And I don't think pledging to the flag is very distinguishable from pledging to the United States. The flag in a symbol for the govenment that follows the constitution, and symbolically they are one and the same.
You have every right NOT to salute. The Supreme Court determined that you cannot be punished for not saluting or pledging in a landmark case where Jehovah's Witnesses took it to the supreme court. (It is in opposition to their belief to salute or pledge as they view it as a form of idolatry)
By *from* I think he means "exposure to". As in, we have the freedom not to be forced into a particular religious belief system, and the freedom to not have a religious belief system dictate our actions, but we do not have the freedom to eliminate religion completely from our lives. It will always be there, in some form. You WILL be exposed.
Morality is governed by the individual, the state has no business governing morality, only to protect the rights of the people to govern their own. In your world, the state could just as easily govern that it is "immoral" to believe in your God, and then you are screwed.
You might be right that Society needs a stronger source of principles, but Society != Government. Society is too valuable to be entrusted to an all too fallable government that sways it's principles in the winds of popular opinion.
For a small, cross platform app it is perfect. Once you scale up the app to enterprise level complexity, the cross platform problems go through the roof, the performance impact slows you to a crawl, the memory leaks and/or memory fragmentation problems become unbearable as your real world usage of memory diverges from the GC's optimal model.... I would never attempt a large app in java, I will stick to C++ for that. For small apps, I think java is perfect (say for instance a database front end).
I've never used it for server side stuff, but I doubt it is better than a more scripted language like PHP.
I have to disagree with Microsoft making their products worse. Did you ever use Win95? Have you used XP? Security has increased dramatically, holes have been plugged all over the place and the system is actually stable enough to use now. MUCH better. Now as for bloat..... lol
And an 80% profit margin is not evil. It's what the market will bear. If viable alternatives are available for less, then the market won't bear that markup (Apple is good, but more expensive. Linux is not quite there yet, trust me, I'm using it and as a software engineer I rather enjoy it for it's power and elegance, but I won't be giving it to granny anytime soon)
Rubuttal to point 2: I agree with you on your statement, but I think you agreed with mine too;) They do do useful things, monopoly or not.
Anyway, your point is well taken, and I agree with you logic about the water, but the fact is you don't have to pay $50 for water! I am typing this in Mozilla on a box running Slackware 9. Nothing I am using right now has any connection to Microsoft, and that I think is the best defense for them NOT being a monopoly. Sure, they might be selling a glass of water for $50, but no one is forced to buy it for lack of options. If they can get away with it through excellent marketing, etc, good for them. Are designer jeans really that much better than generic? No? Then are they a monopoly because they charge too much?
As for is their money really theirs? You may not agree with how they got it, and that's what the courts are for, but they have done alot of work and put out a decent product and sold alot of copies. They might deserve to pay reperations to some people for not being completely ethical in some situations, but they don't owe the world networkinf infrastructure just because they have money. Unless you were crushed out of buisness by unfair practices (not simply competition) by Microsoft, you have no claim to ANY of their money.
I agree with you, but I kind of like their solution. The COULD go with a more heavily policed network and more stringent licences to protect make sure people are using their network the way they intend, but instead, they are asking others to use it that way in the first place. If it doesn't work, I anticipate MSN moving to either a stronger challange to the client to better ensure that it is their client, or moving towards a more Jabber-like protocol that doesn't require the infrastructure to support.
Been there done that. `Last year ALL windows and SQL code was closely reviewed for security flaws. This move was given top priority and new feature development was put on hold until it's completion.
It's not the protocol they are asking to be licenced, it's access to their servers. Big difference. If you run a mail server, should you be forced to forward email for everyone on the internet?
Probably a troll, but I'll bite because I think his logic is the basis of a collection of opinions on the subject.
1) 40b liquid in the bank is theirs, not yours. They earned it, you didn't. Bitch all you want about them having poor market ethics, monopolistic practices, etc. in an attempt to set things straight, but saying that because someone has something you don't they should support you is the logic of a common theif.
2) They fix their software and they do useful things, otherwise they wouldn't be in the market. Compare Win95 to XP and tell me that they have been sitting idle.
3) The fact that you are a computer user bitching on slashdot about them, but have never spent a dime on any of their products kindof flies in the face of them being a monopoly, doesn't it?
They own a bunch of servers that make MSN Messanger possible. They can do whatever they want with them. If you want to give a whole bunch of server resources away for free, go right ahead, but being as you don't, stop bitching that they don't want to either.
A smart pointer with no functionality is just as fast as a dumb pointer in C++ as the redirects are taken care of at compile time. Speed hits in smart pointers only come from added funtionality you put into the smart pointer.
Actually, it's not a "pyramid scheme" and neither is Amway. Pyramid schemes are illegal in most countries and keeping a 50 year old multi-billion dollar pyramid scheme a secret from the FTC would be very difficult.
The main difference here is that people are not purchasing "credits" as he puts it in return for monetary gain in the future via growth of the industry, although this is indeed possible if the individual has a strong marketing capability, and if they do, they are selling their marketing capability for profit, just as people do with banner adds or billboards. The "credits" are being purchased primarily for the purpose of gaining access to the music which is a REAL product. Once that product is owned (for 50 cents) it can be resold for profit. The vast majority of users would use the system primarily for personal consumption of music. They are not paying their 50 cents for the primary purpose of making money, but to listen to the song they purchased. Since the end buyer is doing nothing but exchanging money for product, then the people at "the bottom" are not being milked for cash, but rather are simply customers that feel they are getting a good deal, so they will continue to purchase, so therfore the system is sustainable. This is the same case with Amway and other legal multi level marketing plans as opposed to pyramid schemes. If everone on the planet joined Amway, the last guy in would not be screwed, he would simply have access to their product line at a discount for putting up his negligible membership fee, so as long as the products are viable and membership is beneficial, the system is sustainable.
Pyramid schemes are marked by the fact that latecomers lose all or part of their investment. His strategy does not have this flaw and is sustainable and legal.
Now, on the other hand, the spam and advertising traffic this would potentially generate from potentially millions of individuals trying to make a profit through resale does not sound like fun. It would be alot like having to deal with a crudload of Amway distributors online, which is the real beef about Amway and other multilevel marketing techniques.
Prices HAVE dropped in the last 50 years. The dollar amounts may have increased, but dollars are not an accurate representation of "price" because they are artificially produced by the Federal Reserve.
I politely disagree. Although I have never actually used goto in a program, I can concieve of a severely nested loop with an exit condition that would have to be propagated all the way out of a the loop. This could prove overly complex, having to check for the condition in every loop (perhapse this is a 16 dimentional data structure and we are doing a search and we happen to find the value early by luck). Throwing an exception is an option, but since this might not be an "exceptional" condition, some people might be philosophically opposed to it. In this (extremely rare) case, goto has a very good organization purpose.
Yes, they are free to bomb the US and the UK into the ground. The question now becomes are they capable, and would it be a sound tactical decision?
Rights stem only from the ability to protect such rights. Without power you have no rights. Under a democratic republic we protect a great many rights using our military and police forces. Other countries protect an often vastly inferior subset of these rights. In international affairs it makes little sense to say "you can't do that, you don't have the right." The appropriate response is "Yes I can. I just did."
Actually I think Canada was established without war. Not that they are good example of a country (any chance to rib a Canadian. jk)
England was not established through war, unless you count the fact that they reformed because they were scared poop-less over the French revolution.
I am sure there's lots of other examples, but there are 2 big ones.
Personally I think the "liberate the people" reason is pure propaganda. We were Iraq's ally for many years as a tyrannical dictatorship. This war is about disarmament. We told dude: "don't make big guns." He made big guns. We squish him now. Creating a democratic republic is just a side benefit.
-SUV Drivers who use their vehicles to carry two grocery bags a mile and a half down the road. (I drive a used Nissan Sentra that gets decent gas mileage.)
Good for you! You use your spending money to purchase products you believe are better for the environment, or economy, or whatever. Other people like to put a chunk of steel between their families and a 1/2 ton object coming at them at 60 mph. We have one of the least polluted countries in the world here, and when things get bad in that manner, we will legislate solutions. until then, people like you prove that the free market is working, so don't bash the free market and the abilitity to purchase those product you think are best, lest you logic ends up legislating that you have no choice to purchase your sentra.
-Lunatic gun owners who *think* they know what a militia means in today's society. Although their argument about needing to overthrow an unjust government is starting to have some validity these days.
Lunatics shouldn't own guns. That being said, a malitia in today's society is a very nice thing to have. We may live in the most powerful country in the world, but talk to those who had guns or wish they had guns when what was the most powerful country in the world fell 15 years ago. Hopefully we never have a collapse. Hopefully we never get invaded. Hopefully we never need to overthrow our government. Just in case though, we have the 2nd ammendment.
-Corporate types who seem to think that profit at any cost is a worthwhile thing. Always arguing that when they make money, their underlings make money. Tell that to the single mother working at McDonalds for peanuts and living in a shithole hovel. We REALLY need to re-evaluate the damage that was done to the welfare system by the conservatives.
That "hovel" is a luxury apartment in most parts of the world. Our capitalist system makes money. Period. For everyone. Because of it, we have the richest poor people on the planet. "At all costs" is not true. When things are out of hand (dangerous to human life, massive environmental decay, etc) we regulate the problems. Profit is a GOOD thing. That's what corporations are SUPPOSED to do. Corporation != Charity.
-The general asshole that seems to be more prevalent in our society. You know the type. The guy with an IQ of 20 going around saying "I RULE!!" when he displays some violent act of agression. Or the woman who thinks she "rules" when she puts other women down.
Here you demonstrate the exact behavior you condemn. You are putting down Americans in general and saying you rule, spouting opinion and only opinion. Assholes exist. In every society. In a free society with free speech rights, they are even louder. Who cares what idiots say. I would die for their right to spout drivel, because the alternatives are ugly then thier opinions.
You are correct though. The US will never be the empire that rules the world. We would have to be expansionistic in order for that to happen, and being we havn't aquired any land in god knows how many decades, at this rate we will rule the world as time approaches infinity.
The beauty of a free society is it inherently protects us from arrogant, self-centered, greedy and xenophobic people by disallowing them to enforce their views on us. I don't like them either, but I can choose not to listen to them. In Iraq, among many other places on the planet, it's manditory.
I think you are mixing up your terminology. Tactical Strike: Your country blows something of there's up. Terrorism: Their country blows something of yours up.
Once you have these terms down, I think you will find it much easier to dissiminate the information you are given about any conflict in the world, and you will realize that your country NEVER supports terrorism.
Re:What about the 200 odd journalists in Baghdad?
on
Updates on War in Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
We have freedom of the press in this country. This includes freedom of the press to put themselves in the middle of a war zone and get blown up. If these people end up casualties it is sad, but it is a choice they made to put themselves in a dangerous situation. Personally, I like the fact that as an American I can do something so dangerous as to place myself in a position that means very possible death or capture. THAT is freedom and I don't expect the military or government to clean up any mess I might make by making such a decision.
POWs are a different story. Soldiers don't go into dangerous situations by choice, rather, they avail themselves to our orders and we put them into those situations. I am much more in favor of rescue missions for soldiers then I am for reporters.
Your flaw lies in the fact that there is nothing "illegal" going on. "Legal" is a concept that can only come into play when there is a controlling authority that has both "Laws" and the capability to enforce those, which implies tha ability to use force. You as a citizen of some government are subeject to legalities because your society/government imposes laws and has the capability to use greater force then you can exert to insure that you obey such laws or suffer concequence. There is no such autority against the US, or any nuclear power for that matter, therefore, there is no law, there is only tactics. You can discuss who you believe is right and who you believe is wrong, but this is a tactical and ethical question, not a legal question.
And yes, on a side note, I support Iraq's troops almost as much as my own countries. That is why the ethics of te battlefield allow for surrender and taking prisoner. These people are not criminals, they are acting within the laws of their own society and most are probably very good people. We go to war with other governments, not with other militaries. Militaries are just tools made up of people. In war you decimate the military as much as is neccissary to secure victory and no more, and we should expect the same when our men are defeated by an opposing force. I have disagreement with the common Iraqui foot soldier, and it is unfortunate that many of them must be killed to achieve an objective that has little to do with him, but such is the nature of war.
Slashdot Mirror
It is and always has been truely voluntary.
And I don't think pledging to the flag is very distinguishable from pledging to the United States. The flag in a symbol for the govenment that follows the constitution, and symbolically they are one and the same.
You have every right NOT to salute. The Supreme Court determined that you cannot be punished for not saluting or pledging in a landmark case where Jehovah's Witnesses took it to the supreme court. (It is in opposition to their belief to salute or pledge as they view it as a form of idolatry)
By *from* I think he means "exposure to". As in, we have the freedom not to be forced into a particular religious belief system, and the freedom to not have a religious belief system dictate our actions, but we do not have the freedom to eliminate religion completely from our lives. It will always be there, in some form. You WILL be exposed.
Morality is governed by the individual, the state has no business governing morality, only to protect the rights of the people to govern their own. In your world, the state could just as easily govern that it is "immoral" to believe in your God, and then you are screwed.
You might be right that Society needs a stronger source of principles, but Society != Government. Society is too valuable to be entrusted to an all too fallable government that sways it's principles in the winds of popular opinion.
in America it'a a trillion, as the naming convention increases with each 1000.
;)
1000 Million = 1 Billion
1000 Billion = 1 Trillion
1000 Trillion = 1 Quadrillion
1000 Quadrillion = 1 Pentillion
etc...
But I just use 2^x to keep it simple
For an enterprise app, java is the WORST choice.
For a small, cross platform app it is perfect. Once you scale up the app to enterprise level complexity, the cross platform problems go through the roof, the performance impact slows you to a crawl, the memory leaks and/or memory fragmentation problems become unbearable as your real world usage of memory diverges from the GC's optimal model.... I would never attempt a large app in java, I will stick to C++ for that. For small apps, I think java is perfect (say for instance a database front end).
I've never used it for server side stuff, but I doubt it is better than a more scripted language like PHP.
Aye, harvest moon is an all time favorite of mine. Don't really know why, but it's a very fun game.
I have to disagree with Microsoft making their products worse. Did you ever use Win95? Have you used XP? Security has increased dramatically, holes have been plugged all over the place and the system is actually stable enough to use now. MUCH better. Now as for bloat..... lol
And an 80% profit margin is not evil. It's what the market will bear. If viable alternatives are available for less, then the market won't bear that markup (Apple is good, but more expensive. Linux is not quite there yet, trust me, I'm using it and as a software engineer I rather enjoy it for it's power and elegance, but I won't be giving it to granny anytime soon)
Rubuttal to point 2: I agree with you on your statement, but I think you agreed with mine too ;) They do do useful things, monopoly or not.
Anyway, your point is well taken, and I agree with you logic about the water, but the fact is you don't have to pay $50 for water! I am typing this in Mozilla on a box running Slackware 9. Nothing I am using right now has any connection to Microsoft, and that I think is the best defense for them NOT being a monopoly. Sure, they might be selling a glass of water for $50, but no one is forced to buy it for lack of options. If they can get away with it through excellent marketing, etc, good for them. Are designer jeans really that much better than generic? No? Then are they a monopoly because they charge too much?
As for is their money really theirs? You may not agree with how they got it, and that's what the courts are for, but they have done alot of work and put out a decent product and sold alot of copies. They might deserve to pay reperations to some people for not being completely ethical in some situations, but they don't owe the world networkinf infrastructure just because they have money. Unless you were crushed out of buisness by unfair practices (not simply competition) by Microsoft, you have no claim to ANY of their money.
I agree with you, but I kind of like their solution. The COULD go with a more heavily policed network and more stringent licences to protect make sure people are using their network the way they intend, but instead, they are asking others to use it that way in the first place. If it doesn't work, I anticipate MSN moving to either a stronger challange to the client to better ensure that it is their client, or moving towards a more Jabber-like protocol that doesn't require the infrastructure to support.
Been there done that. `Last year ALL windows and SQL code was closely reviewed for security flaws. This move was given top priority and new feature development was put on hold until it's completion.
It's not the protocol they are asking to be licenced, it's access to their servers. Big difference. If you run a mail server, should you be forced to forward email for everyone on the internet?
Yes, they really lose money, since advertisers pay for eyeballs seeing their ads. The effectiveness of their ads is their problem, not Microsofts.
Probably a troll, but I'll bite because I think his logic is the basis of a collection of opinions on the subject.
1) 40b liquid in the bank is theirs, not yours. They earned it, you didn't. Bitch all you want about them having poor market ethics, monopolistic practices, etc. in an attempt to set things straight, but saying that because someone has something you don't they should support you is the logic of a common theif.
2) They fix their software and they do useful things, otherwise they wouldn't be in the market. Compare Win95 to XP and tell me that they have been sitting idle.
3) The fact that you are a computer user bitching on slashdot about them, but have never spent a dime on any of their products kindof flies in the face of them being a monopoly, doesn't it?
They own a bunch of servers that make MSN Messanger possible. They can do whatever they want with them. If you want to give a whole bunch of server resources away for free, go right ahead, but being as you don't, stop bitching that they don't want to either.
A smart pointer with no functionality is just as fast as a dumb pointer in C++ as the redirects are taken care of at compile time. Speed hits in smart pointers only come from added funtionality you put into the smart pointer.
Actually, it's not a "pyramid scheme" and neither is Amway. Pyramid schemes are illegal in most countries and keeping a 50 year old multi-billion dollar pyramid scheme a secret from the FTC would be very difficult.
The main difference here is that people are not purchasing "credits" as he puts it in return for monetary gain in the future via growth of the industry, although this is indeed possible if the individual has a strong marketing capability, and if they do, they are selling their marketing capability for profit, just as people do with banner adds or billboards. The "credits" are being purchased primarily for the purpose of gaining access to the music which is a REAL product. Once that product is owned (for 50 cents) it can be resold for profit. The vast majority of users would use the system primarily for personal consumption of music. They are not paying their 50 cents for the primary purpose of making money, but to listen to the song they purchased. Since the end buyer is doing nothing but exchanging money for product, then the people at "the bottom" are not being milked for cash, but rather are simply customers that feel they are getting a good deal, so they will continue to purchase, so therfore the system is sustainable. This is the same case with Amway and other legal multi level marketing plans as opposed to pyramid schemes. If everone on the planet joined Amway, the last guy in would not be screwed, he would simply have access to their product line at a discount for putting up his negligible membership fee, so as long as the products are viable and membership is beneficial, the system is sustainable.
Pyramid schemes are marked by the fact that latecomers lose all or part of their investment. His strategy does not have this flaw and is sustainable and legal.
Now, on the other hand, the spam and advertising traffic this would potentially generate from potentially millions of individuals trying to make a profit through resale does not sound like fun. It would be alot like having to deal with a crudload of Amway distributors online, which is the real beef about Amway and other multilevel marketing techniques.
Prices HAVE dropped in the last 50 years. The dollar amounts may have increased, but dollars are not an accurate representation of "price" because they are artificially produced by the Federal Reserve.
I politely disagree. Although I have never actually used goto in a program, I can concieve of a severely nested loop with an exit condition that would have to be propagated all the way out of a the loop. This could prove overly complex, having to check for the condition in every loop (perhapse this is a 16 dimentional data structure and we are doing a search and we happen to find the value early by luck). Throwing an exception is an option, but since this might not be an "exceptional" condition, some people might be philosophically opposed to it. In this (extremely rare) case, goto has a very good organization purpose.
Why recurse when you can phi?
Yes, they are free to bomb the US and the UK into the ground. The question now becomes are they capable, and would it be a sound tactical decision?
Rights stem only from the ability to protect such rights. Without power you have no rights. Under a democratic republic we protect a great many rights using our military and police forces. Other countries protect an often vastly inferior subset of these rights. In international affairs it makes little sense to say "you can't do that, you don't have the right." The appropriate response is "Yes I can. I just did."
Actually I think Canada was established without war. Not that they are good example of a country (any chance to rib a Canadian. jk)
England was not established through war, unless you count the fact that they reformed because they were scared poop-less over the French revolution.
I am sure there's lots of other examples, but there are 2 big ones.
Personally I think the "liberate the people" reason is pure propaganda. We were Iraq's ally for many years as a tyrannical dictatorship. This war is about disarmament. We told dude: "don't make big guns." He made big guns. We squish him now. Creating a democratic republic is just a side benefit.
-SUV Drivers who use their vehicles to carry two grocery bags a mile and a half down the road. (I drive a used Nissan Sentra that gets decent gas mileage.)
Good for you! You use your spending money to purchase products you believe are better for the environment, or economy, or whatever. Other people like to put a chunk of steel between their families and a 1/2 ton object coming at them at 60 mph. We have one of the least polluted countries in the world here, and when things get bad in that manner, we will legislate solutions. until then, people like you prove that the free market is working, so don't bash the free market and the abilitity to purchase those product you think are best, lest you logic ends up legislating that you have no choice to purchase your sentra.
-Lunatic gun owners who *think* they know what a militia means in today's society. Although their argument about needing to overthrow an unjust government is starting to have some validity these days.
Lunatics shouldn't own guns. That being said, a malitia in today's society is a very nice thing to have. We may live in the most powerful country in the world, but talk to those who had guns or wish they had guns when what was the most powerful country in the world fell 15 years ago. Hopefully we never have a collapse. Hopefully we never get invaded. Hopefully we never need to overthrow our government. Just in case though, we have the 2nd ammendment.
-Corporate types who seem to think that profit at any cost is a worthwhile thing. Always arguing that when they make money, their underlings make money. Tell that to the single mother working at McDonalds for peanuts and living in a shithole hovel. We REALLY need to re-evaluate the damage that was done to the welfare system by the conservatives.
That "hovel" is a luxury apartment in most parts of the world. Our capitalist system makes money. Period. For everyone. Because of it, we have the richest poor people on the planet. "At all costs" is not true. When things are out of hand (dangerous to human life, massive environmental decay, etc) we regulate the problems. Profit is a GOOD thing. That's what corporations are SUPPOSED to do. Corporation != Charity.
-The general asshole that seems to be more prevalent in our society. You know the type. The guy with an IQ of 20 going around saying "I RULE!!" when he displays some violent act of agression. Or the woman who thinks she "rules" when she puts other women down.
Here you demonstrate the exact behavior you condemn. You are putting down Americans in general and saying you rule, spouting opinion and only opinion. Assholes exist. In every society. In a free society with free speech rights, they are even louder. Who cares what idiots say. I would die for their right to spout drivel, because the alternatives are ugly then thier opinions.
You are correct though. The US will never be the empire that rules the world. We would have to be expansionistic in order for that to happen, and being we havn't aquired any land in god knows how many decades, at this rate we will rule the world as time approaches infinity.
The beauty of a free society is it inherently protects us from arrogant, self-centered, greedy and xenophobic people by disallowing them to enforce their views on us. I don't like them either, but I can choose not to listen to them. In Iraq, among many other places on the planet, it's manditory.
I think you are mixing up your terminology.
Tactical Strike: Your country blows something of there's up.
Terrorism: Their country blows something of yours up.
Once you have these terms down, I think you will find it much easier to dissiminate the information you are given about any conflict in the world, and you will realize that your country NEVER supports terrorism.
We have freedom of the press in this country. This includes freedom of the press to put themselves in the middle of a war zone and get blown up. If these people end up casualties it is sad, but it is a choice they made to put themselves in a dangerous situation. Personally, I like the fact that as an American I can do something so dangerous as to place myself in a position that means very possible death or capture. THAT is freedom and I don't expect the military or government to clean up any mess I might make by making such a decision.
POWs are a different story. Soldiers don't go into dangerous situations by choice, rather, they avail themselves to our orders and we put them into those situations. I am much more in favor of rescue missions for soldiers then I am for reporters.
Your flaw lies in the fact that there is nothing "illegal" going on. "Legal" is a concept that can only come into play when there is a controlling authority that has both "Laws" and the capability to enforce those, which implies tha ability to use force. You as a citizen of some government are subeject to legalities because your society/government imposes laws and has the capability to use greater force then you can exert to insure that you obey such laws or suffer concequence. There is no such autority against the US, or any nuclear power for that matter, therefore, there is no law, there is only tactics. You can discuss who you believe is right and who you believe is wrong, but this is a tactical and ethical question, not a legal question.
And yes, on a side note, I support Iraq's troops almost as much as my own countries. That is why the ethics of te battlefield allow for surrender and taking prisoner. These people are not criminals, they are acting within the laws of their own society and most are probably very good people. We go to war with other governments, not with other militaries. Militaries are just tools made up of people. In war you decimate the military as much as is neccissary to secure victory and no more, and we should expect the same when our men are defeated by an opposing force. I have disagreement with the common Iraqui foot soldier, and it is unfortunate that many of them must be killed to achieve an objective that has little to do with him, but such is the nature of war.