be used to teach kids, send people to the moon (they wished!), and so on.
Lest anyone forget, the words are "the separation of church and state" not "the divorce of church and state". IMHO, the difference is that the church is not to control the way in which the state is operated but is to work with the state to lend guidance when guidance is needed. (That being certain circumstances where there would not normally be guidance as in previous laws passed or common sense measures. This excludes normal day-to-day things and would regulate the church to being called in when things like the end of the world is near.) But it isn't as severe as divorce. If the word divorce had been used, then it would mean no church could be involved with the state at all. That the state would have to be a totally heartless, surrogate of power. (Which does happen from time to time I have to admit!)
But the state is not divorced from the church - only separate from it. It doesn't mean the state can't, on occasion, listen to the church, or even act upon the church's wishes. (After all, look at Martin Luther King Jr., Jesse Jackson, and others. There have been many church people who have had a direct influence in how policies (and laws) have been formed here in America for centuries.) So it isn't "All you church people get out of our government," it's "You church people AND EVERYONE ELSE get to have your say in these matters."
So my outlook is: Don't redefine words (like science) to try to get around the problem, don't force your views on everyone else by stocking the pond with your own fish, and don't pass laws which are going to affect everyone in the state without giving those people the chance to say yea or nay to it. The people who were elected into office were elected not to try slimey, nasty, underhanded tricks to get laws passed - they were elected to represent the needs of everyone in the state. By passing this type of a law, which affects everyone and attempts to force a single methodology onto the populace, without giving everyone a chance to say yes or no to it; is like forcing everyone to be brainwashed like good little Nazis. If you believe in creationism or even Intelligent Design, then put your money where your mouth is and have an honest, open, well thought out and explained vote by the people of Kansas on whether or not they want Intelligent Design or Creationism taught in their schools. If you won't do that, then that clearly shows that the only way you are capable of getting this kind of law passed is to use shyster tricks. And may God have mercy on your soul for having done so.
I would have to say that I had heard of a different case but similar to the Xerox case. The company was (if I remember correctly) Kodak. They had come out with a color copier that was just something else. It was so good that you could take a dollar bill, put in the right kind of paper, and produce exact copies of that bill.
If I remember it correctly (and it was a very long time ago), Kodak agreed to make their machine actually produce an anomaly on the paper after it went through the copier. I forget what the anomaly was, but it made it so banks et al could tell the forgery from the real thing.
(One of those strange but true kinds of things.:-) Kind of makes you wonder if this wasn't one of the reasons why the government decided to start putting all of those metallic threads, magnetic strips, et al into the paper money running around out there.)
But then, as you have pointed out, how do you share the ".com", ".org", etc...?
What if, when just ".com" were used the browser returned all available ".com.nn"s? Then you'd get to choose which one to go to. Further, companies which wanted universal usage of the ".com.nn" ids could then register in the various countries so that no matter which country you were in it would point to the one location.
Ok, now you are probably going to say "But isn't that what we already have? Why should a company have to register with a particular country? Why not just have the global ".com"s?" The answer is simple: That is a part of what this fight is all about. The other countries can not control who see what and this is because the ".com"s et al are global. Thus, even if they don't want some of the ".com"s that are out there, they are not in control of their own domains. Instead, they have to explicitly deny sites entry into their country's branch of the internet. But by changing one small thing they do gain control. Thus, a country can keep track of, and control of, their part of the internet.
Now, is that a good thing? Not always. But just like America has no right to go around throwing its weight around trying to make everyone else in the world like them - neither does anyone else have the right to make any other country act like that country acts. Which is what control of the top level domain names does. Just like some of the laws that are being passed here in America actually are coming from other countries (and the WTO and WIPO), just because some other country does something is no reason for America to have those same laws. Especially when most of these laws are so lopsided as to remove or undermine the very foundation on which America was built.
The top level domain names are like a kingdom and whoever controls the keys to the kingdom controls how that kingdom works. Remove the kingdom and you remove the control. This isn't to say that you can't still go from one country to another via the internet. Although some politicans probably would love to cut it into pieces and not allow any of the pieces to talk to the other pieces. It is just to say that we need to come up with a different methodology. Browsers do not, at present, even care what country you are currently residing in. This has led to all sorts of problems such as the eBay's selling of items deemed inappropriate in other countries. Were the net set up so there were specific sections (ie: counrties) then it would be easier for eBay to delineate where certain items could be sold and where they could not be sold. Further, instead of trying to mix everything together into a single melting pot called the internet (aka America's methodology of thinking when talking about everyone who lives in America) - each countries internet would be unique unto itself.
Now do not misunderstand me. I am against blocking. Whether it be the blocking of people from being able to go to a particular section of the internet, the censoring of content, and the like. I am in favor of blocking spam and spam related sites. Mainly because of the massive dumping of messages they generate. And yes, I am against illegal or criminal sites. Let's not get dopey here. But I realize that the American way may not be for everyone and probably should not be. We think we have the greatest government in the world, the greatest leaders, the greatest armchair diplomats, the....yeah right. Who am I kidding? Although the American government started out in the right way - greedy, money grubbing, penny-pincher, criminals, vandals, and other unsavory people have had over two hundred years to wear away at the wonderful government set up of, by, and for the people. Which is why our Supreme Court now says it is ok for your land to be taken away from you by anyone who wants it and has enough money to pay off a government official. (Hmmmmmmmm....sounds a lot like the old USSR to me.)
Hmmmmmm....where was I? Oh yes! I'm not against segregating the int
As per what you posted only, why not, if the ".com.nn" were left off and only ".com" were used, then the request stays within that country. Then remove the top level inference to the ".com" level so the global ".com" is no more.
It is yet another problem of limited resources and too many people who want that resource. You would think in today's world that this would not be an issue. But, like many other things - when this was set up the scope was local - not global. So now we are seeing the effects of this in that people in other countries want to be able to advertise in the US et al without having to jump through hoops in order to do so. The same holds true for people in the US. We'd like our products to show up around the world too - but then we are competing outside of our country against other companies who want precedent over us.
This is the same problem as "who gets to tell us how to act" question. Should a judge in Germany be able to tell a company in the US what they can or can not sell based upon the rules and regulations of Germany? We, in the US, are telling judges (and even countries) how to act and what they have to do. So why not the reverse?
So the problem boils down to two things. Should we 1)Set up barriers so each country has its own little play pen to play in, or 2)Can we figure out a way for everyone to play in the same play pen?
The first is simple. Just do away with the top level domain names and insist on everyone having to type ".com.nn" or ".org.nn" and so on. (Or, as I and others have suggested, if you type just ".com" or ".org" you get a ".nn" silently tacked on to the request and you still only gain information about places inside of your country.)
The second isn't. Like McDonalds going over to England and demanding that a person who's family has owned the McDonald's Inn for centuries changing the name - you get major corporations all fighting over who gets control of what name. Little companies like "I Buy Macintoshes" (better known by another name) are forced into giving up site names that are prefectly suited to their needs. Because the big corporations have more money and can force their wants onto the smaller entity. It is like asking who gets the best seats at a sporting event. The more money you pay - the better your seat is but just like at the game, the small guys usually get to stand in the parking lot and can only hear everyone having a good time. Some may say "That is how it should be." I say - that only worked when we were cavemen and little children. It is time to grow up. Remember when your mom told you to share? This is the same kind of thing. Maybe, we even need to rethink how the internet works so it will work for everyone - even the small guys.
You missed the point entirely. Let's try this again:
M:tG never really recovered from this debacle and Hasbro, Inc. finally bought them out.
Ok, if they recovered then why did they get bought out? They got bought out because they were doing very poorly before the buyout.
The purchase of Carta Mundi was a good buy for them but with TSR they were handed a real nightmare. The reason they bought TSR was for personal vendetta. The original company (before WotC) had to declare bankruptcy because TSR sued them into inexistence. Then M:tG came along. WotC coast was born and they became a lot larger. TSR, on the other hand, had been so badly mismanaged, and had stabbed so many people in the back, that they had thousands of books rotting in warehouses all over the world since no one wanted to buy them.
The owner at the time, (the daughter or grand daughter of the person who invented Flash Gordon [or maybe it was Buck Rogers - but I think it was Flash Gordon]) pumped up TSR to where it looked like a good buy and WotC bought it. After all inventory was checked though it was found out that almost all (if not all) of the books in the warehouses had rotted from the high humidity since the warehouses were all near sea ports. This lead to WotC's lawsuit against the lady who sold TSR to them. She (if I remember correctly) had to repay some of the money to WotC but then WotC had to pour millions into TSR to hire new talent and to keep the company afloat. Eventually TSR was turned around but at a huge cost to WotC which put them into serious trouble. Hasbro came along, saw a good thing, and gobbled them up.
Therefore, since they are NO LONGER just WotC but are now a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. - WotC never managed, on their own, to recover from the problems of slowing card sales (because their efforts were mainly devoted to getting TSR back up and running smoothly), disenchantment with WotC's reprinting of cards they swore they'd never reprint, and a tight budget due to the high costs incurred from buying TSR, the lawsuit with the former owner of TSR, and their other expenditures (like large layouts for those in charge of the company).
They could only be said to recover from these setbacks if, and only if, they had remained an independent company. Which they did not manage to do. So when the chips were down at WotC - they sold out rather than try to limp along until maybe, sometime in the future, they would recover and again be a strong, vibrant company. Allowing themselves to be bought by Hasbro, Inc. was the only real thing for them to do. With all of the resources that Hasbro, Inc. has at hand - it made a lot of sense to seek and gain the very strong financial backing that Hasbro, Inc. could bring to the table. Hasbro's removal of several management personnel from the company (including the founder) was also the right thing to do because those people had really already moved on in their lives to other interests and working in a company that was now being run by another corporation was just not what they probably really needed. From everything I've read, all of the people left on good terms with Hasbro, Inc. and could probably find new jobs with Hasbro if they wished. I haven't read that any of them have taken jobs with Hasbro - but it is a good bet that Hasbro would not say no to them if they wanted a job.
A good example of supply and demand taking their toll is the Wizards of the Coast selling of Magic:the Gathering cards. When M:tG first came out only a few thousand sets were made. People went crazy over the game. So the next set was double the first, the third doubled that again.
Then the complaints began coming in. It seemed that some distributors were hoarding boxes of cards until the price had risen sufficiently to where they could break the box and sell the individual cards. WotC decided, therefore, to break the cycle and mass produce all of one expansion set. They choose Fallen Empires. A small set that was massively over ordered. There were six waves. The first wave of cards sold out completely. The second wave sold almost all the way. But the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sets could not be sold. This caused many dealers to go out of business which kind of backfired against WotC who had wanted to teach the distributors a lesson. Instead, the distributors had agreements with the dealers and it was the dealers who ate the cost - not the distributors. M:tG never really recovered from this debacle and Hasbro, Inc. finally bought them out. Hasbro now controls how many cards are produce and the time schedule, and even arranges the large conventions.
Who knows - maybe Hasbro will buy Microsoft? Gack! I can see it now - instead of a paperclip we get toys that talk to us! AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!;-)
Anyway, Microsoft is just trying out flipping the directive by the DOJ people. DOJ said they could no longer force people to sign long term contracts that gave M$ an unfair advantage by locking them in. So now they are trying the opposite. That is: to create an artificial state of panic on the part of the people who want to buy an XBox 360. By restricting the flow of widgets - er - XBoxes, they create a void which they are hoping a lot of people will come rushing into thus causing an increase in price. Sort of like how the oil companies in the 1970s faked the oil crisis and caused gas prices to go sky high, long lines, etc.... Or maybe you'd like to talk about Reliant Energy's rolling blackouts in California. Amazing how companies say to our faces "Trust us" and then stab us in the back time and again. Let's see....what are some of those slogans?
Trust us...You can rely on us...We bring good things to something or other...:-) Like politicans - when they start saying they are going to lower your taxes what they really are saying is that they are going to increase your taxes. Soft of a bassackwards way of talking to people. Or maybe they just took classes at the Tower of miniTruth school.
Do you ever feel that you are a cow who's visiting the slaughterhouse for the second time?
Re:They aren't as dangerous as before
on
Ma Bell is Back
·
· Score: 1
I would have to echo others here when they say "Are you crazy?!".
To use your way of lookiing at things I'd have to say that Microsoft isn't as bad as everyone thinks because there are so many other companies out there making software. Or IBM isn't as bad as they say because there are so many companies out there making computers.
There usually arises one company who's ability to kick the sh*t out of all of the other companies is more than the combined whole of all other companies. This company is the one which becomes a monopoly. Now, let me just remind everyone that somewhere in one of our main documents it expressly forbids the US Government from creating monopolies. By its inaction in controling the companies within its borders - it is creating monopolies. And in this, or any other society, everyone - not just the people - but e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e loses.
That's because monopolistic companies are run just like feudal kingdoms and guess who gets to play the part of the serfs?
Hmmmmm.....SBC taking over AT&T is sort of like having your grandson have sex with you. It's just not right.
I tend to think that everything (our governmental bodies, companies, etc....) should be cyclic in nature. That is to say that the highest office should be graded by the lowest. It is the only fair way to deal with things. This is because those in high places tend to pat themselves on the back and act like Little Jack Horner when, if the truth were told to them by their employees, they'd probably get fired. Especially when the top execs get over $100 million a year and the lowest paid employee probably gets around $12,000.00. Which, in today's economy, means they probably have to live with someone just to have some place to live.
And please, do not tell me that this is how our government is run. We elect people to office true, but then they can do as they please. Like elect to always be given a pay raise instead of how the founding fathers intended it to be. That is: that Congress and the Senate must vote on being given a pay raise so that the people of the United States of America can know who is being greedy and who isn't. (There's that old evil hiding in the shadows thing again!) Instead, they are guaranteed a pay raise each and every year they are in office. Nice of them to do that don't you think? For themselves.
[sarcasm]You know - I just don't understand why our government can't balance their books and are always in the red. Could it be because they are unable to control themselves when it comes to spending and that is why things were set up the way they were originally? And could that be why every time there is a majority of one party in the two houses that laws get passed that are designed to increase Congress' power and to take away the rights and liberties of the average American citizen? Nah! Couldn't be that. Now where did I put those rose colored glasses? Hmmmmmmm..... I know they must be around here somewhere.[/sarcasm]
I've gone both ways in pay scale. When I worked for a university once there was a stretch of three years when we never got a pay raise. Usually we only got a 1% or less pay raise. When I became an assistant manager I found out what was going on - the higher-ups were taking all of the money even when the state congress expressly stated that no managerial personnel was supposed to take a pay raise for that year. Pay raises of 3-5% were the norm.
On another front, a friend of mine was also working at the university. After three or four years of never getting a pay raise he decided to find out what was going on. In his case, he wanted to look at the accounting books. It turned out that the accounting books were on the top floor of the library accesible only by stairs and no photography equipment was allowed on the top floor. Also, no pens, no paper, no pencils, nothing - except yourself. (Althought you could ask for a pencil and paper as you will see here in a sec.) It took several hours (and several days) of making requests for various accounting books, being told they were not available, being denied access to records, and the like to finally get hold of the books he wanted to look at. Turns out they were all done in pencil and several of them had areas that had been erased. Lucky for him, the sections he was looking for were still in good condition. After looking at the pages he asked for some paper and a pencil. The person would only give him one sheet of paper, one pencil, and stood over him while he copied the information from the book to ensure he didn't modify the books. Only one sheet of paper was allowed per person per visit. So it took him a while to get all of the facts. It turned out one person who had hired on with the department had funneled almost all of the funds to themselves. Something like a 30% pay increase each year for the past few years thereby doubling their salary in a very short amount of time. Since the "librarian" had stood over him and watched him copy everything he had the foresight to get the person's name as a witness to what he'd done so there could be no mistake about what he'd found out. He threatened to expose the whole affair if the offending person wasn't fired. They were and the money got distributed like it was supposed to be distributed to everyone. No charges were ever filed against the other person.
This is why I hate the "let's hide what everyone makes" mentality of most companies. As the saying goes "Evil can not stand the light of day but loves the darkness of the night." Which is to say that you can not do covert things unless you hide, misdirect, or mislead others in what you are doing. So remember that the next time raises are (or are not) handed out. Those people above you didn't take a "0%" pay raise. They took their cut out first and then went "Oops! There's nothing left for the rank and file. Oh well! Maybe next year!"
One last thing: Any time your boss gives you little or nothing as a raise; just remember this one thing - Every company has to file their income tax returns and those returns are open to public scrutiny. But more importantly, there is a company that already does this for you. They are Standards and Poor. Any major library in any major city will have the S&P books on hand for each year. All you have to do is to go to the library and look up the year you are told you are not going to get a raise (or even if they cut your pay). You can look up your company's information, see what the head of your company had to say about that year's profit and loss, see what dividends were paid to the stockholders, and even see how much money the company's owner made for that year (and you can compare it to the year before's amount to see what kind of a raise they got). Go and look at it. See how much of a pay decrease they took. I think you will be very surprised to find that even in the worse years they didn't take a pay cut or no raise at all but instead usually take about a 7-10% increase every year. Not to mention bonuses they may have taken on top of their pay increases.
Thanks! I'll have to consider donating to FreeBSD, (already have to FSF), and OpenBSD. I've tried PostgesSQL and decided upon MySQL instead - but maybe I'll donate to them. If I knew how to give points I'd mark your message up as interesting.:-) Maybe someone will do it for me(?). In any event - thanks!:-)
When I tried increasing the eating frequency (and eating smaller meals) I gained weight. When I tried working out every day as some of the weight lifter guys suggested (and followed their methods) I started gaining weight because I began feeling like I was starving and so I ate more. It seemed a vicious cycle so I cut back to three times a week. It maintains my weight (varies up and down by about 5lbs) and I don't feel like I've got to eat everything I can lay my hands on. Now I'm trying to change my diet more towards fruits and veges. I'm seeing a little benefit from this but nothing drastic so far.
Anyway, I think we have drifted a bit. So thanks again.:-)
Yes and no it is a joke. I thought it would be interesting to see people's reactions to such a radical proposal.:-) BTW: Here is part of the list of the richest people in the world and how rich they are:
Rank Name Age Worth ($bil) Country Of Citizenship Residence 1 William Gates III 49 46.5 United States United States , WA , Medina 2 Warren Buffett 74 44.0 United States United States , NE , Omaha 3 Lakshmi Mittal 54 25.0 India United Kingdom , London 4 Carlos Slim Helu 65 23.8 Mexico Mexico , Mexico City 5 Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud 48 23.7 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia , Riyadh 6 Ingvar Kamprad 78 23.0 Sweden Switzerland , Lausanne 7 Paul Allen 52 21.0 United States United States , WA , Seattle 8 Karl Albrecht 85 18.5 Germany Germany , Mülheim an der Ruhr 9 Lawrence Ellison 60 18.4 United States United States , CA , Silicon Valley 10 S Robson Walton 61 18.3 United States United States , AR , Bentonville 11 Jim Walton 57 18.2 United States United States , AR , Bentonville 11 John Walton 59 18.2 United States United States , AR , Bentonville 13 Alice Walton 56 18.0 United States United States , TX , Fort Worth 13 Helen Walton 85 18.0 United States United States , AR , Bentonville 15 Kenneth Thomson & family 81 17.9 Canada Canada , Toronto 16 Liliane Bettencourt 82 17.2 France France , Paris 17 Bernard Arnault 56 17.0 France France , Paris 18 Michael Dell 40 16.0 United States United States , TX , Austin 19 Sheldon Adelson 71 15.6 United States United States , NV , Las Vegas 20 Theo Albrecht 83 15.5 Germany Germany , Foehr 21 Roman Abramovich 38 13.3 Russia United Kingdom , London 22 Li Ka-shing 76 13.0 Hong Kong Hong Kong , Hong Kong 23 Amancio Ortega 69 12.6 Spain Spain , La Coruna 24 Steven Ballmer 49 12.1 United States United States , WA , Redmond 25 Silvio Berlusconi 68 12.0 Italy Italy , North of Milan
I'm afraid you are too late!:-) I only eat once per day usually. Sometimes twice, but that's just me and yes, I would just fast for that day probably. You are right though that they are a commercial company. This does not, though, mean that they have stockholders. Some companies are privately owned and those do not have stockholders other than the owners themselves.
As for my eating habits - my wife has tried to change me in that regard but I'm not a breakfast person and would rather just drink some water at night. But don't think I'm skeletal or anything like that. I eat a normal meal at lunch and then may have some hot/cold tea or water before going to bed. I'm actually overweight due to the fact that I program all day so live a very sedentary lifestyle and my metabolism is quite slow. I go work out at Bally's about three times a week, do yoga, and - for whatever reason - never seem to gain muscle mass (my father also was unable to ever gain a lot of muscle mass even though he worked out quite a lot with weights). I did manage to lower my body weight somewhat by weight lifting but not since I used to go running (until my knees decided I should not do that anymore) have I managed to get my weight down to a reasonable amount. Not that I am horribly obese (aka the piano man) - I am though, overweight.
I too would see this as a wedge Oracle can drive into the MySQL people to try to make them comply with Oracle's wishes (like maybe making MySQL read Oracle DBs or some such). InnoDB probably should have waited until after negotiations with MySQL were over before selling out to Oracle as then Oracle would have had to wait until the end of the new contract before attempting anything. Now though, Oracle has a pretty good way to strangle MySQL or at least make it a major inconvience for MySQL. Time will tell but my money is on the fact that Oracle did this with the full knowledge that those negotiations were coming up and they wanted a way in. This would lead me to the thoughts that: 1)Oracle is seeking new uses for its own DB engine (and not InnoDB), and 2)That it may be trying the Microsoft Extend and Engulf tactic.
It is my sincere hope that, if InnoDB or MySQL were in financial woes, that they would at least ask for help. I am sure that there are enough people in the world that, at like $5.00 or maybe $20.00, we would be able to help them out so they could continue making these products we have come to like, love, and use without resorting to selling their business off to some large corporation that is only focused on making a profit whether or not they help anyone else. At least I am willing to skip a meal, eat at home, bring my lunch, or whatever it takes so I can help support those companies that support me through these offerings.
By the way, your idea of punishing the successful is absurd and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were a COMMUNIST
Yeah....right.
It isn't punishing the successful - it is allowing others to succeed which you can't do if the already successful person keeps you from doing so. Plus, no one said they couldn't go start another company and be successful in that one too.
The initial cost can be in the millions or billions. However, look at it like this:
Let's talk about Houston, Texas. In Houston there are approximately 5 million people. With surrounding cities within 30 miles there are approximately 10 million people. (Houston is a hub site.) If each person were charged $50.00 a month for DSL that would be $500 million a month or $6 Billion dollars a year. Now, even if it cost them a billion dollars a year to maintain the lines et al that would still be $5 billion they'd get to keep. Of the $5 billion, they probably spend around $3 billion on utilities, land leases, administrative staff, and all other payouts of that type leaving them with $2 billion. Of the $2 billion probably $1 billion is given out as dividends leaving $1 billion in profits. Thus, if everyone were to take DSL from a single provider, it is likely that in the first year alone they would make their money back, and in the second year they would (and should) invest to begin upgrading their systems.
But that is an ideal way of looking at things. In reality, maybe only 20%-30% of everyone living in Houston will take some type of DSL. The rest will take either dial-up, or none at all (and maybe instead use their company's or friend's internet connection). So instead of $6 billion a year they may make only $1.2B-$1.8B each year. This means that, if you do the math, their profit is a lot less even though up front (ie: before you add in everything else) they are still making a lot of money. (Which are the numbers everyone sees or thinks about.)
So what does this mean? It means that things tend to go at a lot slower of a pace and the companies have to keep back more money just in case something disasterous happens (like Hurrican Katrina and Hurricane Rita). It is why both the phone companies and the electric companies picked one company to provide all service to the customers. At least they have in Houston. Everyone pays Center Point Energy money to maintain the power lines and everyone pays Southwestern Bell money to maintain the phone lines. Everyone standardized on one method to push electricity down the lines and everyone standardized on one method to make phone calls. That's why you can have whichever electric company and whatever phone company and not have to have new wires laid to your house each time. It is called a line usage fee.
So what's the problem? The problem is that unless there is a need (like a new subdivision opens up) these companies tend to lay newer, faster lines at a greatly reduced pace. That is to say CPE and SBC get together with all of the other companies and make decisions on the when and where they are going to lay the new lines, how much money everyone thinks they are going to get, and how much is going to be paid to CPE and SBC to do the work. And because our country, unlike other countries, is a legal morass of stupidity...er...laws we have to suffer through all of the "You can't do that"'s, or "You have to hold your tongue just right in order to do that"'s so the lines can be laid.
So they you ask "Why do we have so many stupid laws?" Well, it's because we wanted to protect the environment, we wanted to protect archeological sites, we wanted to not cut into gas lines, electrical lines, sewer lines. drainage lines, sluice areas, because we wanted a certain grade of lines installed (because someone probably used vastly inferior wires previously and they stopped working after only a few months), because we don't want aluminum/copper wires or copper/whatever wires, or because we now want optical wires instead of copper, or because.....I think you get the message. There are a lot of laws on the books which are meant to protect or to ensure that if someone were going to do something that that something is done correctly. And yeah, sometimes bad laws are passed which are meant to lock in a certain company (like traffic lights. The only reason we now can have LED traffic lights are because a few years back they finally figured out how t
Because it is more of the same tactics Microsoft was found out to be doing before the Antitrust suit. Now that they can't force manufacturers to sign contracts that lock them in for a large number of years, they are trying the same tactic but with a different twist.
We need stronger laws when it comes to dealing with big businesses. Here are some for everyone to mull over:
1. If a company is run by someone who makes more than a billion dollars a year - that person has to get out of the company. They can start a new company, but the old company has to lose that person. This would effectively remove Bill Gates et al at the top. They could start Microsoft #2, but Microsoft would have to find new people to lead the company.
2. If a company makes more than X amount (obviously in the billions) then the company has to split in two. This would ensure competition because no one company would be able to lord it over everyone else. The two companies can not work together. Neither can any of their siblings when they have to split. Only 4th generations can go back to working together. This might sound radical, but if a company makes, say, $100 billion dollars (Microsoft makes a lot more than that) then they become a threat to everyone else because they are so big they can start throwing their weight around, get stupid laws passed that never should have been passed in the first place, and can even buy people in all areas of the government. By limiting the overall size companies can reach they will spend more time fighting each other than they would trying to rule the country.
2a. When a company has to be split in two the secondary company gets a copy of everything the first company has and must open their offices in a different location (probably a different state). This would spread the wealth around to the various states.
Does anyone else remember Minority Report? In it there is a sequence where people are reading ePapers and they all change to showing Tom Cruise' face. I thought I'd not only bring this up but maybe expand upon what I see as the usages for ePaper:
1. Never have to actually buy a newspaper again. If, like in Minority Report, newspapers became node points on an internet subdomain, then the data could be downloaded wirelessly to each of the nodes and your newspaper updates automatically. There could even been separate types of nodes (dailies and subscriptions). The daily newspaper is only good for that day then it offers you a chance to pay for the next day's paper.
2. Books for the handicapped. There are many handicapped people who have trouble reading fine print. With ePaper the font size could be increased to a size someone with this type of handicap could read.
2a. Deaf people can benefit from this also in ways not yet thought of. The paper could be made to vibrate for alerts.
3. Instant mail. Someone sends you e-mail from somewhere. Now you can read it in private by making the inside area not the same as the outside area. Just hold the paper up and read. The angle of view would allow the person on the inside of the fold to see the information but not the people outside of it.
4. Always wanted that big screen to show movies on? Now you have it and at a fraction of the cost.
5. Always wanted that big screen to do your programming on so you don't strain your eyes? Now you can get it at a fraction of what it currently costs.
6. Hanging pictures or entire walls can now be set up to change colors, murals, etc....
7. Need to light an area? Replace normal lights with one of these. Because they are flexible you could now have a light that is in the shape of a spiral. One color on one side and another color on the other. Or you could have funky lights like in StarTrek where bands of color move along a wall without having to have hundreds of little lights behind a screen to create the effect.
8. If the screens are transparent, then they can be used as coatings on windows thus allowing you to set the tone of the sun. Too dark and depressing outside? Brighten up the room with a sunny day. Too bright for that solid black decor? Tone it down to a more dismal look. Or maybe mix reds or grey levels or blazing orange.
Or maybe we need to make phishing a major offense. Here are some (admittedly stupid) ways to handle phishing:
1. Death. Ever so final. 2. Slavery. Whip'em into shape. 3. Drop them in the middle of an ocean. If they can survive - they are forgiven having done the phishing thing. If they don't - well, see #1 above. 4. Drop them in the middle of a desert, jungle, some remote mountain top. It is pretty much all the same. The ocean is the best though because there are so many other creatures which are going hungry out there and in the other locations you would have a pile of bodies to deal with after a while.;-)
Any other ideas?
. . .
Really though, standard laws can all be applied but then all you are doing is punishing the general public and giving the person a place to stay for free. The problem here isn't that someone is doing the phishing, but how we deal with those people who do the phishing. There has to be a better way to handle people who do crimes other than just throwing them into jail for a certain time period and maybe fining them for money they do not have either because they spent it or did something else with it. Socialism is not the answer. Neither is Capitalism or Democracy. I think that knowledge is the answer. That knowing how to turn their talents from making money illegally to making money legally is what is needed. How to do that? That is a good question. But from everything I have ever seen, heard, and read - if you can get someone interested in making money. If you can show them HOW to make money - then most people (but not all of them) would rather make their money than steal it. The real problem is getting them interested in doing that - rather than just stealing the money.
I haven't read the article yet, but from past experience this seems like another attempt by MS to promote itself. Like the letter writing campaigns of yesteryear when MS was in the antitrust suit.
Although MS has changed (somewhat) since the Antitrust suit, MS is still a marketing company and not a software developer (at least, that is how it has been listed in the Standard & Poor's books). This would mean, to me, that MS actually waits for someone else to develop a new idea and then it procures a program that does something similar and takes it from there. This would mean that MS really isn't an innovator - no matter how much PR weight they throw behind a given product or ad campaign. Instead, they just have some really talented individuals who can (and do) understand concepts already brought forth by other individuals and those people can write software which does the same thing.
Given MS's history of abuse of the law, is it any wonder they have to hire people (or ask them to write things) to make them look good?
Is it me? Or does it seem that since the 1990s graft, bribes, paid-for laws, underhanded deals in government, lock-outs of the average citizen, and more terrible things have been happening than ever before in history? The computers we have created to help people do more things are being used to (in some cases) make people's lives worse. And since when do we try people in the legal system by popular vote? MS's letter writing campaign (and other company's letter writing campaigns) does nothing but confuse whether a given law should or should not be passed. The one person - one vote has been replaced by one company - unlimited votes. Need a law - hire a company to do it!:-/ Sorry - got off of the subject a bit.
It's the old joke: How many software engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
That's a hardware problem.
And how many hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
We'll fix it in software.
Yes, but the light really has to want to change.;-)
Really though, my example of this type of thing happening was when I first started working at NASA as a contractor. I used to do System's work and went over to the system people who were working on the mainframe. I talked with them a while and found out that they were working on a problem. What problem you ask? They couldn't get some important text to blink. Yeah, I know, pretty simple now but not so when dealing with a mainframe's console back then. I told them the way to do it and they said I didn't know what I was talking about. So I had their system person type in the proper codes and the text started to blink. (They had been looking for a function to do this.) I also showed them how to make the cursor jump around on the screen, how to set up protected fields on the monitor and such. It was then that I realized that they didn't know the "how does it work" stuff and only knew the basics. It concerned me a lot because, having been a system's person, I knew just how mucked up things can become if you don't know the reasons behind why certain things work certain ways.
I think that Captain Kirk said it best when, in the Wrath of Khan, he used his knowledge of how the ships functioned to overcome Khan's advantage by dropping the shields and almost totally disabling Khan's ship. His statement was that this is why you learn how things work. Very appropriate I think.
And yeah, not everyone needs to know everything about everything, and yeah not everyone can learn everything about everything. But let me just say that those people who write drivers for things - they do have to know everything about what they are writing the drivers for. Because if they don't, they could wind up killing someone. Don't think so? Think about your car. Whoever wrote the drivers for your car's computer had to know everything about what his program was going to control, how to control it, and so on. Otherwise, you might suddenly not have any brakes. The same is true for any type of machinery which is computer controlled. You have to know exactly how your machine works or else you could cause someone to lose their life. All computer controlled machinery originally had their control software written by hand. Once it was deemed safe (through numerous tests usually) it is then put into firmware which then runs the software program via hardware.
As a side note: I know someone who helped develop the robotic arm movements to place CPU chips onto a test board, send the chips through the oven, and then determine which chips to keep and which to trash. They went through six robotic arms because the specs to the robotic arms were off by a very small amount. But it was enough to cause the arm to break itself. So he wrote a program to test the limitations without breaking the arm and to keep this information in memory. (Basically an overlay to the drivers so the drivers know how far they can move the arm.) Now his program to test the limitation of the robotic arms is a chip in the arms to help prevent them from destroying themselves. Did he get millions for his idea? Nope. Company did. Now he works for a Geophysical company helping them save money in other ways.:-/
Here is a bit of history for you. :-)
on
The Slurpee at 40
·
· Score: 1
Although I'm dating myself by saying this (And I don't mean I'm going out with myself!):
One of my first jobs while in high school was at a place called Borden's Heap-O-Cream. These ice cream shops were all the rage long before 7-Eleven came along. We used to make something called a Freezie (or maybe Freezy). Anyway, it is really simple to make and tastes really good. The ingredients are:
1 pint of Sherbert 1 bottle of carbonated water.
Put the Sherbert into a blender with enough carbonated water to allow the blender to function. Blend. Pour. Enjoy.:-)
The Sherbert is usually sickly sweet and the carbonated water is very bitter. By putting the two together you make a great frozen drink that is non-alcoholic and only kind-of sweet. 7-Eleven (in the south) was non-existent when we were making these. I think they later became known as Frosty Freezes or something similar. In any event - all Heap-O-Cream outlets closed when Borden Ice Cream decided to concentrate more on just selling their ice cream to grocery stores rather than try to have their own stores.
No. Most cases of Phlebitus start with numbness or pins and needles. It is like your arm, leg, or whatever has gone to sleep and that is precisely what it is doing. The blood has slowed so much that not enough oxygen is reaching the cells. The pins and needles is the cell's way of sending a message back through the nerves that you are doing something wrong.
In your case I would suggest the following:
1. Go see your doctor, tell him about the problem, and have whatever tests he wants you to take.
2. If, after he has checked you out, he can not find anything wrong with you, then I would suggest going to see a Chiropractor. Unlike an MD, a Chiropractor can help by manipulating your bones. Sometimes, but not always, these things happen because one of your bones has gone out of alignment and it is putting pressure on a nerve. Since most nerves pass in/around/through your bones adjusting your bones can have significant help with pains that otherwise are just things you have to live with.
3. Get a good massage therapist and have a massage. I can not emphasize enough the benefits of massage therapy. I would suggest for men that you find a weight lifter type of person. This is because you want a deep tissue massage. First time through - light massage. But from then on - deep tissue. You will be surprised at how many knots are in your muscles and they have to be gotten out. They are signs of stress and by releasing the knots you are releasing the stress.
Yes and no. With me, once into a programming session I barely notice the time going by. My cats force me to notice them every couple of hours (and are quiet the rest of the time) which makes me realize I am thirsty, hungry, or have to go to the bathroom and I then go do whatever like get a drink from the frig under the desk (Actually they are hand made desks because I couldn't find any that I liked. Not that they look all that great - just some wood cut, shaved, and sanded to the length of the walls but then I'm 6'5" tall and all of the regular desks were too small for me. These desks are 36" tall rather than the normal 30" tall so I have lots of leg room. The desks are also nine feet long, six feet high, and have three shelves in them. The top one though is mainly for the cats to sit on since cats like to look down at things.)
So in my case, not having the cats is not an option. I would simply sit here and code all day and not notice the time passing by. With the cats - they distract me from concentrating on the project (which can be a bad thing sometimes) and make me realize time is passing (which is a good thing). I am pretty much totally oblivious to everything else that is going on around me when I am in to programming. (As they say - the house could burn down around me and I would not notice.) What can I say? I am sure there are others out there like myself. But if you are not that focused and can maintain a separate awareness of time passing - then getting rid of the frig and cats might be a good thing. Still, unless you are allergic to cats or dogs I can't see it. And the reason why is unconditional love. Because no matter what is going on, how great or terrible things become, a pet will stick by you no matter what. Well, if the house were on fire I think they'd make a run for it. Every man/animal for himself ya know!;-)
So the answer to your question is both a yes and a no. Yes for some people but no for others. Personally, I'd get the frig and pet.:-) But that's just me.:-)
After coding since 1972 I've found that simpler is better. The more whiz-bang things you have around - the more they are going to distract you.
I use vim to edit, gcc to compile, ddd/gdb to debug. Whether it is Linux, BSD, Sun Solaris, Windows, Macintosh (OS X and earlier), Cray, SGI, or whatever - I use the same things. It makes life simple. I have my vim macros - they do all of my documentation for me, help to reformat bad code I have to look at, and even can go through a complete file and replace various items I do not like to look at into things I do like to look at.
I have found that fancy IDEs, overly helpful editors, and things of that sort tend to piss me off since I type so fast. I especially hate it when an IDE overlaps what I'm typing so I can't see what I'm typing. It usually gets the wrong word and by the time the program finally figures out what the actual word is I want - I've typed it in already. However, I do like the color coding.:-) RED means DEAD in coding. Blues and greens mean good things are happening and yellow means you are about to be pissed off by something either you did or someone else did to your code.:-P
In any event, do whatever feels best for you, but fancy things tend to get in the way rather than help out (unless you just happen to like that sort of thing).:-)
This is not to say that IDEs can not help. Especially when programming for Windows. Also, there are interface designers. The two I like are DialogBlock or wxDesigner. Neither of them get in the way of coding. Once through with them though - I stick to vim.
If you are looking for advice on creature comforts - here are mine:
1. Have someplace you can put things to drink. It always breaks concentration when you have to get up, go to another room, and get a drink. If possible, buy a small refrigerator you can put under the desk or in another part of the room. Put your cold drinks in there so you have them ready to drink when you need one.
2. Have lots of shelves nearby. You need them so you can put your reference books on them so you don't have to go looking for them.
3. Get a pet. Preferrably a cat. Cats are interesting creatures and if you ignore them for an hour or two they will eventually demand your attention. This is a good thing because you can forget that time is passing while coding and the cat will remind you to get up and move about. Why is this important? Because there is this little thing called Phlebitus that you can get. (It is also called Secretary's Disease.) You get it from spending long hours sitting doing something. The blood in your legs tends to slow down and pool (ie: not return to the heart to be renewed as much). When the blood slows down enough it begins to form blood clots which can result in your having a stroke or you getting Phlebitus. If you are very unlucky (like me) it will completely block your artery or vien and you will then be on medication for the rest of your life (or you could say I am lucky not to be dead because of the Phlebitus). So get a pet and live a long healthy life. (This is not to mention the fun you can have with a pen light making the cat chase it all over the place. Of course it isn't too fun when the cat hits your pile of printouts and scatters them all over the place - but hey! That's why you get the shelves!)
4. Windows. You need them. You need them so you can open them and let some fresh air in. You need them so when it gets dark you remember to eat, go to the bathroom, etc.... You need them to realize that your life is passing you by while you sit there and code away. I coded for almost thirty years in buildings without windows. Now I work part time and spend a majority of my time at home coding in a room with a window. I also help out those who can't make their computers work, teach people about computers, and do other freebie things instead of just sitting in a window-less room and coding ten to sixteen hours per day.
I have to disagree with your outlook. But before I start let me just say:
1. My wife teaches middle school -> science. 2. I am a computer programmer/analyst/system's person who works with many computer languages, computer systems, work at NASA, and do NOT have a degree. But I've taught classes as a stand-in some times at the high school level, college level, and even to other employees.
So given the above, I know a little about what you go through each day - but probably no where near the actual day-to-day doldrums which you must be exposed to.:-)
Ok, with that out of the way...
My wife attended classes in a college where they tried to pound into the new teachers that in order to succeed in teaching - you must find the key to get the kids interested in what you are doing. In several of the classes they tried to emphasize that if you don't want to burn-out, drop-out, give-up, or just quit you have to find that something and go with it. In these classes were actual teachers who were already teaching. Most of them (but not all of course) were of the opinion that it would be better to just lock the kids in cages than to actually try to teach them. That the kids were criminals and that the system had already failed each and every one of these kids. Only two other people still felt that the kids were worth teaching. (The schools these people came from were some of the worst in the city and truth to tell - the school where my wife teaches has a lot of fights, drug problems, and the like.)
My wife decided that she didn't believe anything these people were complaining about and to actually try to make her class an experience each and every day. It was very hard at first for her. She came in to the class in November and the previous teacher could care less about the kids and allowed them to do whatever it was that they wanted to do. To say the room was in chaos is an understatement.
But you see, my wife had taught people for over ten years how to train their dogs and those lessons came in very handy. Along with the classes she attended at college, she applied the techniques learned in those long years of trying to get people to understand how to communicate with their dogs to communicating with the kids. And it worked. It took over four of the remaining seven months of the year to actually begin to get through to the kids. To make them believe first that she wasn't going to just go away. To secondly make them believe that they could do what she was asking them to do, and to believe that she actually cared most of all. By the end of the school year the kids, instead of being happy it was summer, actually told her that they were going to miss her and they gave her flowers.
The first key, you see, is believing in yourself. The second key is believing that the kids can learn and that they want to learn. But the third key is finding a way to make your subject of interest to the kids. It is the third key that you are missing from where I sit.
Why teach history? Because history teaches us how to not make the same mistakes again. It teaches us the why behind what happened. It teaches us how others made it through terrible times, deaths, torture. Why our country was formed and why it is so important to not allow things to slide into some debased anarchic form of government. It talkes about fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, and others who gave their lives to try to better our way of life. It talks about the repercussions of a single person's act such as Hitler's which affected the entire world. And it plots our course for the future. The history to come. That which is written by those now coming into their own because of what they are doing. History is. It is the part and parcel of our lives. Without history we are nothing. All of the books on mathematics, science, everything would be as naught were it not for history. For history tells us why we should not drop atomic bombs, why mustard gas is so horrendous, why slaver
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I have to say, as funny as your comments are, the following:
Michael Jackson: I'm Bad, so bad, oo-ee, oo-ee, bad.
So bad => good.
Bling-bling?
Junk! (Meaning good as seen/heard on Extreme Make-over.)
Gay! Meaning happy or homosexual?
Dike! The tool or????
My point is - words get redefined all of the time. Sometimes for good reasons, but mostly not for good reasons. As (IMHO) in this particular case. In this case the people in question are simply trying to muddy the waters so true science and (possibly) half-baked science can both be used to teach kids, send people to the moon (they wished!), and so on.
Lest anyone forget, the words are "the separation of church and state" not "the divorce of church and state". IMHO, the difference is that the church is not to control the way in which the state is operated but is to work with the state to lend guidance when guidance is needed. (That being certain circumstances where there would not normally be guidance as in previous laws passed or common sense measures. This excludes normal day-to-day things and would regulate the church to being called in when things like the end of the world is near.) But it isn't as severe as divorce. If the word divorce had been used, then it would mean no church could be involved with the state at all. That the state would have to be a totally heartless, surrogate of power. (Which does happen from time to time I have to admit!)
But the state is not divorced from the church - only separate from it. It doesn't mean the state can't, on occasion, listen to the church, or even act upon the church's wishes. (After all, look at Martin Luther King Jr., Jesse Jackson, and others. There have been many church people who have had a direct influence in how policies (and laws) have been formed here in America for centuries.) So it isn't "All you church people get out of our government," it's "You church people AND EVERYONE ELSE get to have your say in these matters."
So my outlook is: Don't redefine words (like science) to try to get around the problem, don't force your views on everyone else by stocking the pond with your own fish, and don't pass laws which are going to affect everyone in the state without giving those people the chance to say yea or nay to it. The people who were elected into office were elected not to try slimey, nasty, underhanded tricks to get laws passed - they were elected to represent the needs of everyone in the state. By passing this type of a law, which affects everyone and attempts to force a single methodology onto the populace, without giving everyone a chance to say yes or no to it; is like forcing everyone to be brainwashed like good little Nazis. If you believe in creationism or even Intelligent Design, then put your money where your mouth is and have an honest, open, well thought out and explained vote by the people of Kansas on whether or not they want Intelligent Design or Creationism taught in their schools. If you won't do that, then that clearly shows that the only way you are capable of getting this kind of law passed is to use shyster tricks. And may God have mercy on your soul for having done so.
I would have to say that I had heard of a different case but similar to the Xerox case. The company was (if I remember correctly) Kodak. They had come out with a color copier that was just something else. It was so good that you could take a dollar bill, put in the right kind of paper, and produce exact copies of that bill.
:-) Kind of makes you wonder if this wasn't one of the reasons why the government decided to start putting all of those metallic threads, magnetic strips, et al into the paper money running around out there.)
If I remember it correctly (and it was a very long time ago), Kodak agreed to make their machine actually produce an anomaly on the paper after it went through the copier. I forget what the anomaly was, but it made it so banks et al could tell the forgery from the real thing.
(One of those strange but true kinds of things.
But then, as you have pointed out, how do you share the ".com", ".org", etc...?
What if, when just ".com" were used the browser returned all available ".com.nn"s? Then you'd get to choose which one to go to. Further, companies which wanted universal usage of the ".com.nn" ids could then register in the various countries so that no matter which country you were in it would point to the one location.
Ok, now you are probably going to say "But isn't that what we already have? Why should a company have to register with a particular country? Why not just have the global ".com"s?" The answer is simple: That is a part of what this fight is all about. The other countries can not control who see what and this is because the ".com"s et al are global. Thus, even if they don't want some of the ".com"s that are out there, they are not in control of their own domains. Instead, they have to explicitly deny sites entry into their country's branch of the internet. But by changing one small thing they do gain control. Thus, a country can keep track of, and control of, their part of the internet.
Now, is that a good thing? Not always. But just like America has no right to go around throwing its weight around trying to make everyone else in the world like them - neither does anyone else have the right to make any other country act like that country acts. Which is what control of the top level domain names does. Just like some of the laws that are being passed here in America actually are coming from other countries (and the WTO and WIPO), just because some other country does something is no reason for America to have those same laws. Especially when most of these laws are so lopsided as to remove or undermine the very foundation on which America was built.
The top level domain names are like a kingdom and whoever controls the keys to the kingdom controls how that kingdom works. Remove the kingdom and you remove the control. This isn't to say that you can't still go from one country to another via the internet. Although some politicans probably would love to cut it into pieces and not allow any of the pieces to talk to the other pieces. It is just to say that we need to come up with a different methodology. Browsers do not, at present, even care what country you are currently residing in. This has led to all sorts of problems such as the eBay's selling of items deemed inappropriate in other countries. Were the net set up so there were specific sections (ie: counrties) then it would be easier for eBay to delineate where certain items could be sold and where they could not be sold. Further, instead of trying to mix everything together into a single melting pot called the internet (aka America's methodology of thinking when talking about everyone who lives in America) - each countries internet would be unique unto itself.
Now do not misunderstand me. I am against blocking. Whether it be the blocking of people from being able to go to a particular section of the internet, the censoring of content, and the like. I am in favor of blocking spam and spam related sites. Mainly because of the massive dumping of messages they generate. And yes, I am against illegal or criminal sites. Let's not get dopey here. But I realize that the American way may not be for everyone and probably should not be. We think we have the greatest government in the world, the greatest leaders, the greatest armchair diplomats, the....yeah right. Who am I kidding? Although the American government started out in the right way - greedy, money grubbing, penny-pincher, criminals, vandals, and other unsavory people have had over two hundred years to wear away at the wonderful government set up of, by, and for the people. Which is why our Supreme Court now says it is ok for your land to be taken away from you by anyone who wants it and has enough money to pay off a government official. (Hmmmmmmmm....sounds a lot like the old USSR to me.)
Hmmmmmm....where was I? Oh yes! I'm not against segregating the int
In a similar vein:
As per what you posted only, why not, if the ".com.nn" were left off and only ".com" were used, then the request stays within that country. Then remove the top level inference to the ".com" level so the global ".com" is no more.
It is yet another problem of limited resources and too many people who want that resource. You would think in today's world that this would not be an issue. But, like many other things - when this was set up the scope was local - not global. So now we are seeing the effects of this in that people in other countries want to be able to advertise in the US et al without having to jump through hoops in order to do so. The same holds true for people in the US. We'd like our products to show up around the world too - but then we are competing outside of our country against other companies who want precedent over us.
This is the same problem as "who gets to tell us how to act" question. Should a judge in Germany be able to tell a company in the US what they can or can not sell based upon the rules and regulations of Germany? We, in the US, are telling judges (and even countries) how to act and what they have to do. So why not the reverse?
So the problem boils down to two things. Should we 1)Set up barriers so each country has its own little play pen to play in, or 2)Can we figure out a way for everyone to play in the same play pen?
The first is simple. Just do away with the top level domain names and insist on everyone having to type ".com.nn" or ".org.nn" and so on. (Or, as I and others have suggested, if you type just ".com" or ".org" you get a ".nn" silently tacked on to the request and you still only gain information about places inside of your country.)
The second isn't. Like McDonalds going over to England and demanding that a person who's family has owned the McDonald's Inn for centuries changing the name - you get major corporations all fighting over who gets control of what name. Little companies like "I Buy Macintoshes" (better known by another name) are forced into giving up site names that are prefectly suited to their needs. Because the big corporations have more money and can force their wants onto the smaller entity. It is like asking who gets the best seats at a sporting event. The more money you pay - the better your seat is but just like at the game, the small guys usually get to stand in the parking lot and can only hear everyone having a good time. Some may say "That is how it should be." I say - that only worked when we were cavemen and little children. It is time to grow up. Remember when your mom told you to share? This is the same kind of thing. Maybe, we even need to rethink how the internet works so it will work for everyone - even the small guys.
You missed the point entirely. Let's try this again:
M:tG never really recovered from this debacle and Hasbro, Inc. finally bought them out.
Ok, if they recovered then why did they get bought out? They got bought out because they were doing very poorly before the buyout.
The purchase of Carta Mundi was a good buy for them but with TSR they were handed a real nightmare. The reason they bought TSR was for personal vendetta. The original company (before WotC) had to declare bankruptcy because TSR sued them into inexistence. Then M:tG came along. WotC coast was born and they became a lot larger. TSR, on the other hand, had been so badly mismanaged, and had stabbed so many people in the back, that they had thousands of books rotting in warehouses all over the world since no one wanted to buy them.
The owner at the time, (the daughter or grand daughter of the person who invented Flash Gordon [or maybe it was Buck Rogers - but I think it was Flash Gordon]) pumped up TSR to where it looked like a good buy and WotC bought it. After all inventory was checked though it was found out that almost all (if not all) of the books in the warehouses had rotted from the high humidity since the warehouses were all near sea ports. This lead to WotC's lawsuit against the lady who sold TSR to them. She (if I remember correctly) had to repay some of the money to WotC but then WotC had to pour millions into TSR to hire new talent and to keep the company afloat. Eventually TSR was turned around but at a huge cost to WotC which put them into serious trouble. Hasbro came along, saw a good thing, and gobbled them up.
Therefore, since they are NO LONGER just WotC but are now a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. - WotC never managed, on their own, to recover from the problems of slowing card sales (because their efforts were mainly devoted to getting TSR back up and running smoothly), disenchantment with WotC's reprinting of cards they swore they'd never reprint, and a tight budget due to the high costs incurred from buying TSR, the lawsuit with the former owner of TSR, and their other expenditures (like large layouts for those in charge of the company).
They could only be said to recover from these setbacks if, and only if, they had remained an independent company. Which they did not manage to do. So when the chips were down at WotC - they sold out rather than try to limp along until maybe, sometime in the future, they would recover and again be a strong, vibrant company. Allowing themselves to be bought by Hasbro, Inc. was the only real thing for them to do. With all of the resources that Hasbro, Inc. has at hand - it made a lot of sense to seek and gain the very strong financial backing that Hasbro, Inc. could bring to the table. Hasbro's removal of several management personnel from the company (including the founder) was also the right thing to do because those people had really already moved on in their lives to other interests and working in a company that was now being run by another corporation was just not what they probably really needed. From everything I've read, all of the people left on good terms with Hasbro, Inc. and could probably find new jobs with Hasbro if they wished. I haven't read that any of them have taken jobs with Hasbro - but it is a good bet that Hasbro would not say no to them if they wanted a job.
A good example of supply and demand taking their toll is the Wizards of the Coast selling of Magic:the Gathering cards. When M:tG first came out only a few thousand sets were made. People went crazy over the game. So the next set was double the first, the third doubled that again.
;-)
:-) Like politicans - when they start saying they are going to lower your taxes what they really are saying is that they are going to increase your taxes. Soft of a bassackwards way of talking to people. Or maybe they just took classes at the Tower of miniTruth school.
Then the complaints began coming in. It seemed that some distributors were hoarding boxes of cards until the price had risen sufficiently to where they could break the box and sell the individual cards. WotC decided, therefore, to break the cycle and mass produce all of one expansion set. They choose Fallen Empires. A small set that was massively over ordered. There were six waves. The first wave of cards sold out completely. The second wave sold almost all the way. But the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sets could not be sold. This caused many dealers to go out of business which kind of backfired against WotC who had wanted to teach the distributors a lesson. Instead, the distributors had agreements with the dealers and it was the dealers who ate the cost - not the distributors. M:tG never really recovered from this debacle and Hasbro, Inc. finally bought them out. Hasbro now controls how many cards are produce and the time schedule, and even arranges the large conventions.
Who knows - maybe Hasbro will buy Microsoft? Gack! I can see it now - instead of a paperclip we get toys that talk to us! AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Anyway, Microsoft is just trying out flipping the directive by the DOJ people. DOJ said they could no longer force people to sign long term contracts that gave M$ an unfair advantage by locking them in. So now they are trying the opposite. That is: to create an artificial state of panic on the part of the people who want to buy an XBox 360. By restricting the flow of widgets - er - XBoxes, they create a void which they are hoping a lot of people will come rushing into thus causing an increase in price. Sort of like how the oil companies in the 1970s faked the oil crisis and caused gas prices to go sky high, long lines, etc.... Or maybe you'd like to talk about Reliant Energy's rolling blackouts in California. Amazing how companies say to our faces "Trust us" and then stab us in the back time and again. Let's see....what are some of those slogans?
Trust us...You can rely on us...We bring good things to something or other...
Do you ever feel that you are a cow who's visiting the slaughterhouse for the second time?
I would have to echo others here when they say "Are you crazy?!".
To use your way of lookiing at things I'd have to say that Microsoft isn't as bad as everyone thinks because there are so many other companies out there making software. Or IBM isn't as bad as they say because there are so many companies out there making computers.
There usually arises one company who's ability to kick the sh*t out of all of the other companies is more than the combined whole of all other companies. This company is the one which becomes a monopoly. Now, let me just remind everyone that somewhere in one of our main documents it expressly forbids the US Government from creating monopolies. By its inaction in controling the companies within its borders - it is creating monopolies. And in this, or any other society, everyone - not just the people - but e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e loses.
That's because monopolistic companies are run just like feudal kingdoms and guess who gets to play the part of the serfs?
Hmmmmm.....SBC taking over AT&T is sort of like having your grandson have sex with you. It's just not right.
I tend to think that everything (our governmental bodies, companies, etc....) should be cyclic in nature. That is to say that the highest office should be graded by the lowest. It is the only fair way to deal with things. This is because those in high places tend to pat themselves on the back and act like Little Jack Horner when, if the truth were told to them by their employees, they'd probably get fired. Especially when the top execs get over $100 million a year and the lowest paid employee probably gets around $12,000.00. Which, in today's economy, means they probably have to live with someone just to have some place to live.
And please, do not tell me that this is how our government is run. We elect people to office true, but then they can do as they please. Like elect to always be given a pay raise instead of how the founding fathers intended it to be. That is: that Congress and the Senate must vote on being given a pay raise so that the people of the United States of America can know who is being greedy and who isn't. (There's that old evil hiding in the shadows thing again!) Instead, they are guaranteed a pay raise each and every year they are in office. Nice of them to do that don't you think? For themselves.
[sarcasm]You know - I just don't understand why our government can't balance their books and are always in the red. Could it be because they are unable to control themselves when it comes to spending and that is why things were set up the way they were originally? And could that be why every time there is a majority of one party in the two houses that laws get passed that are designed to increase Congress' power and to take away the rights and liberties of the average American citizen? Nah! Couldn't be that. Now where did I put those rose colored glasses? Hmmmmmmm..... I know they must be around here somewhere.[/sarcasm]
I've gone both ways in pay scale. When I worked for a university once there was a stretch of three years when we never got a pay raise. Usually we only got a 1% or less pay raise. When I became an assistant manager I found out what was going on - the higher-ups were taking all of the money even when the state congress expressly stated that no managerial personnel was supposed to take a pay raise for that year. Pay raises of 3-5% were the norm.
On another front, a friend of mine was also working at the university. After three or four years of never getting a pay raise he decided to find out what was going on. In his case, he wanted to look at the accounting books. It turned out that the accounting books were on the top floor of the library accesible only by stairs and no photography equipment was allowed on the top floor. Also, no pens, no paper, no pencils, nothing - except yourself. (Althought you could ask for a pencil and paper as you will see here in a sec.) It took several hours (and several days) of making requests for various accounting books, being told they were not available, being denied access to records, and the like to finally get hold of the books he wanted to look at. Turns out they were all done in pencil and several of them had areas that had been erased. Lucky for him, the sections he was looking for were still in good condition. After looking at the pages he asked for some paper and a pencil. The person would only give him one sheet of paper, one pencil, and stood over him while he copied the information from the book to ensure he didn't modify the books. Only one sheet of paper was allowed per person per visit. So it took him a while to get all of the facts. It turned out one person who had hired on with the department had funneled almost all of the funds to themselves. Something like a 30% pay increase each year for the past few years thereby doubling their salary in a very short amount of time. Since the "librarian" had stood over him and watched him copy everything he had the foresight to get the person's name as a witness to what he'd done so there could be no mistake about what he'd found out. He threatened to expose the whole affair if the offending person wasn't fired. They were and the money got distributed like it was supposed to be distributed to everyone. No charges were ever filed against the other person.
This is why I hate the "let's hide what everyone makes" mentality of most companies. As the saying goes "Evil can not stand the light of day but loves the darkness of the night." Which is to say that you can not do covert things unless you hide, misdirect, or mislead others in what you are doing. So remember that the next time raises are (or are not) handed out. Those people above you didn't take a "0%" pay raise. They took their cut out first and then went "Oops! There's nothing left for the rank and file. Oh well! Maybe next year!"
One last thing: Any time your boss gives you little or nothing as a raise; just remember this one thing - Every company has to file their income tax returns and those returns are open to public scrutiny. But more importantly, there is a company that already does this for you. They are Standards and Poor. Any major library in any major city will have the S&P books on hand for each year. All you have to do is to go to the library and look up the year you are told you are not going to get a raise (or even if they cut your pay). You can look up your company's information, see what the head of your company had to say about that year's profit and loss, see what dividends were paid to the stockholders, and even see how much money the company's owner made for that year (and you can compare it to the year before's amount to see what kind of a raise they got). Go and look at it. See how much of a pay decrease they took. I think you will be very surprised to find that even in the worse years they didn't take a pay cut or no raise at all but instead usually take about a 7-10% increase every year. Not to mention bonuses they may have taken on top of their pay increases.
Something to think about.
Thanks! I'll have to consider donating to FreeBSD, (already have to FSF), and OpenBSD. I've tried PostgesSQL and decided upon MySQL instead - but maybe I'll donate to them. If I knew how to give points I'd mark your message up as interesting. :-) Maybe someone will do it for me(?). In any event - thanks! :-)
:-)
When I tried increasing the eating frequency (and eating smaller meals) I gained weight. When I tried working out every day as some of the weight lifter guys suggested (and followed their methods) I started gaining weight because I began feeling like I was starving and so I ate more. It seemed a vicious cycle so I cut back to three times a week. It maintains my weight (varies up and down by about 5lbs) and I don't feel like I've got to eat everything I can lay my hands on. Now I'm trying to change my diet more towards fruits and veges. I'm seeing a little benefit from this but nothing drastic so far.
Anyway, I think we have drifted a bit. So thanks again.
Yes and no it is a joke. I thought it would be interesting to see people's reactions to such a radical proposal. :-) BTW: Here is part of the list of the richest people in the world and how rich they are:
:-/ )
Rank Name Age Worth ($bil) Country Of Citizenship Residence
1 William Gates III 49 46.5 United States United States , WA , Medina
2 Warren Buffett 74 44.0 United States United States , NE , Omaha
3 Lakshmi Mittal 54 25.0 India United Kingdom , London
4 Carlos Slim Helu 65 23.8 Mexico Mexico , Mexico City
5 Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud 48 23.7 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia , Riyadh
6 Ingvar Kamprad 78 23.0 Sweden Switzerland , Lausanne
7 Paul Allen 52 21.0 United States United States , WA , Seattle
8 Karl Albrecht 85 18.5 Germany Germany , Mülheim an der Ruhr
9 Lawrence Ellison 60 18.4 United States United States , CA , Silicon Valley
10 S Robson Walton 61 18.3 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
11 Jim Walton 57 18.2 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
11 John Walton 59 18.2 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
13 Alice Walton 56 18.0 United States United States , TX , Fort Worth
13 Helen Walton 85 18.0 United States United States , AR , Bentonville
15 Kenneth Thomson & family 81 17.9 Canada Canada , Toronto
16 Liliane Bettencourt 82 17.2 France France , Paris
17 Bernard Arnault 56 17.0 France France , Paris
18 Michael Dell 40 16.0 United States United States , TX , Austin
19 Sheldon Adelson 71 15.6 United States United States , NV , Las Vegas
20 Theo Albrecht 83 15.5 Germany Germany , Foehr
21 Roman Abramovich 38 13.3 Russia United Kingdom , London
22 Li Ka-shing 76 13.0 Hong Kong Hong Kong , Hong Kong
23 Amancio Ortega 69 12.6 Spain Spain , La Coruna
24 Steven Ballmer 49 12.1 United States United States , WA , Redmond
25 Silvio Berlusconi 68 12.0 Italy Italy , North of Milan
You can find it at Rich List
BTW: 194 Steven Jobs 50 3.0 United States United States , CA , Palo Alto
(Wow. Didn't know BG was richer than the sheik. Thought with the price of oil being what it was that the oil king would be richer.
I'm afraid you are too late! :-) I only eat once per day usually. Sometimes twice, but that's just me and yes, I would just fast for that day probably. You are right though that they are a commercial company. This does not, though, mean that they have stockholders. Some companies are privately owned and those do not have stockholders other than the owners themselves.
As for my eating habits - my wife has tried to change me in that regard but I'm not a breakfast person and would rather just drink some water at night. But don't think I'm skeletal or anything like that. I eat a normal meal at lunch and then may have some hot/cold tea or water before going to bed. I'm actually overweight due to the fact that I program all day so live a very sedentary lifestyle and my metabolism is quite slow. I go work out at Bally's about three times a week, do yoga, and - for whatever reason - never seem to gain muscle mass (my father also was unable to ever gain a lot of muscle mass even though he worked out quite a lot with weights). I did manage to lower my body weight somewhat by weight lifting but not since I used to go running (until my knees decided I should not do that anymore) have I managed to get my weight down to a reasonable amount. Not that I am horribly obese (aka the piano man) - I am though, overweight.
I too would see this as a wedge Oracle can drive into the MySQL people to try to make them comply with Oracle's wishes (like maybe making MySQL read Oracle DBs or some such). InnoDB probably should have waited until after negotiations with MySQL were over before selling out to Oracle as then Oracle would have had to wait until the end of the new contract before attempting anything. Now though, Oracle has a pretty good way to strangle MySQL or at least make it a major inconvience for MySQL. Time will tell but my money is on the fact that Oracle did this with the full knowledge that those negotiations were coming up and they wanted a way in. This would lead me to the thoughts that: 1)Oracle is seeking new uses for its own DB engine (and not InnoDB), and 2)That it may be trying the Microsoft Extend and Engulf tactic.
It is my sincere hope that, if InnoDB or MySQL were in financial woes, that they would at least ask for help. I am sure that there are enough people in the world that, at like $5.00 or maybe $20.00, we would be able to help them out so they could continue making these products we have come to like, love, and use without resorting to selling their business off to some large corporation that is only focused on making a profit whether or not they help anyone else. At least I am willing to skip a meal, eat at home, bring my lunch, or whatever it takes so I can help support those companies that support me through these offerings.
By the way,
your idea of punishing the successful is absurd and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were a COMMUNIST
Yeah....right.
It isn't punishing the successful - it is allowing others to succeed which you can't do if the already successful person keeps you from doing so. Plus, no one said they couldn't go start another company and be successful in that one too.
The initial cost can be in the millions or billions. However, look at it like this:
Let's talk about Houston, Texas. In Houston there are approximately 5 million people. With surrounding cities within 30 miles there are approximately 10 million people. (Houston is a hub site.) If each person were charged $50.00 a month for DSL that would be $500 million a month or $6 Billion dollars a year. Now, even if it cost them a billion dollars a year to maintain the lines et al that would still be $5 billion they'd get to keep. Of the $5 billion, they probably spend around $3 billion on utilities, land leases, administrative staff, and all other payouts of that type leaving them with $2 billion. Of the $2 billion probably $1 billion is given out as dividends leaving $1 billion in profits. Thus, if everyone were to take DSL from a single provider, it is likely that in the first year alone they would make their money back, and in the second year they would (and should) invest to begin upgrading their systems.
But that is an ideal way of looking at things. In reality, maybe only 20%-30% of everyone living in Houston will take some type of DSL. The rest will take either dial-up, or none at all (and maybe instead use their company's or friend's internet connection). So instead of $6 billion a year they may make only $1.2B-$1.8B each year. This means that, if you do the math, their profit is a lot less even though up front (ie: before you add in everything else) they are still making a lot of money. (Which are the numbers everyone sees or thinks about.)
So what does this mean? It means that things tend to go at a lot slower of a pace and the companies have to keep back more money just in case something disasterous happens (like Hurrican Katrina and Hurricane Rita). It is why both the phone companies and the electric companies picked one company to provide all service to the customers. At least they have in Houston. Everyone pays Center Point Energy money to maintain the power lines and everyone pays Southwestern Bell money to maintain the phone lines. Everyone standardized on one method to push electricity down the lines and everyone standardized on one method to make phone calls. That's why you can have whichever electric company and whatever phone company and not have to have new wires laid to your house each time. It is called a line usage fee.
So what's the problem? The problem is that unless there is a need (like a new subdivision opens up) these companies tend to lay newer, faster lines at a greatly reduced pace. That is to say CPE and SBC get together with all of the other companies and make decisions on the when and where they are going to lay the new lines, how much money everyone thinks they are going to get, and how much is going to be paid to CPE and SBC to do the work. And because our country, unlike other countries, is a legal morass of stupidity...er...laws we have to suffer through all of the "You can't do that"'s, or "You have to hold your tongue just right in order to do that"'s so the lines can be laid.
So they you ask "Why do we have so many stupid laws?" Well, it's because we wanted to protect the environment, we wanted to protect archeological sites, we wanted to not cut into gas lines, electrical lines, sewer lines. drainage lines, sluice areas, because we wanted a certain grade of lines installed (because someone probably used vastly inferior wires previously and they stopped working after only a few months), because we don't want aluminum/copper wires or copper/whatever wires, or because we now want optical wires instead of copper, or because.....I think you get the message. There are a lot of laws on the books which are meant to protect or to ensure that if someone were going to do something that that something is done correctly. And yeah, sometimes bad laws are passed which are meant to lock in a certain company (like traffic lights. The only reason we now can have LED traffic lights are because a few years back they finally figured out how t
Because it is more of the same tactics Microsoft was found out to be doing before the Antitrust suit. Now that they can't force manufacturers to sign contracts that lock them in for a large number of years, they are trying the same tactic but with a different twist.
:-)
We need stronger laws when it comes to dealing with big businesses. Here are some for everyone to mull over:
1. If a company is run by someone who makes more than a billion dollars a year - that person has to get out of the company. They can start a new company, but the old company has to lose that person. This would effectively remove Bill Gates et al at the top. They could start Microsoft #2, but Microsoft would have to find new people to lead the company.
2. If a company makes more than X amount (obviously in the billions) then the company has to split in two. This would ensure competition because no one company would be able to lord it over everyone else. The two companies can not work together. Neither can any of their siblings when they have to split. Only 4th generations can go back to working together. This might sound radical, but if a company makes, say, $100 billion dollars (Microsoft makes a lot more than that) then they become a threat to everyone else because they are so big they can start throwing their weight around, get stupid laws passed that never should have been passed in the first place, and can even buy people in all areas of the government. By limiting the overall size companies can reach they will spend more time fighting each other than they would trying to rule the country.
2a. When a company has to be split in two the secondary company gets a copy of everything the first company has and must open their offices in a different location (probably a different state). This would spread the wealth around to the various states.
Just some ideas.
Does anyone else remember Minority Report? In it there is a sequence where people are reading ePapers and they all change to showing Tom Cruise' face. I thought I'd not only bring this up but maybe expand upon what I see as the usages for ePaper:
1. Never have to actually buy a newspaper again. If, like in Minority Report, newspapers became node points on an internet subdomain, then the data could be downloaded wirelessly to each of the nodes and your newspaper updates automatically. There could even been separate types of nodes (dailies and subscriptions). The daily newspaper is only good for that day then it offers you a chance to pay for the next day's paper.
2. Books for the handicapped. There are many handicapped people who have trouble reading fine print. With ePaper the font size could be increased to a size someone with this type of handicap could read.
2a. Deaf people can benefit from this also in ways not yet thought of. The paper could be made to vibrate for alerts.
3. Instant mail. Someone sends you e-mail from somewhere. Now you can read it in private by making the inside area not the same as the outside area. Just hold the paper up and read. The angle of view would allow the person on the inside of the fold to see the information but not the people outside of it.
4. Always wanted that big screen to show movies on? Now you have it and at a fraction of the cost.
5. Always wanted that big screen to do your programming on so you don't strain your eyes? Now you can get it at a fraction of what it currently costs.
6. Hanging pictures or entire walls can now be set up to change colors, murals, etc....
7. Need to light an area? Replace normal lights with one of these. Because they are flexible you could now have a light that is in the shape of a spiral. One color on one side and another color on the other. Or you could have funky lights like in StarTrek where bands of color move along a wall without having to have hundreds of little lights behind a screen to create the effect.
8. If the screens are transparent, then they can be used as coatings on windows thus allowing you to set the tone of the sun. Too dark and depressing outside? Brighten up the room with a sunny day. Too bright for that solid black decor? Tone it down to a more dismal look. Or maybe mix reds or grey levels or blazing orange.
Just a few thoughts.
Or maybe we need to make phishing a major offense. Here are some (admittedly stupid) ways to handle phishing:
;-)
1. Death. Ever so final.
2. Slavery. Whip'em into shape.
3. Drop them in the middle of an ocean. If they can survive - they are forgiven having done the phishing thing. If they don't - well, see #1 above.
4. Drop them in the middle of a desert, jungle, some remote mountain top. It is pretty much all the same. The ocean is the best though because there are so many other creatures which are going hungry out there and in the other locations you would have a pile of bodies to deal with after a while.
Any other ideas?
. . .
Really though, standard laws can all be applied but then all you are doing is punishing the general public and giving the person a place to stay for free. The problem here isn't that someone is doing the phishing, but how we deal with those people who do the phishing. There has to be a better way to handle people who do crimes other than just throwing them into jail for a certain time period and maybe fining them for money they do not have either because they spent it or did something else with it. Socialism is not the answer. Neither is Capitalism or Democracy. I think that knowledge is the answer. That knowing how to turn their talents from making money illegally to making money legally is what is needed. How to do that? That is a good question. But from everything I have ever seen, heard, and read - if you can get someone interested in making money. If you can show them HOW to make money - then most people (but not all of them) would rather make their money than steal it. The real problem is getting them interested in doing that - rather than just stealing the money.
I haven't read the article yet, but from past experience this seems like another attempt by MS to promote itself. Like the letter writing campaigns of yesteryear when MS was in the antitrust suit.
:-/ Sorry - got off of the subject a bit.
Although MS has changed (somewhat) since the Antitrust suit, MS is still a marketing company and not a software developer (at least, that is how it has been listed in the Standard & Poor's books). This would mean, to me, that MS actually waits for someone else to develop a new idea and then it procures a program that does something similar and takes it from there. This would mean that MS really isn't an innovator - no matter how much PR weight they throw behind a given product or ad campaign. Instead, they just have some really talented individuals who can (and do) understand concepts already brought forth by other individuals and those people can write software which does the same thing.
Given MS's history of abuse of the law, is it any wonder they have to hire people (or ask them to write things) to make them look good?
Is it me? Or does it seem that since the 1990s graft, bribes, paid-for laws, underhanded deals in government, lock-outs of the average citizen, and more terrible things have been happening than ever before in history? The computers we have created to help people do more things are being used to (in some cases) make people's lives worse. And since when do we try people in the legal system by popular vote? MS's letter writing campaign (and other company's letter writing campaigns) does nothing but confuse whether a given law should or should not be passed. The one person - one vote has been replaced by one company - unlimited votes. Need a law - hire a company to do it!
It's the old joke: How many software engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
;-)
:-/
That's a hardware problem.
And how many hardware engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
We'll fix it in software.
Yes, but the light really has to want to change.
Really though, my example of this type of thing happening was when I first started working at NASA as a contractor. I used to do System's work and went over to the system people who were working on the mainframe. I talked with them a while and found out that they were working on a problem. What problem you ask? They couldn't get some important text to blink. Yeah, I know, pretty simple now but not so when dealing with a mainframe's console back then. I told them the way to do it and they said I didn't know what I was talking about. So I had their system person type in the proper codes and the text started to blink. (They had been looking for a function to do this.) I also showed them how to make the cursor jump around on the screen, how to set up protected fields on the monitor and such. It was then that I realized that they didn't know the "how does it work" stuff and only knew the basics. It concerned me a lot because, having been a system's person, I knew just how mucked up things can become if you don't know the reasons behind why certain things work certain ways.
I think that Captain Kirk said it best when, in the Wrath of Khan, he used his knowledge of how the ships functioned to overcome Khan's advantage by dropping the shields and almost totally disabling Khan's ship. His statement was that this is why you learn how things work. Very appropriate I think.
And yeah, not everyone needs to know everything about everything, and yeah not everyone can learn everything about everything. But let me just say that those people who write drivers for things - they do have to know everything about what they are writing the drivers for. Because if they don't, they could wind up killing someone. Don't think so? Think about your car. Whoever wrote the drivers for your car's computer had to know everything about what his program was going to control, how to control it, and so on. Otherwise, you might suddenly not have any brakes. The same is true for any type of machinery which is computer controlled. You have to know exactly how your machine works or else you could cause someone to lose their life. All computer controlled machinery originally had their control software written by hand. Once it was deemed safe (through numerous tests usually) it is then put into firmware which then runs the software program via hardware.
As a side note: I know someone who helped develop the robotic arm movements to place CPU chips onto a test board, send the chips through the oven, and then determine which chips to keep and which to trash. They went through six robotic arms because the specs to the robotic arms were off by a very small amount. But it was enough to cause the arm to break itself. So he wrote a program to test the limitations without breaking the arm and to keep this information in memory. (Basically an overlay to the drivers so the drivers know how far they can move the arm.) Now his program to test the limitation of the robotic arms is a chip in the arms to help prevent them from destroying themselves. Did he get millions for his idea? Nope. Company did. Now he works for a Geophysical company helping them save money in other ways.
Although I'm dating myself by saying this (And I don't mean I'm going out with myself!):
:-)
:-)
One of my first jobs while in high school was at a place called Borden's Heap-O-Cream. These ice cream shops were all the rage long before 7-Eleven came along. We used to make something called a Freezie (or maybe Freezy). Anyway, it is really simple to make and tastes really good. The ingredients are:
1 pint of Sherbert
1 bottle of carbonated water.
Put the Sherbert into a blender with enough carbonated water to allow the blender to function. Blend. Pour. Enjoy.
The Sherbert is usually sickly sweet and the carbonated water is very bitter. By putting the two together you make a great frozen drink that is non-alcoholic and only kind-of sweet. 7-Eleven (in the south) was non-existent when we were making these. I think they later became known as Frosty Freezes or something similar. In any event - all Heap-O-Cream outlets closed when Borden Ice Cream decided to concentrate more on just selling their ice cream to grocery stores rather than try to have their own stores.
And there is your bit of history!
No. Most cases of Phlebitus start with numbness or pins and needles. It is like your arm, leg, or whatever has gone to sleep and that is precisely what it is doing. The blood has slowed so much that not enough oxygen is reaching the cells. The pins and needles is the cell's way of sending a message back through the nerves that you are doing something wrong.
In your case I would suggest the following:
1. Go see your doctor, tell him about the problem, and have whatever tests he wants you to take.
2. If, after he has checked you out, he can not find anything wrong with you, then I would suggest going to see a Chiropractor. Unlike an MD, a Chiropractor can help by manipulating your bones. Sometimes, but not always, these things happen because one of your bones has gone out of alignment and it is putting pressure on a nerve. Since most nerves pass in/around/through your bones adjusting your bones can have significant help with pains that otherwise are just things you have to live with.
3. Get a good massage therapist and have a massage. I can not emphasize enough the benefits of massage therapy. I would suggest for men that you find a weight lifter type of person. This is because you want a deep tissue massage. First time through - light massage. But from then on - deep tissue. You will be surprised at how many knots are in your muscles and they have to be gotten out. They are signs of stress and by releasing the knots you are releasing the stress.
Yes and no. With me, once into a programming session I barely notice the time going by. My cats force me to notice them every couple of hours (and are quiet the rest of the time) which makes me realize I am thirsty, hungry, or have to go to the bathroom and I then go do whatever like get a drink from the frig under the desk (Actually they are hand made desks because I couldn't find any that I liked. Not that they look all that great - just some wood cut, shaved, and sanded to the length of the walls but then I'm 6'5" tall and all of the regular desks were too small for me. These desks are 36" tall rather than the normal 30" tall so I have lots of leg room. The desks are also nine feet long, six feet high, and have three shelves in them. The top one though is mainly for the cats to sit on since cats like to look down at things.)
;-)
:-) But that's just me. :-)
So in my case, not having the cats is not an option. I would simply sit here and code all day and not notice the time passing by. With the cats - they distract me from concentrating on the project (which can be a bad thing sometimes) and make me realize time is passing (which is a good thing). I am pretty much totally oblivious to everything else that is going on around me when I am in to programming. (As they say - the house could burn down around me and I would not notice.) What can I say? I am sure there are others out there like myself. But if you are not that focused and can maintain a separate awareness of time passing - then getting rid of the frig and cats might be a good thing. Still, unless you are allergic to cats or dogs I can't see it. And the reason why is unconditional love. Because no matter what is going on, how great or terrible things become, a pet will stick by you no matter what. Well, if the house were on fire I think they'd make a run for it. Every man/animal for himself ya know!
So the answer to your question is both a yes and a no. Yes for some people but no for others. Personally, I'd get the frig and pet.
After coding since 1972 I've found that simpler is better. The more whiz-bang things you have around - the more they are going to distract you.
:-) RED means DEAD in coding. Blues and greens mean good things are happening and yellow means you are about to be pissed off by something either you did or someone else did to your code. :-P
:-)
I use vim to edit, gcc to compile, ddd/gdb to debug. Whether it is Linux, BSD, Sun Solaris, Windows, Macintosh (OS X and earlier), Cray, SGI, or whatever - I use the same things. It makes life simple. I have my vim macros - they do all of my documentation for me, help to reformat bad code I have to look at, and even can go through a complete file and replace various items I do not like to look at into things I do like to look at.
I have found that fancy IDEs, overly helpful editors, and things of that sort tend to piss me off since I type so fast. I especially hate it when an IDE overlaps what I'm typing so I can't see what I'm typing. It usually gets the wrong word and by the time the program finally figures out what the actual word is I want - I've typed it in already. However, I do like the color coding.
In any event, do whatever feels best for you, but fancy things tend to get in the way rather than help out (unless you just happen to like that sort of thing).
This is not to say that IDEs can not help. Especially when programming for Windows. Also, there are interface designers. The two I like are DialogBlock or wxDesigner. Neither of them get in the way of coding. Once through with them though - I stick to vim.
If you are looking for advice on creature comforts - here are mine:
1. Have someplace you can put things to drink. It always breaks concentration when you have to get up, go to another room, and get a drink. If possible, buy a small refrigerator you can put under the desk or in another part of the room. Put your cold drinks in there so you have them ready to drink when you need one.
2. Have lots of shelves nearby. You need them so you can put your reference books on them so you don't have to go looking for them.
3. Get a pet. Preferrably a cat. Cats are interesting creatures and if you ignore them for an hour or two they will eventually demand your attention. This is a good thing because you can forget that time is passing while coding and the cat will remind you to get up and move about. Why is this important? Because there is this little thing called Phlebitus that you can get. (It is also called Secretary's Disease.) You get it from spending long hours sitting doing something. The blood in your legs tends to slow down and pool (ie: not return to the heart to be renewed as much). When the blood slows down enough it begins to form blood clots which can result in your having a stroke or you getting Phlebitus. If you are very unlucky (like me) it will completely block your artery or vien and you will then be on medication for the rest of your life (or you could say I am lucky not to be dead because of the Phlebitus). So get a pet and live a long healthy life. (This is not to mention the fun you can have with a pen light making the cat chase it all over the place. Of course it isn't too fun when the cat hits your pile of printouts and scatters them all over the place - but hey! That's why you get the shelves!)
4. Windows. You need them. You need them so you can open them and let some fresh air in. You need them so when it gets dark you remember to eat, go to the bathroom, etc.... You need them to realize that your life is passing you by while you sit there and code away. I coded for almost thirty years in buildings without windows. Now I work part time and spend a majority of my time at home coding in a room with a window. I also help out those who can't make their computers work, teach people about computers, and do other freebie things instead of just sitting in a window-less room and coding ten to sixteen hours per day.
I have to disagree with your outlook. But before I start let me just say:
:-)
1. My wife teaches middle school -> science.
2. I am a computer programmer/analyst/system's person who works with many computer languages, computer systems, work at NASA, and do NOT have a degree. But I've taught classes as a stand-in some times at the high school level, college level, and even to other employees.
So given the above, I know a little about what you go through each day - but probably no where near the actual day-to-day doldrums which you must be exposed to.
Ok, with that out of the way...
My wife attended classes in a college where they tried to pound into the new teachers that in order to succeed in teaching - you must find the key to get the kids interested in what you are doing. In several of the classes they tried to emphasize that if you don't want to burn-out, drop-out, give-up, or just quit you have to find that something and go with it. In these classes were actual teachers who were already teaching. Most of them (but not all of course) were of the opinion that it would be better to just lock the kids in cages than to actually try to teach them. That the kids were criminals and that the system had already failed each and every one of these kids. Only two other people still felt that the kids were worth teaching. (The schools these people came from were some of the worst in the city and truth to tell - the school where my wife teaches has a lot of fights, drug problems, and the like.)
My wife decided that she didn't believe anything these people were complaining about and to actually try to make her class an experience each and every day. It was very hard at first for her. She came in to the class in November and the previous teacher could care less about the kids and allowed them to do whatever it was that they wanted to do. To say the room was in chaos is an understatement.
But you see, my wife had taught people for over ten years how to train their dogs and those lessons came in very handy. Along with the classes she attended at college, she applied the techniques learned in those long years of trying to get people to understand how to communicate with their dogs to communicating with the kids. And it worked. It took over four of the remaining seven months of the year to actually begin to get through to the kids. To make them believe first that she wasn't going to just go away. To secondly make them believe that they could do what she was asking them to do, and to believe that she actually cared most of all. By the end of the school year the kids, instead of being happy it was summer, actually told her that they were going to miss her and they gave her flowers.
The first key, you see, is believing in yourself. The second key is believing that the kids can learn and that they want to learn. But the third key is finding a way to make your subject of interest to the kids. It is the third key that you are missing from where I sit.
Why teach history? Because history teaches us how to not make the same mistakes again. It teaches us the why behind what happened. It teaches us how others made it through terrible times, deaths, torture. Why our country was formed and why it is so important to not allow things to slide into some debased anarchic form of government. It talkes about fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, and others who gave their lives to try to better our way of life. It talks about the repercussions of a single person's act such as Hitler's which affected the entire world. And it plots our course for the future. The history to come. That which is written by those now coming into their own because of what they are doing. History is. It is the part and parcel of our lives. Without history we are nothing. All of the books on mathematics, science, everything would be as naught were it not for history. For history tells us why we should not drop atomic bombs, why mustard gas is so horrendous, why slaver