'The justice department will uphold the law on my behalf even if I've already shown my own disregard for the law as applies to me.'
That's not entirely true. The law does not apply the same way to a convicted and incarcerated prisoner.
'I don't know much about prior US dealings with the WTO, but I do believe laws should be upheld even on behalf of imperfect citizens.'
We aren't talking about someone breaking a code of laws. We are talking about an international organization that exists to resolve disputes between its members. When a member thinks another is acting unfairly they can raise a dispute and all parties have agreed to abide by the decisions of the organization. A member gets the right to raise complaints in exchange for their agreement to abide by decisions. If a member raises complaints but never abides by unfavorable decisions then they really have no right to be a member or to raise issues.
Take the other stance. You are Italy and the US raises an issue against you. Regardless of the merit of the issue you will lose. If the ruling is in your favor, the US will ignore it and possibly take justice in its own hands via sanctions or military action. If you ever have need to raise an issue against the US, the US will ignore any ruling against it. Why should the US be able to enjoy the benefits of favorable decisions if it ignores the consequences of unfavorable ones? Why should any of the other member nations recognize disputes from the US under those circumstances?
'If I understand correctly, the drivers wouldn't help if the socket is a 'device' rather than 'host' type, and host-to-host doesn't work without a fancy cable.'
You do understand correctly and now that you bring up that point I realize you are probably right. I thought he was referring to the plug type and didn't consider the controller type.
'Which is what I'm trying to get at - Blair shouldn't be "dealt with" by his own country's justice system, as he hasn't really done anything criminal; Mugabe can't be, because he's a tyrannical dictator. The UK (and the US) already have robust, mature and independent criminal justice systems'
What about George Bush? The 'mature' US criminal justice system has failed to deal with him.
You can both talk about the merits of an international court all day long. The truth is that the US doesn't ignore mandates from international organizations on some sort of moral or ethical ground. The US ignores them when they don't suit because the US has the power to do so and there is nobody to hold them to account. Your typical EU nation commands resources comparable to a US state, short of the entire EU banding together it doesn't have the ability to present a credible threat to the US in response for non-compliance with any mandate or resolution.
As long as the US represents a greater military and economic power than most of the other members combined, any international authority will be nothing but a farce.
'It bears no practical use in determining whether or not China should be allowed to flaunt IP laws.'
That is a strawman, the points about Canadian lumber and Antigua gambling are completely relevant in determining whether the WTO should give consideration to US complaints.
'Oh please, that is a grossly unfair criticism. What exactly are we supposed to do? Declare war on China if they don't legislate improved working conditions?'
Don't be ridiculous. We are supposed to outlaw the use of Chinese labor and goods. This time we do it for real and bar goods from Taiwan as well.
There are adapters from mini-usb to standard usb. Off the top of my head I can tell you that office depot has a package with a standard usb cable and adapters for all the mini connections.
It's unlikely that palm will have included the driver for your device in their kernel, so you'd pray they make the driver module source available so you can recompile.
'well, it works for me. after i have watched a couple of hd movies, i couldn't enjoy a sd picture that much.'
That is true of most anything. I know a lot of people who are happy with dial-up connections. They only use the net about once a month for an hour and they are happy with the low price. I have seen no small number of those people try broadband and they never switch back.
The same is true of new computers. People are quite happy with what they have as long as they aren't using anything else. But once they use faster computers (at work, in the store, etc) they view their own computer as slow and have to upgrade. Two months after getting the new machine (whether computer, broadband, HDTV, or anything else) it becomes the status quo and they are no more happy with it then they once were with what they had to begin with.
If the difference is so small that you have to look at them side by side then who cares? Nobody has to prove to me that HD presents a clearer picture. They have to prove to me that I can't enjoy a SD picture without being distracted by blur and pixelation.
You don't need the best image man can possibly produce to watch a football game. All you need is an image that lets you see the game and that doesn't distract you from the game.
'Charge the REAL price it would cost to guarantee DS-3 speeds to every customer? Seems to me that you'd pay the same price as a DS-3 then.'
If the price of a DS-3 weren't vastly inflated you'd be right. The reality is that the connection should cost far closer to what I pay for my cable link now.
Re:You want IPv6 adoption? Make it reasonable.
on
IPv6 Tested in Space
·
· Score: 1
'Because the companies that handle DNS and IP assignments have gotten too fat off the huge fees required for IPv4 addresses and DNS.'
That is the problem. There are enough companies that have a vested interest in seeing this do well that they could benefit from deductible contributions to an international non-profit to oversee IP address allocations.
You want IPv6 adoption? Make it reasonable.
on
IPv6 Tested in Space
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Start an open site dedicated to CONTENT providers who have made their content available for IPv6 and give blue ribbon graphics to IPv6 only sites. Then.. and this is the biggest one.
Make getting address space cheap and easy!!! IPv6 is huge, why do I have pay ridiculous recurring fees to get a block? Make small allocations free, registration free and online, then just make me return a confirmation letter/call/email once every 5 years to renew. IPv6 space is monstrous, it is terrible that you have to pay outrageous fees to become a member organization and then huge recurring fees for addresses. Why do ISP's have to go through the same backflips and outrageous pricing schemes that served to reduce demand for IPv4 addresses.
Once you have major content providers onboard and make it free and easy to get address space, then ISP can advertise access to the 'NEW AND IMPROVED' internet.
'Either you are still in high school or go to a terrible university.'
My degree is from a very good university.
'Of course a good writer can write a good paper. But part of being a good writer is being well acquainted with the subject matter'
That would be fine if being a good writer were part of being acquainted with the subject matter. If one takes a geology class, one should be graded upon comprehension of the material in THAT class. There are numerous English and writing courses that everyone where take and in those courses they will learn to write papers and memos. In an English related course it is acceptable to grade based upon the quality of writing, spelling, and punctuation. In unrelated courses it is not appropriate.
'However, a decent university professor will spot bullshit a mile a way. Insuficient knowledge of the subject matter is obvious.'
You must be a professor. I've bullshitted my way to A's on papers more times than I can count. I know people who fed professors nonsense from day one to graduation. Personally I always preferred to do the assignments for real but if I was about to miss a deadline I would turn in anything that met the requirements and just try to show that I understood the core material the assignment was based on.
'skills you are developing are very important for many professions.'
The skills I developed are useful. I developed those skills in the appropriate courses. The papers written for courses that have nothing to do with writing papers served no purpose but to fill the space between actual learning sessions.
'Brilliance won't get you jack shit unless you are willing to apply yourself. If you do, your brilliance will take you far, but work ethic and goal orientation is considered to be not only virtuous, but the bedrock of success.'
A degree is intended to certify that you have learned a given body of knowledge. A degree does not certify a winning attitude, an ability to persevere, an ability to attain goals, the ability to smile and play the system, the ability to succeed or the chance of success. You don't go to a university to become successful. You go to a university to learn. At that university you take classes, you take a given class for a given set of material and only that given set of material.
'Again, I'm betting you are in high school. No decent professor assigns excessively long papers. They appreciate and reward brevity. In fact, the dificulty is often fleshing our the argument in under the requirement. Not once in college was I given a length minimum - it was always a maximum, and it was usually a very tight one. Professors will rake you over the coals for excess verbosity.'
The length of excessively long papers is relative. I think the average was about 750-1000 words and that is longer than is needed to demonstrate comprehension of most material. Of course 'large' assignments could have drastically larger requirements. In almost every case I was given both a minimum and a maximum. Not to mention a set of rigorous set of rules that the paper must meet for margins, formatting of the paper and citations, and general organization.
'The ability to engage large amounts of information, perform robust analysis, and articulate it with coherence and brevity is one of the most powerful skills that an educated human being can have. I'm sorry you dislike it.'
Certainly, and it would seem you lack it. Your post is easily condensed to about three sentences without losing any actual content. I am not saying that you failed to make a scant argument, only that you failed to do so with any semblance of brevity. I actually could have done without someone parroting the standard justifications for the current ineffective and broken system back at me. It is time for someone to consider that the common wisdom is wrong in light of the poor performance of the existing system.
First because grading is subjective on these papers a bad professor could equal a bad grade rather than pure merit. Second, a good writer with a vague understanding of the material can always write a good sounding paper and get a good grade. Third, nobody can verify all the citations and references of hundreds of students. Many people just make them up or use something that sounds like it supports their point and then grab choice quotes out of context.
These papers and insane amounts of reading are part of why there is so much burden in getting a degree. It is sad that an award from a supposed institution of higher learning shows nothing more than the ability to persevere and achieve a goal. It also shows that you can make a point that could be easily established in one short paragraph stretch out into any length paper the professor pulled out of a hat.
'Expert B's solutions are the same as they were ten years ago, and unless he uses A's system as a base ("on his own"), his from-scratch solution is worse than what A simply drops off.'
Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. Either you claim that cookie cutter turnkey solutions are superior in function to custom solutions or not.
'I never said that an expert won't give you a better result, in a computer or a car.'
Yes you did. You said that a turnkey solution would give you a better result than a solution custom tailored to your needs by an expert. You were of course incorrect.
First, you equate custom built with only using made from scratch components. Both custom and turnkey solutions are allowed to take advantage of improvements in technology and mass manufacturing. An expert who selects a custom assortment of off-the-shelf components is custom building you a computer just as surely as if he designed and soldered circuit board of each modem and CD-ROM.
Second, you suggest that expert B would be designing one solution. That is what expert A is doing with his turnkey solution. Expert B will use his expertise to build you the best solution for the job, not the same never improving solution over and over again. There is no law that says Expert B must produce one solution that remains static and never improves. Why on earth would Expert B keep the same solutions for ten years instead of improving them? That would be an awfully big mistake for someone who is an expert.
The real situation is that both A and B take advantage of new technology and production techniques. Both take advantage of the shelf components. Expert B will use the shell of expert a's system if the end result is the same set of components he wants at a reduced price but that hardly makes Expert A's solution superior in function, only in price.
Expert A designs a system to meet the most common needs. Expert A uses the cheapest components possible to do so as long as they are compatible with each other and will meet the performance expectations of most customers. Expert A makes and sells loads of these so that also reduces cost. The resulting peg can be coaxed into most holes and will even be a perfect fit in a few holes.
Expert B designs a system to meet the exact requirements needed. He uses the best components for the job at hand, sometimes they will be less expensive and sometimes more but they will always be perfectly matched to one another and the task at hand. The result will provide the best possible performance the task at hand rather than providing only that performance needed to meet customer expectations. Expert B doesn't make nearly so many of these as Expert A, so the price might be a little higher but the resulting peg will always be a perfect fit in every hole.
Expert A is designing a system to result in the least number of complaints and the maximum amount of profit for himself or his company. In short, since profit is the difference between what you pay and the value of the system, expert a is trying to provide the absolute minimum value that will satisfy a non-expert. Expert A is not trying to produce the best system for the USER, he is trying to develop the best system for his pocket.
Expert B is designing a system for you. This system that 'the expert can do for themselves' will always be superior to expert A's turnkey solution.
Turnkey solutions are cheaper than Expert solutions, not superior. They won't magically become superior over time either. An expert implemented solution will always be superior to a turnkey solution. There may come a point when the cost isn't justified but that is an entirely different debate.
Now stop spreading FUD, flinging insults, and continuing a tirade. No matter how you try to twist it, turnkey solutions never become as better than solutions customized and managed by someone who actually knows what they are doing. First you claimed they did, then you claimed you never said you did because I demonstrated that you wer
Sounds reasonable. Until you realize that NONE of the investigations are legitimate and the gag orders are only to allow executive agencies to abuse power and gag anyone from speaking out about it. There isn't merely a POTENTIAL for abuse, the entire law exists to cover abuse.
'Thus, word quickly leaks to the media about abuses of power.'
Unless it doesn't. How convient that we only know about cases where word has leaked and will never know about the cases where it doesn't leak. It is also interesting how Bush leverages political power to enforce a gag on the media. If a media outlet speaks out against Bush they won't have access to presidential press conferences anymore. No major media outlet can afford that.
'Now the FBI is trying to mend its ways'
According to the FBI and under the watchful eye of... the FBI.
'Meanwhile, democratically elected officials and independent courts will oversee the process of remedying the abuses of power that took place.'
Except they can't actually audit anything due to national security concerns. Their reports come from the FBI.
'The rule of law is enforced in the US, and freedom of expression is protected, even in a time of national peril.'
What peril? Clearly we are perilous to the middle-east, especially considering the reign of terror we have unleashed there. Rather than killing 10's of thousands of people we could have admitted we were wrong and apologized to the middle-east for sticking our noses into their religious disputes with CIA meddling. Then proceeded to hunt down the individuals who were responsible for the bombings. But no, Bush has to use this as an excuse to seize inappropriate powers. He declares war on an indefinable enemy (Bush has unleashed more terror upon the American populace than anyone in the middle-east) and then proceeds to attack nations where he can profit personally from it while ignoring targets who actually had some relation to the 9/11 attacks.
70% of the US Population disagrees according to any reasonable poll you care to name. Ten of those 70 percents represent the more intelligent segments of the population, the other 60 percents represent the actual cattle that comprises most of the population and the case against the Bush regime is so blatant it has sunk in there as well.
The other 30% of the population are either extremly thick or profiting by Bush policies. It probably includes a bunch of soldiers who are being brainwashed to believe that they aren't dying for NOTHING in Iraq.
A US site was bombed by an extremist group in 2001. We have been sending the CIA in to secretly finance and arm religious factions one week and topple them the next throughout the middle-east for decades. It really isn't a shock that some of them are pissed at US. That doesn't make them states, that doesn't make opposing them a 'WAR' that doesn't make any of it relevant to the mass murders we have sent innocent US troops to commit in Iraq. That doesn't make it appropriate for a religious fanatic to rig an election, assume wartime powers without a declaration of war on anyone, or to redefine laws with signing notes.
Bush infringes upon the freedom the press, not only with gag orders associated with his fradulent war but by exerting political power and restricting the press who has access to critical press conferences. If your news outlet reports against the president then you will have no access when we announce our next reign of terror.
In this case Bush is suggesting that the Dept of Homeland security should have a measure of control over IP and DNS assignments. That serves no purpose other than censorship and propoganda spreading. There is no legitimate reason for the Dept of Homeland security to EVER be able to compromise security mechanisms that provide assurance that the website you are viewing is the website you think you are viewing.
I wouldn't trust my mother not to abuse the powers the Bush administration has claimed it needs to fight a war against an unspecified enemy.
Right, anyone who doesn't view the claim that the United States is the most free land in the world and points out legitimate flaws in the logic of another is an obvious troll.
Yes lots of systems were patched, many more devices could not be patched. If we are going to make a change then we should abolish DST altogether. Oh my, the sun sets and rises at different times during different seasons. Man could never cope without changing the clocks to a false time that feels a little better! If we aren't doing that, then it would make sense to change it back. All the systems that could be patched before can be patched back and the devices that could not be patched will be correct again.
'If ICANN leaves the protection of the USA, ICANN will have to start recognizing all the repressive and bizaree anti-free expression laws of other countries'
The President is moving (via the Dept of Homeland Security) to eliminate those previous freedoms enjoyed by America. The Bush idea of free speech is far worse than the international one. Also you make it sound as if ICANN would be reduced to the restrictions of the worst countries when in reality ICANN wouldn't have to listen to any of them.
Switzerland is also the perfect place for this. They have long been an international haven with strong physical and legal security.
From the summary 'So here's the solution: Figure out how to change the sensory data you want -- the electromagnetic fields, the ultrasound, the infrared -- into something that the human brain is already wired to accept, like touch or sight.'
Last time I checked humans had made instruments to detect and track information of all sorts. In order to turn the things detected into something that could be detect by human senses we invented an interface. They are called displays and take many forms. We even invented a way to our brain to interface with and control those devices in turn, they are called controls and also take many forms.
'Ah, I see. So the kernel is what's left when you discount everything that isn't the kernel. How very zen. However, it's not particularly definitive (or useful), nor does it answer the question.
Where does, say, a network stack fit into the picture ? How about hardware drivers ? Can code executing outside of user space be part of the kernel ? Is all code executing inside kernel space inherently part of the kernel ? What about platforms that make no distinction between user space and kernel space ? Or is it just a matter of "I'll know it when I see it" ? '
I am not inventing a definition for operating system or for kernel. Nor am I going to attempt to come up with a line or two to define the kernel so that the you can attempt to pick apart the words with some technicality you read within them to try to make them include non-kernel components like libc. Your commonly accepted terminology has never been commonly accepted among academics (who are knowledgeable people that have studied more than you, not pedantic wankers) and experts.
Here I'll help you out. Arguing the technical definition of the operating system (the lines of which are not glaringly clear in every system) is not going to be able to make your point. The experts have always agreed with me on this topic and the ignorant masses and half-educated have agreed with you. Your argument would be much firmer if you claimed that language is a living thing and the widespread usage of the ignorant masses has redefined the term or at least added a second definition.
Slashdot Mirror
'The justice department will uphold the law on my behalf even if I've already shown my own disregard for the law as applies to me.'
That's not entirely true. The law does not apply the same way to a convicted and incarcerated prisoner.
'I don't know much about prior US dealings with the WTO, but I do believe laws should be upheld even on behalf of imperfect citizens.'
We aren't talking about someone breaking a code of laws. We are talking about an international organization that exists to resolve disputes between its members. When a member thinks another is acting unfairly they can raise a dispute and all parties have agreed to abide by the decisions of the organization. A member gets the right to raise complaints in exchange for their agreement to abide by decisions. If a member raises complaints but never abides by unfavorable decisions then they really have no right to be a member or to raise issues.
Take the other stance. You are Italy and the US raises an issue against you. Regardless of the merit of the issue you will lose. If the ruling is in your favor, the US will ignore it and possibly take justice in its own hands via sanctions or military action. If you ever have need to raise an issue against the US, the US will ignore any ruling against it. Why should the US be able to enjoy the benefits of favorable decisions if it ignores the consequences of unfavorable ones? Why should any of the other member nations recognize disputes from the US under those circumstances?
I wouldn't.
'If I understand correctly, the drivers wouldn't help if the socket is a 'device' rather than 'host' type, and host-to-host doesn't work without a fancy cable.'
You do understand correctly and now that you bring up that point I realize you are probably right. I thought he was referring to the plug type and didn't consider the controller type.
'Which is what I'm trying to get at - Blair shouldn't be "dealt with" by his own country's justice system, as he hasn't really done anything criminal; Mugabe can't be, because he's a tyrannical dictator. The UK (and the US) already have robust, mature and independent criminal justice systems'
What about George Bush? The 'mature' US criminal justice system has failed to deal with him.
You can both talk about the merits of an international court all day long. The truth is that the US doesn't ignore mandates from international organizations on some sort of moral or ethical ground. The US ignores them when they don't suit because the US has the power to do so and there is nobody to hold them to account. Your typical EU nation commands resources comparable to a US state, short of the entire EU banding together it doesn't have the ability to present a credible threat to the US in response for non-compliance with any mandate or resolution.
As long as the US represents a greater military and economic power than most of the other members combined, any international authority will be nothing but a farce.
'The goodness of his heart? If that is the case isn't invalidated by him having bought pirated DVDs in the first place.'
Buying pirated DVD's is illegal not immoral.
'It bears no practical use in determining whether or not China should be allowed to flaunt IP laws.'
That is a strawman, the points about Canadian lumber and Antigua gambling are completely relevant in determining whether the WTO should give consideration to US complaints.
'Oh please, that is a grossly unfair criticism. What exactly are we supposed to do? Declare war on China if they don't legislate improved working conditions?'
Don't be ridiculous. We are supposed to outlaw the use of Chinese labor and goods. This time we do it for real and bar goods from Taiwan as well.
There are adapters from mini-usb to standard usb. Off the top of my head I can tell you that office depot has a package with a standard usb cable and adapters for all the mini connections.
It's unlikely that palm will have included the driver for your device in their kernel, so you'd pray they make the driver module source available so you can recompile.
'well, it works for me. after i have watched a couple of hd movies, i couldn't enjoy a sd picture that much.'
That is true of most anything. I know a lot of people who are happy with dial-up connections. They only use the net about once a month for an hour and they are happy with the low price. I have seen no small number of those people try broadband and they never switch back.
The same is true of new computers. People are quite happy with what they have as long as they aren't using anything else. But once they use faster computers (at work, in the store, etc) they view their own computer as slow and have to upgrade. Two months after getting the new machine (whether computer, broadband, HDTV, or anything else) it becomes the status quo and they are no more happy with it then they once were with what they had to begin with.
If the difference is so small that you have to look at them side by side then who cares? Nobody has to prove to me that HD presents a clearer picture. They have to prove to me that I can't enjoy a SD picture without being distracted by blur and pixelation.
You don't need the best image man can possibly produce to watch a football game. All you need is an image that lets you see the game and that doesn't distract you from the game.
'Charge the REAL price it would cost to guarantee DS-3 speeds to every customer? Seems to me that you'd pay the same price as a DS-3 then.'
If the price of a DS-3 weren't vastly inflated you'd be right. The reality is that the connection should cost far closer to what I pay for my cable link now.
'Because the companies that handle DNS and IP assignments have gotten too fat off the huge fees required for IPv4 addresses and DNS.'
That is the problem. There are enough companies that have a vested interest in seeing this do well that they could benefit from deductible contributions to an international non-profit to oversee IP address allocations.
Start an open site dedicated to CONTENT providers who have made their content available for IPv6 and give blue ribbon graphics to IPv6 only sites. Then.. and this is the biggest one.
Make getting address space cheap and easy!!! IPv6 is huge, why do I have pay ridiculous recurring fees to get a block? Make small allocations free, registration free and online, then just make me return a confirmation letter/call/email once every 5 years to renew. IPv6 space is monstrous, it is terrible that you have to pay outrageous fees to become a member organization and then huge recurring fees for addresses. Why do ISP's have to go through the same backflips and outrageous pricing schemes that served to reduce demand for IPv4 addresses.
Once you have major content providers onboard and make it free and easy to get address space, then ISP can advertise access to the 'NEW AND IMPROVED' internet.
shhh don't tell anyone but OpenOffice is open source. Anyone can look at the code and see how to implement anything in it. Including any tags.
'Either you are still in high school or go to a terrible university.'
My degree is from a very good university.
'Of course a good writer can write a good paper. But part of being a good writer is being well acquainted with the subject matter'
That would be fine if being a good writer were part of being acquainted with the subject matter. If one takes a geology class, one should be graded upon comprehension of the material in THAT class. There are numerous English and writing courses that everyone where take and in those courses they will learn to write papers and memos. In an English related course it is acceptable to grade based upon the quality of writing, spelling, and punctuation. In unrelated courses it is not appropriate.
'However, a decent university professor will spot bullshit a mile a way. Insuficient knowledge of the subject matter is obvious.'
You must be a professor. I've bullshitted my way to A's on papers more times than I can count. I know people who fed professors nonsense from day one to graduation. Personally I always preferred to do the assignments for real but if I was about to miss a deadline I would turn in anything that met the requirements and just try to show that I understood the core material the assignment was based on.
'skills you are developing are very important for many professions.'
The skills I developed are useful. I developed those skills in the appropriate courses. The papers written for courses that have nothing to do with writing papers served no purpose but to fill the space between actual learning sessions.
'Brilliance won't get you jack shit unless you are willing to apply yourself. If you do, your brilliance will take you far, but work ethic and goal orientation is considered to be not only virtuous, but the bedrock of success.'
A degree is intended to certify that you have learned a given body of knowledge. A degree does not certify a winning attitude, an ability to persevere, an ability to attain goals, the ability to smile and play the system, the ability to succeed or the chance of success. You don't go to a university to become successful. You go to a university to learn. At that university you take classes, you take a given class for a given set of material and only that given set of material.
'Again, I'm betting you are in high school. No decent professor assigns excessively long papers. They appreciate and reward brevity. In fact, the dificulty is often fleshing our the argument in under the requirement. Not once in college was I given a length minimum - it was always a maximum, and it was usually a very tight one. Professors will rake you over the coals for excess verbosity.'
The length of excessively long papers is relative. I think the average was about 750-1000 words and that is longer than is needed to demonstrate comprehension of most material. Of course 'large' assignments could have drastically larger requirements. In almost every case I was given both a minimum and a maximum. Not to mention a set of rigorous set of rules that the paper must meet for margins, formatting of the paper and citations, and general organization.
'The ability to engage large amounts of information, perform robust analysis, and articulate it with coherence and brevity is one of the most powerful skills that an educated human being can have. I'm sorry you dislike it.'
Certainly, and it would seem you lack it. Your post is easily condensed to about three sentences without losing any actual content. I am not saying that you failed to make a scant argument, only that you failed to do so with any semblance of brevity. I actually could have done without someone parroting the standard justifications for the current ineffective and broken system back at me. It is time for someone to consider that the common wisdom is wrong in light of the poor performance of the existing system.
First because grading is subjective on these papers a bad professor could equal a bad grade rather than pure merit. Second, a good writer with a vague understanding of the material can always write a good sounding paper and get a good grade. Third, nobody can verify all the citations and references of hundreds of students. Many people just make them up or use something that sounds like it supports their point and then grab choice quotes out of context.
These papers and insane amounts of reading are part of why there is so much burden in getting a degree. It is sad that an award from a supposed institution of higher learning shows nothing more than the ability to persevere and achieve a goal. It also shows that you can make a point that could be easily established in one short paragraph stretch out into any length paper the professor pulled out of a hat.
So your stance is that we should ignore treason, the burning of the constitution, and torture of POW's because he helped an old man into his chair?
'Expert B's solutions are the same as they were ten years ago, and unless he uses A's system as a base ("on his own"), his from-scratch solution is worse than what A simply drops off.'
Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. Either you claim that cookie cutter turnkey solutions are superior in function to custom solutions or not.
'I never said that an expert won't give you a better result, in a computer or a car.'
Yes you did. You said that a turnkey solution would give you a better result than a solution custom tailored to your needs by an expert. You were of course incorrect.
First, you equate custom built with only using made from scratch components. Both custom and turnkey solutions are allowed to take advantage of improvements in technology and mass manufacturing. An expert who selects a custom assortment of off-the-shelf components is custom building you a computer just as surely as if he designed and soldered circuit board of each modem and CD-ROM.
Second, you suggest that expert B would be designing one solution. That is what expert A is doing with his turnkey solution. Expert B will use his expertise to build you the best solution for the job, not the same never improving solution over and over again. There is no law that says Expert B must produce one solution that remains static and never improves. Why on earth would Expert B keep the same solutions for ten years instead of improving them? That would be an awfully big mistake for someone who is an expert.
The real situation is that both A and B take advantage of new technology and production techniques. Both take advantage of the shelf components. Expert B will use the shell of expert a's system if the end result is the same set of components he wants at a reduced price but that hardly makes Expert A's solution superior in function, only in price.
Expert A designs a system to meet the most common needs. Expert A uses the cheapest components possible to do so as long as they are compatible with each other and will meet the performance expectations of most customers. Expert A makes and sells loads of these so that also reduces cost. The resulting peg can be coaxed into most holes and will even be a perfect fit in a few holes.
Expert B designs a system to meet the exact requirements needed. He uses the best components for the job at hand, sometimes they will be less expensive and sometimes more but they will always be perfectly matched to one another and the task at hand. The result will provide the best possible performance the task at hand rather than providing only that performance needed to meet customer expectations. Expert B doesn't make nearly so many of these as Expert A, so the price might be a little higher but the resulting peg will always be a perfect fit in every hole.
Expert A is designing a system to result in the least number of complaints and the maximum amount of profit for himself or his company. In short, since profit is the difference between what you pay and the value of the system, expert a is trying to provide the absolute minimum value that will satisfy a non-expert. Expert A is not trying to produce the best system for the USER, he is trying to develop the best system for his pocket.
Expert B is designing a system for you. This system that 'the expert can do for themselves' will always be superior to expert A's turnkey solution.
Turnkey solutions are cheaper than Expert solutions, not superior. They won't magically become superior over time either. An expert implemented solution will always be superior to a turnkey solution. There may come a point when the cost isn't justified but that is an entirely different debate.
Now stop spreading FUD, flinging insults, and continuing a tirade. No matter how you try to twist it, turnkey solutions never become as better than solutions customized and managed by someone who actually knows what they are doing. First you claimed they did, then you claimed you never said you did because I demonstrated that you wer
'If the investigations are legitimate'
Sounds reasonable. Until you realize that NONE of the investigations are legitimate and the gag orders are only to allow executive agencies to abuse power and gag anyone from speaking out about it. There isn't merely a POTENTIAL for abuse, the entire law exists to cover abuse.
'Thus, word quickly leaks to the media about abuses of power.'
Unless it doesn't. How convient that we only know about cases where word has leaked and will never know about the cases where it doesn't leak. It is also interesting how Bush leverages political power to enforce a gag on the media. If a media outlet speaks out against Bush they won't have access to presidential press conferences anymore. No major media outlet can afford that.
'Now the FBI is trying to mend its ways'
According to the FBI and under the watchful eye of... the FBI.
'Meanwhile, democratically elected officials and independent courts will oversee the process of remedying the abuses of power that took place.'
Except they can't actually audit anything due to national security concerns. Their reports come from the FBI.
'The rule of law is enforced in the US, and freedom of expression is protected, even in a time of national peril.'
What peril? Clearly we are perilous to the middle-east, especially considering the reign of terror we have unleashed there. Rather than killing 10's of thousands of people we could have admitted we were wrong and apologized to the middle-east for sticking our noses into their religious disputes with CIA meddling. Then proceeded to hunt down the individuals who were responsible for the bombings. But no, Bush has to use this as an excuse to seize inappropriate powers. He declares war on an indefinable enemy (Bush has unleashed more terror upon the American populace than anyone in the middle-east) and then proceeds to attack nations where he can profit personally from it while ignoring targets who actually had some relation to the 9/11 attacks.
The only peril to our nation is Bush himself.
70% of the US Population disagrees according to any reasonable poll you care to name. Ten of those 70 percents represent the more intelligent segments of the population, the other 60 percents represent the actual cattle that comprises most of the population and the case against the Bush regime is so blatant it has sunk in there as well.
The other 30% of the population are either extremly thick or profiting by Bush policies. It probably includes a bunch of soldiers who are being brainwashed to believe that they aren't dying for NOTHING in Iraq.
A US site was bombed by an extremist group in 2001. We have been sending the CIA in to secretly finance and arm religious factions one week and topple them the next throughout the middle-east for decades. It really isn't a shock that some of them are pissed at US. That doesn't make them states, that doesn't make opposing them a 'WAR' that doesn't make any of it relevant to the mass murders we have sent innocent US troops to commit in Iraq. That doesn't make it appropriate for a religious fanatic to rig an election, assume wartime powers without a declaration of war on anyone, or to redefine laws with signing notes.
Bush infringes upon the freedom the press, not only with gag orders associated with his fradulent war but by exerting political power and restricting the press who has access to critical press conferences. If your news outlet reports against the president then you will have no access when we announce our next reign of terror.
In this case Bush is suggesting that the Dept of Homeland security should have a measure of control over IP and DNS assignments. That serves no purpose other than censorship and propoganda spreading. There is no legitimate reason for the Dept of Homeland security to EVER be able to compromise security mechanisms that provide assurance that the website you are viewing is the website you think you are viewing.
I wouldn't trust my mother not to abuse the powers the Bush administration has claimed it needs to fight a war against an unspecified enemy.
Right, anyone who doesn't view the claim that the United States is the most free land in the world and points out legitimate flaws in the logic of another is an obvious troll.
Yes lots of systems were patched, many more devices could not be patched. If we are going to make a change then we should abolish DST altogether. Oh my, the sun sets and rises at different times during different seasons. Man could never cope without changing the clocks to a false time that feels a little better! If we aren't doing that, then it would make sense to change it back. All the systems that could be patched before can be patched back and the devices that could not be patched will be correct again.
'If ICANN leaves the protection of the USA, ICANN will have to start recognizing all the repressive and bizaree anti-free expression laws of other countries'
The President is moving (via the Dept of Homeland Security) to eliminate those previous freedoms enjoyed by America. The Bush idea of free speech is far worse than the international one. Also you make it sound as if ICANN would be reduced to the restrictions of the worst countries when in reality ICANN wouldn't have to listen to any of them.
Switzerland is also the perfect place for this. They have long been an international haven with strong physical and legal security.
It'll just be another war on a vague concept. Added to the War on Terror, and the War on Drugs, we'll have the War on the Internet.
From the summary 'So here's the solution: Figure out how to change the sensory data you want -- the electromagnetic fields, the ultrasound, the infrared -- into something that the human brain is already wired to accept, like touch or sight.'
Last time I checked humans had made instruments to detect and track information of all sorts. In order to turn the things detected into something that could be detect by human senses we invented an interface. They are called displays and take many forms. We even invented a way to our brain to interface with and control those devices in turn, they are called controls and also take many forms.
'Ah, I see. So the kernel is what's left when you discount everything that isn't the kernel. How very zen. However, it's not particularly definitive (or useful), nor does it answer the question.
Where does, say, a network stack fit into the picture ? How about hardware drivers ? Can code executing outside of user space be part of the kernel ? Is all code executing inside kernel space inherently part of the kernel ? What about platforms that make no distinction between user space and kernel space ? Or is it just a matter of "I'll know it when I see it" ? '
I am not inventing a definition for operating system or for kernel. Nor am I going to attempt to come up with a line or two to define the kernel so that the you can attempt to pick apart the words with some technicality you read within them to try to make them include non-kernel components like libc. Your commonly accepted terminology has never been commonly accepted among academics (who are knowledgeable people that have studied more than you, not pedantic wankers) and experts.
Here I'll help you out. Arguing the technical definition of the operating system (the lines of which are not glaringly clear in every system) is not going to be able to make your point. The experts have always agreed with me on this topic and the ignorant masses and half-educated have agreed with you. Your argument would be much firmer if you claimed that language is a living thing and the widespread usage of the ignorant masses has redefined the term or at least added a second definition.