shonky legal accounting gimicks. One that is quite popular and legal is the re-valuation of assets then claim that the difference between the current and previous years value as income and thus pushes up the profit artificially even though no physical money exists.
As for the structure of the lines companies, IMHO, the US should nationalise the whole network and have a uniformed cost of access to the network to ensure that the lines companies cannot favour one company over another.
Or you have the opposite extreme like in Italy where by 80% of the media is owned by the Prime Minister. How is that any different to a public owned television station? A publicly owned television station is accountable to the people where as the private sector is answerable to the shareholders and "political alliances" they may have.
Well funny people call it socialism. When I was growing up in New Zealand, before the economic reforms of the 1980's, it was labelled as investing into human capital so that in the future they have the ability to earn the money and repay the investment that the public as a whole made.
It seems that everytime someone even mentions "public ownership", there are a band of merry men/women, screaming to the top of the lungs that the "market will provide". I'm sorry, but I don't think that the private sector is going to give two hoots about an old lady who may require a hip operation or a person who requires 24hour nursing.
Yes, the extreme of Socialism results in dependency, however, the complete opposite is a dog eat dog, law of the juggle situation.
Well, I live in Australia and get not only NPR, but DW, Radio Netherlands, BBC and ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).
NPR unfortunately is reliant on private donating, meaning, one can provide a substaintial donation for a certain "service" that NPR can provide via an "informative programme".
I find you comment rather rich coming from a person who doesn't even have the balls to register for a slashdot account. When I see posts like yours it makes "in Soviet Russia..." posts actually humorous.
As for the US government, interesting that the US mentioned in the briefing Stalin, Lenin and so forth, yet, they never mention the dozen or so dictators that the US supported during the cold war. Pinoche would be the prime example. It seems that when it is covenient for the US, they'll slam the bible down and declare all outside the border to be corrupt and that GWB, the whiite night of US is going to slain the "evil dictators" of the world and save the people of the worl from themselves.
Just look at the childish language over the latest year by GWB, "Axis of Evil", "the game is up", "show your cards" and other diatripe. The lack of any intellectuals in the US administration makes me fairful that the most powerful nation of earth has fallen into the hands of a few rabbid right wing, christian fundamentalist nutcases who have a theocratic view of the world comparable to the Iranian regeme.
Maybe it is about time the US government went back and studied the core of Relpolitik and start using it once more then we'll see some real discussion and debate happen.
I agree, however, as so long as senators, parties and congress people keep receiving kick backs from large corporations who wish to pervert the course of democracy so the cycle of social engineering will continue. It is about time that US citizens finally got the bull by the horns and put a president and party in that has no connections to either the democrats or the republicans.
What are you going on about? is the US the only country on planet earth with the "private owned only" fixation? Just look at the average yank and their understanding of world affairs. If the average yank saw that when they choose a president the rest of the world suffers as a result, maybe we wouldn't get half-witts like GWB being voted in, or better yet, we might actually have some Americans exercise their democratic right and vote instead of relying on 30% of the voting public to turn out and hopefully represent their views.
Maybe you should actually have a look at the legislation used in Germany, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Ireland and so-forth on how a publicly funded media can be independent of the government.
Funny how Murdock is the Republican party's largest donator, Fox is promoting the war 24/7 in the typical fashion of "all the way with GWB", and who would have guessed it, regulators "suddenly" allow the buy out with no questions asked.
Funny how on one hand we have GWB scream about the terrible and corrupt regeme of Iraq, yet, something like this just slips through and worst still, the US isn't like most countries. Most countries have a publicly funded television network that allows a voice of opinion to be broadcasted that isn't always "politically acceptable". Just look at Fox and the pro-war stance and the number of suckers sucked into the vacuum.
What the US needs first is a publicly funded broadcasting corporation that is at an arms length of government and receives no funding from the private sector. This is the only way to ensure media independence as the number of "media outlets" strink.
I mean, sure, you want to cut costs and look for cheaper labour, no problems but don't do it in such a stupid manor, I mean, why not set up an office in India and then gradually strink down the US operations?
btw. Labour costs are the only problem, how about getting TI to cut down on their manufacturing costs, or better yet, move it to UMC and TSMC. As for assembly, why assemble SUN stations in the 3rd most expensive country to do business in? that is no smart! Outsource production like all the other manufacturers have done.
It has been said, again and again and again and again that NTFS 4.0 is incompatible with NTFS 5.0. What do you need, a big friggin neon sign saying "for the dit witt in front of the computer, NTFS 4.0 isn't compatible with NTFS 5.0" whilst a marching band goes past?
for a moment, I'm quite interested in what is going to happen within the opensource community?
Right now there is a move to create an opensource passport, however, it would be interesting if there was a lead by another group to create an opensource liberty project.
For me, it would be great to have a certain amount of information being shared over a number of services instead of needing to learn 101 passwords and user names.
Yes, I know I could use the same one over and over again, however, my experience has always been that there is some dimwit using my username, and it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with their proper name! GRRRR
Million Dollars? chickenshit compared to the costs involved and the time wasted.
Nope, we need what they have in Iran, but combine it all into a public display of punishment. Chop of their two hands, 500floggings, and every 50floggs, alcohol is tipped onto the spammers back to add extra pain to the punishment.
All this should be televised to shock any people thinking about spamming.
So that is pays for itself, have beats like, "how long will it be before his first scream?", "Will he be a repeat offender", "does his wife think he is a complete loser?"
MacOS X is an OS based on a Mach kernel with a FreeBSD personality. It doesn't mean that it is FreeBSD by any stretch of the imagination. It would be like me saying OpenUnix 8 is Linux because it has a Linux pesonality module.
Repeat after me, MacOS X is not BSD, it is a Mach based OS with a BSD personality!
Heck, anyone can do it, and it has been proven, however, one sticking problem is the fact that there are no high profile, mainstream applications for it, like Lotus Notes, Dreamweaver, Fireworks and so forth.
If a distro company REALLY want to make a difference:
1) Embrace United Linux and add to it
2) License the source code off companies, port it and then, under an agreement with the original company, sell it. For example, there is a big demand for Macromedia software, why not license the source code, and use MainSoft and port it natively to Linux?
The two above things would push a company not only into the black quickly, but also remove one of the reasons why people can't move to Linux. Hardware support will come with people using Linux, however, people won't use Linux until they can get the exact applications they run on Windows, on Linux.
Sure, there are "replacements", however, the average Joe and Jane would much rather use something they're familar with.
Slashdot Mirror
shonky legal accounting gimicks. One that is quite popular and legal is the re-valuation of assets then claim that the difference between the current and previous years value as income and thus pushes up the profit artificially even though no physical money exists.
As for the structure of the lines companies, IMHO, the US should nationalise the whole network and have a uniformed cost of access to the network to ensure that the lines companies cannot favour one company over another.
Or you have the opposite extreme like in Italy where by 80% of the media is owned by the Prime Minister. How is that any different to a public owned television station? A publicly owned television station is accountable to the people where as the private sector is answerable to the shareholders and "political alliances" they may have.
Well funny people call it socialism. When I was growing up in New Zealand, before the economic reforms of the 1980's, it was labelled as investing into human capital so that in the future they have the ability to earn the money and repay the investment that the public as a whole made.
It seems that everytime someone even mentions "public ownership", there are a band of merry men/women, screaming to the top of the lungs that the "market will provide". I'm sorry, but I don't think that the private sector is going to give two hoots about an old lady who may require a hip operation or a person who requires 24hour nursing.
Yes, the extreme of Socialism results in dependency, however, the complete opposite is a dog eat dog, law of the juggle situation.
Well, I live in Australia and get not only NPR, but DW, Radio Netherlands, BBC and ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).
NPR unfortunately is reliant on private donating, meaning, one can provide a substaintial donation for a certain "service" that NPR can provide via an "informative programme".
I find you comment rather rich coming from a person who doesn't even have the balls to register for a slashdot account. When I see posts like yours it makes "in Soviet Russia..." posts actually humorous.
As for the US government, interesting that the US mentioned in the briefing Stalin, Lenin and so forth, yet, they never mention the dozen or so dictators that the US supported during the cold war. Pinoche would be the prime example. It seems that when it is covenient for the US, they'll slam the bible down and declare all outside the border to be corrupt and that GWB, the whiite night of US is going to slain the "evil dictators" of the world and save the people of the worl from themselves.
Just look at the childish language over the latest year by GWB, "Axis of Evil", "the game is up", "show your cards" and other diatripe. The lack of any intellectuals in the US administration makes me fairful that the most powerful nation of earth has fallen into the hands of a few rabbid right wing, christian fundamentalist nutcases who have a theocratic view of the world comparable to the Iranian regeme.
Maybe it is about time the US government went back and studied the core of Relpolitik and start using it once more then we'll see some real discussion and debate happen.
I agree, however, as so long as senators, parties and congress people keep receiving kick backs from large corporations who wish to pervert the course of democracy so the cycle of social engineering will continue. It is about time that US citizens finally got the bull by the horns and put a president and party in that has no connections to either the democrats or the republicans.
What are you going on about? is the US the only country on planet earth with the "private owned only" fixation? Just look at the average yank and their understanding of world affairs. If the average yank saw that when they choose a president the rest of the world suffers as a result, maybe we wouldn't get half-witts like GWB being voted in, or better yet, we might actually have some Americans exercise their democratic right and vote instead of relying on 30% of the voting public to turn out and hopefully represent their views.
Maybe you should actually have a look at the legislation used in Germany, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Ireland and so-forth on how a publicly funded media can be independent of the government.
Funny how Murdock is the Republican party's largest donator, Fox is promoting the war 24/7 in the typical fashion of "all the way with GWB", and who would have guessed it, regulators "suddenly" allow the buy out with no questions asked.
Funny how on one hand we have GWB scream about the terrible and corrupt regeme of Iraq, yet, something like this just slips through and worst still, the US isn't like most countries. Most countries have a publicly funded television network that allows a voice of opinion to be broadcasted that isn't always "politically acceptable". Just look at Fox and the pro-war stance and the number of suckers sucked into the vacuum.
What the US needs first is a publicly funded broadcasting corporation that is at an arms length of government and receives no funding from the private sector. This is the only way to ensure media independence as the number of "media outlets" strink.
I mean, sure, you want to cut costs and look for cheaper labour, no problems but don't do it in such a stupid manor, I mean, why not set up an office in India and then gradually strink down the US operations?
btw. Labour costs are the only problem, how about getting TI to cut down on their manufacturing costs, or better yet, move it to UMC and TSMC. As for assembly, why assemble SUN stations in the 3rd most expensive country to do business in? that is no smart! Outsource production like all the other manufacturers have done.
when you're so *HOT* as I, everything seems to heat up.
It has been said, again and again and again and again that NTFS 4.0 is incompatible with NTFS 5.0. What do you need, a big friggin neon sign saying "for the dit witt in front of the computer, NTFS 4.0 isn't compatible with NTFS 5.0" whilst a marching band goes past?
for a moment, I'm quite interested in what is going to happen within the opensource community?
Right now there is a move to create an opensource passport, however, it would be interesting if there was a lead by another group to create an opensource liberty project.
For me, it would be great to have a certain amount of information being shared over a number of services instead of needing to learn 101 passwords and user names.
Yes, I know I could use the same one over and over again, however, my experience has always been that there is some dimwit using my username, and it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with their proper name! GRRRR
Million Dollars? chickenshit compared to the costs involved and the time wasted.
Nope, we need what they have in Iran, but combine it all into a public display of punishment. Chop of their two hands, 500floggings, and every 50floggs, alcohol is tipped onto the spammers back to add extra pain to the punishment.
All this should be televised to shock any people thinking about spamming.
So that is pays for itself, have beats like, "how long will it be before his first scream?", "Will he be a repeat offender", "does his wife think he is a complete loser?"
How many times does this neeed to be said?
MacOS X is an OS based on a Mach kernel with a FreeBSD personality. It doesn't mean that it is FreeBSD by any stretch of the imagination. It would be like me saying OpenUnix 8 is Linux because it has a Linux pesonality module.
Repeat after me, MacOS X is not BSD, it is a Mach based OS with a BSD personality!
Heck, anyone can do it, and it has been proven, however, one sticking problem is the fact that there are no high profile, mainstream applications for it, like Lotus Notes, Dreamweaver, Fireworks and so forth.
If a distro company REALLY want to make a difference:
1) Embrace United Linux and add to it
2) License the source code off companies, port it and then, under an agreement with the original company, sell it. For example, there is a big demand for Macromedia software, why not license the source code, and use MainSoft and port it natively to Linux?
The two above things would push a company not only into the black quickly, but also remove one of the reasons why people can't move to Linux. Hardware support will come with people using Linux, however, people won't use Linux until they can get the exact applications they run on Windows, on Linux.
Sure, there are "replacements", however, the average Joe and Jane would much rather use something they're familar with.
Thats not entirely true. The problem many people had was ReiserFS and buggy chipsets, such as those from VIA.
Having used both ext3fs, JFS and ReiserFS, stability depends not only on the quality of the code, but the hardware itself.