Its funny that you uncritically talk about those "small countries"
I should like you to note that the idea of spying on private citizens did not originate in "small countres"... You might like to look at what english speaking counties -- not small by your measure, I am sure -- did after the second world war. I am talking about the sort of efforts that gave birth to the NSA, GHQ etc. You will claim that they do not spy on their citizens, but then you would only be echoing their own claims.
In addition, you should perhaps take a look at your patriot's act. At least these "small coutries" have taken care to declare their intentions in the 1st place in a rather clear manner.
Heh Heh heh. None of us supports anything other than a completely free internet, but it must be said that you guys are laughable in your apparent ability to filter out propaganda.
It is a bad mistake to -- in the 1st place -- imagine that S.B. has any desire to really "understand" Open Source or to display any such understanding.
Neither is it wise to imagine that he is at all interested in making good software. Paraphrasing him: Is There any evidence suggesting that he and his cohorts at M.S. are interested in anything other than money?
Developing countries (e.g. in Africa) are hardly ever mentioned as opportunities for growth in Linux usage.But they are, I think, some of Open Source's best opportunities.
Hardly anything is computerized there (in govt.) and when it is, huge and outdated mainframes are used. In many countries, the next few years are likely to see a massive expansion in govt. computer systems. Its up to the few of us Linux users in those coutries to tout to our govts. the benefits of open source and Linux in particular.
There should be a number of ways to do this, I can think of one that might be done while making a buck or two... Establishing companies that provide open source solutions to govts.and others.
All in all, I welcome this latest development in Afghanistan, and I hope that other low-tech. developing coutries will go in this directions as they computerize.
Re:Get over it!!
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"wondersparrow", you crack me up. So, your motto is: like your job, or pretend to like it, no matter what it is or how much you are paid? I should like to see the tight smile on your face if you ever worked for $5.50 an hour.
Mr, the highest expression of unique human qualities is not happily slaving away in the service industry 80 hours a week for $5.00 an hour and slapping yourself on the back for your "work ethic".
The point is: Virtually everyone wants time to do something of what makes us HUMAN, quite apart from WORKER BEES or ants!!! Ok, Mr. "wondersparrow"? And you won't get the chance doing that in the service industry. ("The get another job," wondersparrow retorts:))
It seems to be that you might, perhaps, be the most spectacular success of the propagandists who run human resources departments. In some places, they gather their (underpaid) employees in the morning and make them utter the various clarion calls --- With a smile on their (workers) faces.
Funny how close this sort of thing is to what one imagines might have been a local village C.P. meeting in China -- During the cultural revolution. heh, heh heh.
Re:Then move to another country
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
On, Mr/Ms. "Zebra X", that would be a most exellent idea of the United States was not working like hell to "globalize" its wonderful economic model.
Re:Working more pays off
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
"Working more pays off"? Mr/Ms: Do you wish to address the virtually insignificant (in numbers) elite, or are you speaking of the nation as a whole? That you speak of Ph.d students is quite telling.
Suppose you are getting $8.50 an hour? Sure, working harder "pays off", but I submit that it is not humanly possible to live as a human being should (meaning some free time with children, creative activities, etc.) on that sort of salary, NO MATTER how hard you work!!!
Matters pay of for a small elite but the rest of the people are just wage slaves, forced to use virtually every single hour working just to keep a float. For these people, you clarion call: "working harder pays off" is next to meaningless since they are already working just as hard as they can just to survive.
p.s.: The level of naivete on slashdot moves me to consider that there is something in the stereotypical picture of the quasi-autistic nerd.:)
Thomas Jefferson on Big Business
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
First Quote:
"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."
Second Quote:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. "
{{End of Quotes}}
I believe it is no hyperbole if I were to declare now the vastest majority of American children now wake up, "homeless", their "fatheres conqured".
Re:Liberalism != (Communism || Socialism)
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
In the same vein, do not confuse stalinists with socialists.
Many will be served by reading a features and (speed) bechmarking report that I read a while ago from here:
http://www.scientificweb.de/ncrunch/ncrunch4.pdf
I have been playing around with Mathematica for quite a while, so by the time I read the report I was well aware that it provides lots of features and is great for symbolic work, and the former is borne out by this report. To me, the big surprise in the report (if you believe it) is that for number crunching work, Mathematica is bested by almost all the other packages analysed here (Gauss, Maple, Matlab, MuPAD, O-Matrix, Ox, Scilab, S-Plus). That said, I know that Mathematica has a protocol (Mathlink) that allows you to interface with your C/C++ code on most systems. This could greatly improve performance when used to implement, say, inner loops. That way, you can get a little of the best in both worlds. I am not familiar with other QPEs (Quantitative Prog. Environments) but I assume that they have similar interfacing capabilities.
You seem to have misunderstood me a little. If you carefully read my original post, you will see that I am NOT, in principle, opposed to manned space exploration.
Now I will address a few of your points:
Space is BIG: Yes. Very big. Which means to explore you have got to travel unbelievable distances. Thats why we use telescopes. To do anything that the telescopes cannot do at this time (w/regard to the distance objects in this vast space) would require enourmous time, expense and technology and an understanding of science vastly superior to what we have now!
Robots don't vote: Of course they don't! By putting this point here, you are assuming that U and I are in agreement that we should continue to allocate scarce resources to (manned and otherwise) space exploration. Say this to somebody who agrees with you in a discussion about how to dupe American and other populations into paying a huge amount of money for these hyped up missions!
Earth is Doomed: Certainly. But if you think the earthly environment is getting harsh, try any other planet (even Mars). In fact, this is an often heard and rather dubious argument. Look: Even a completely dead earth will NOT be any harsher than, say, Mars!
Limited frontiers: Yes. Very limited I assure you. Thats why aliens (who presumably are a million years ahead of us in understanding of the universe) have not visited as yet!!
Limited Imagination: This point, I think is quite correct. Eventually we would like to do it ourselves. But my point is lets study matters from here and wait for better and safer technology and, crucially, for a time when we can actually afford it.
Consider that humans invented rocket power a few thousand years ago. That, together with Newton's theories is, in principle, sufficient to give you an escape velocity from earth. But we waited for the computer and other electronic advances that make it feasible and safer and cheaper.
Ok. Mining, manufacturing, tourism etc. and so , presumably, habitation. Ok. That sounds good.
But for now and say the next 50 to 100 years, how will manned space flight further this aim? The path to this (aim) is furthering our understanding of outer space and the various planets and moons out there that we might inhabit.
Already, it seems to me that astronmers and other physcists have learned a great deal (say about Mars) using telescopes and the like. Missions like the pathfinder could explore further and bring back samples. Ok. Even at this time, humans could go out there and take the same photographs as well as the samples. But it would be a long drawn, expensive and (with our present technology) very dangerous mission. I do not think that the astronauts who would get there would do anything more that scratch a tiny part of the surface. (Logistics and current technology again) Why not do the same thing 100% more safely using robotic instruments?
I do support the larger aim of manned space exploration. But I do not think we shall be ready for anything significant in a long long time! In addition, remember that there is really nowhere to go, for perhaps another millenium, other than our solar system, and very limited parts of it at that! Other than the moon and Mars, other environments are tremendously harsh!!!
Just a thought.
The question occures whether there is anything we can do in space in the foreseeable future that cannot be done using robotic instruments. This is probably much cheaper, financially, and certaily cheaper w/regard to costs on human life.
Then there is the fact that for a long long long time, perhaps the only other interesting place humans can be able to visit (other than our now boring orbit) is Mars, where they have already sent a robotic instrument. What, the question arises, in Mars (for the foreseeable future) can we do that the Pathfinder cannot?
Its likely to be much cheaper and easier in a hundred years. Perhaps its time we shelved Manned Space flight for a while?
Slashdot Mirror
Its funny that you uncritically talk about those "small countries"
I should like you to note that the idea of spying on private citizens did not originate in "small countres"... You might like to look at what english speaking counties -- not small by your measure, I am sure -- did after the second world war. I am talking about the sort of efforts that gave birth to the NSA, GHQ etc. You will claim that they do not spy on their citizens, but then you would only be echoing their own claims.
In addition, you should perhaps take a look at your patriot's act. At least these "small coutries" have taken care to declare their intentions in the 1st place in a rather clear manner.
Heh Heh heh. None of us supports anything other than a completely free internet, but it must be said that you guys are laughable in your apparent ability to filter out propaganda.
It is a bad mistake to -- in the 1st place -- imagine that S.B. has any desire to really "understand" Open Source or to display any such understanding.
Neither is it wise to imagine that he is at all interested in making good software. Paraphrasing him: Is There any evidence suggesting that he and his cohorts at M.S. are interested in anything other than money?
You "are sure" ? C'mon, I am sure you are not stupid, but please do not be lazy. Give me a name. :)
Ah, but partition magic is not free. :)
Developing countries (e.g. in Africa) are hardly ever mentioned as opportunities for growth in Linux usage.But they are, I think, some of Open Source's best opportunities.
Hardly anything is computerized there (in govt.) and when it is, huge and outdated mainframes are used. In many countries, the next few years are likely to see a massive expansion in govt. computer systems. Its up to the few of us Linux users in those coutries to tout to our govts. the benefits of open source and Linux in particular.
There should be a number of ways to do this, I can think of one that might be done while making a buck or two... Establishing companies that provide open source solutions to govts.and others.
All in all, I welcome this latest development in Afghanistan, and I hope that other low-tech. developing coutries will go in this directions as they computerize.
"wondersparrow", you crack me up. So, your motto is: like your job, or pretend to like it, no matter what it is or how much you are paid? I should like to see the tight smile on your face if you ever worked for $5.50 an hour.
Mr, the highest expression of unique human qualities is not happily slaving away in the service industry 80 hours a week for $5.00 an hour and slapping yourself on the back for your "work ethic".
The point is: Virtually everyone wants time to do something of what makes us HUMAN, quite apart from WORKER BEES or ants!!! Ok, Mr. "wondersparrow"? And you won't get the chance doing that in the service industry. ("The get another job," wondersparrow retorts:))
It seems to be that you might, perhaps, be the most spectacular success of the propagandists who run human resources departments. In some places, they gather their (underpaid) employees in the morning and make them utter the various clarion calls --- With a smile on their (workers) faces.
Funny how close this sort of thing is to what one imagines might have been a local village C.P. meeting in China -- During the cultural revolution. heh, heh heh.
On, Mr/Ms. "Zebra X", that would be a most exellent idea of the United States was not working like hell to "globalize" its wonderful economic model.
"Working more pays off"? Mr/Ms: Do you wish to address the virtually insignificant (in numbers) elite, or are you speaking of the nation as a whole? That you speak of Ph.d students is quite telling.
Suppose you are getting $8.50 an hour? Sure, working harder "pays off", but I submit that it is not humanly possible to live as a human being should (meaning some free time with children, creative activities, etc.) on that sort of salary, NO MATTER how hard you work!!!
Matters pay of for a small elite but the rest of the people are just wage slaves, forced to use virtually every single hour working just to keep a float. For these people, you clarion call: "working harder pays off" is next to meaningless since they are already working just as hard as they can just to survive.
p.s.: The level of naivete on slashdot moves me to consider that there is something in the stereotypical picture of the quasi-autistic nerd.
First Quote: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Second Quote: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. " {{End of Quotes}} I believe it is no hyperbole if I were to declare now the vastest majority of American children now wake up, "homeless", their "fatheres conqured".
In the same vein, do not confuse stalinists with socialists.
Many will be served by reading a features and (speed) bechmarking report that I read a while ago from here: http://www.scientificweb.de/ncrunch/ncrunch4.pdf I have been playing around with Mathematica for quite a while, so by the time I read the report I was well aware that it provides lots of features and is great for symbolic work, and the former is borne out by this report. To me, the big surprise in the report (if you believe it) is that for number crunching work, Mathematica is bested by almost all the other packages analysed here (Gauss, Maple, Matlab, MuPAD, O-Matrix, Ox, Scilab, S-Plus). That said, I know that Mathematica has a protocol (Mathlink) that allows you to interface with your C/C++ code on most systems. This could greatly improve performance when used to implement, say, inner loops. That way, you can get a little of the best in both worlds. I am not familiar with other QPEs (Quantitative Prog. Environments) but I assume that they have similar interfacing capabilities.
Agreed 100%.
You seem to have misunderstood me a little. If you carefully read my original post, you will see that I am NOT, in principle, opposed to manned space exploration. Now I will address a few of your points: Space is BIG: Yes. Very big. Which means to explore you have got to travel unbelievable distances. Thats why we use telescopes. To do anything that the telescopes cannot do at this time (w/regard to the distance objects in this vast space) would require enourmous time, expense and technology and an understanding of science vastly superior to what we have now! Robots don't vote: Of course they don't! By putting this point here, you are assuming that U and I are in agreement that we should continue to allocate scarce resources to (manned and otherwise) space exploration. Say this to somebody who agrees with you in a discussion about how to dupe American and other populations into paying a huge amount of money for these hyped up missions! Earth is Doomed: Certainly. But if you think the earthly environment is getting harsh, try any other planet (even Mars). In fact, this is an often heard and rather dubious argument. Look: Even a completely dead earth will NOT be any harsher than, say, Mars! Limited frontiers: Yes. Very limited I assure you. Thats why aliens (who presumably are a million years ahead of us in understanding of the universe) have not visited as yet!! Limited Imagination: This point, I think is quite correct. Eventually we would like to do it ourselves. But my point is lets study matters from here and wait for better and safer technology and, crucially, for a time when we can actually afford it. Consider that humans invented rocket power a few thousand years ago. That, together with Newton's theories is, in principle, sufficient to give you an escape velocity from earth. But we waited for the computer and other electronic advances that make it feasible and safer and cheaper.
Ok. Mining, manufacturing, tourism etc. and so , presumably, habitation. Ok. That sounds good. But for now and say the next 50 to 100 years, how will manned space flight further this aim? The path to this (aim) is furthering our understanding of outer space and the various planets and moons out there that we might inhabit. Already, it seems to me that astronmers and other physcists have learned a great deal (say about Mars) using telescopes and the like. Missions like the pathfinder could explore further and bring back samples. Ok. Even at this time, humans could go out there and take the same photographs as well as the samples. But it would be a long drawn, expensive and (with our present technology) very dangerous mission. I do not think that the astronauts who would get there would do anything more that scratch a tiny part of the surface. (Logistics and current technology again) Why not do the same thing 100% more safely using robotic instruments? I do support the larger aim of manned space exploration. But I do not think we shall be ready for anything significant in a long long time! In addition, remember that there is really nowhere to go, for perhaps another millenium, other than our solar system, and very limited parts of it at that! Other than the moon and Mars, other environments are tremendously harsh!!! Just a thought.
The question occures whether there is anything we can do in space in the foreseeable future that cannot be done using robotic instruments. This is probably much cheaper, financially, and certaily cheaper w/regard to costs on human life. Then there is the fact that for a long long long time, perhaps the only other interesting place humans can be able to visit (other than our now boring orbit) is Mars, where they have already sent a robotic instrument. What, the question arises, in Mars (for the foreseeable future) can we do that the Pathfinder cannot? Its likely to be much cheaper and easier in a hundred years. Perhaps its time we shelved Manned Space flight for a while?