the American people are by and large more liberal than the members of Congress
Which decade are you talking about? It can't be the current one. More Americans have identified themselves as conservatives than Liberals for a very long time.
A quick Google search turns up the Harris Poll that been taken from 1968 to the present.
The most recent poll from this year shows "that conservatives continue to outnumber liberals by 36 to 18 percent but that the largest number of people think of themselves as moderates (41%)."
Now compare that to the self-identification of the media and of whom they voted for. It's instantly clear that the media in general is much more liberal than the people in the country.
About the only place that the New York Times possibly reflects the public's beliefs is in NY City itself and maybe SF, DC or LA.
Any near monopoly Microsoft has is only due to government enforced IP laws. If those competition restricting laws didn't exist in their current form, Microsoft would become virtually unviable as a business as other companies sprang up to undersell them in making copies of their software. It's an interesting debate as to whether that would be a good or bad thing (I tend to think some sort of major loosening would be a good thing, but stop short of complete removal of IP laws, that's another discussion), but it's certainly not a market that's created the situation.
So, I'm not sure how you can attribute Microsoft's present position to "market forces". They're a better example of government limiting competition than they are of operating in a market environment.
Can you give a few examples of your original premise? I am sincerely interested, because I've never been able to find any except a few really limited examples along the local water monopoly line, so some examples based on simply becoming large would be very useful.
"there's a mechanism whereby one actor can establish a positive feedback loop and expand to the limits of their market segment and choke off the competition that's essential to the proper workings of the market"
Can you give me a few real-life examples of this happening?
Most of the recent population growth in Utah are immigrants from California and other neighboring states, primarily for the lower cost of living. While many of those are Mormon, the proportion probably makes the percentages lower, not higher. The 50% proportion is pretty steady.
About 50% of those could be considered "active" members of the church.
So we're really talking about 36% of the Utah population, not 80%, who would be likely to vote a certain way based on active church participation.
But yeah, the people in Utah tend to vote for people who promote their moral standards and worldview? The question is, where are the people in the U.S. that consistently vote against their own moral standards and worldview? It's a non-issue. How else are they supposed decide whom to vote for? Based on things they don't believe in?
Also, as mentioned by others, the LDS church itself goes out of it's way to rarely take sides on political issues, pretty much restricting themselves to what they see as large and important moral issues.
What, you mean looking like an idiot isn't a great way to get a good paying job?
Amazing the things you can learn on slashdot.
The worst part is that the article submitter seems to frame the question as if he is part of some great repressed minority fighting to gain the right to look like an idiot.
Perhaps we should point out that wearing your pants around your ankles and farting loudly during interviews also have the potential to decrease your job prospects?
"There's no way I should pay more for a product because I make more than someone else. I hope it's illegal in the US to do this."
Actually, it's not. Government is the most obvious example. How much you pay for "government services" in the US almost totally depends on how much you make.
Nothing to see here... move on... I'm just confused, confused, confused..... this has obviously been a bad article for me... you're fine.
Sorry.
I'm not above admitting when I'm wrong. Just mostly misread this one, apparently twice... I swear I remember the summary title and first line different the first time I read it to now... but apparently not.:)
Of course, if you read the summary above, it was a District Court of Appeals, not the Supremes.... but that's probably asking too much of the slashdot audience, and it's not like you were the only one to make that mistake.
According to your link, "An experimental electrolysis unit was installed on the Kvant module that was linked to 'Mir' in April 1987. This was superceded by an operational unit, the first 'Elektron', aboard Kvant-2 launched in December 1989. " and "In 1992, visiting NASA engineers were shown an Elektron unit that weighed 110 kg and expended 3385 watt-hours per lb of oxygen". Presumably this is the model the current version in the ISS is based on, if not the exact same model.
Now check the company history, which reads "In 1992-1993 due to reorganization of state-owned enterprises they became privatized and transformed into joint stock companies. In October 1993 NIICHIMMAH was also turned into a joint stock company with 38% stake in Federal ownship."
So when this device was designed, they were a government institute, then later they were turned into a partially privately owned concern.
Umm.... since we are talking about an older Russian oxygen generator failing, the odds of it having anything to do with any kind of private contractor are pretty slim.
This is more along the lines of a "government factory turns out more crappy goods that don't work right" failure.
Different SSN prefixes are assigned to specific SS offices to give out. What determines which one you get is which office you get your numbers/original card through.
In many cases (especially recently), SSNs are applied for semi-automatically through the hospital someone is born in, so in that case the hospital location would determine the prefix.
Personally, I didn't have a SSN until I was 23 (and only then because I couldn't avoid it anymore without causing myself hassles with otherwise-decent employers that I didn't feel like hassling with), so my prefix is the same as the office I applied through when I got mine at age 23, nothing to do with my birth location.
Below is the full text of the linked version of the article, including the non-existent (because they were not cached) pictures:
These are the pictures of my oilcomputer: (at the end, there are some pictures of the oilcomputer of a friend of me)
Hi, in the "forum"-section on the left ist now also an english-speaking discussions-board available. I will translate the whole site into english tomorrow.
Hier sind die Bilder vom Ölrechner meines Kumpels:
Perhaps in the future (say, 10-20 years out?) we'll get better links in the summary....
"Note that we only have this guy's word for why he was rejected. "
No, we have copies of the actual messages sent back and forth between Reiser and Science, which have been validated by the Telegraph (among others) for their news story on the topic of journal censorship of similar views.
Not only is the server itself running AIX, but the groklaw article reproduces the instructions for accessing it, which includes among other things, the root password for the box as well as all the other user names and passwords.
Maybe IBM is hoping they'll plug the thing into a network connected to the internet so that more people can access it?
You know, for some websites, live chat is the most expensive part of ths site... all those call center reps to pay... not that you could slashdot a call center and run up a huge bill, could you...?
1. IDS set to trigger on specific patterns and events (if you have been seeing this stuff on your network constantly, you'll know what to look for already.), you can even set some up free using FOSS. 2. the IDS alerts then trigger shutting down their switch port and notify an admin. Depending on your switch port mapping database, you can even email the user. 3. See Scott's post above for signature/cleaning cycle.
Well, a quick web search away, and we have your answer.
Read through a history of libraries and you'll notice that the vast majority of the earliest ones are private, not public. They record great private libraries being around for over a thousand years before the first public library in most places.
The Library of Alexandria is noted as the first "research" library, about a thousand years after the first known libraries.
Little definite is actually known about the library itself (not even it's exact location in the city) and it was most likely a private library with a very restricted set of rules for scholars being able to access it. It certainly wasn't "public" in the sense that anyone could walk in off the street and use it. It's noted for the breadth of it's collection, not being as regional as previous libraries.
I'm no library expert (despite having worked as a volunteer in several and having read tens of thousands of books), but since a simple couple of minutes with a web browser and a search engine demonstrates your lack of knowledge, apparently neither are you.
Since you insist on putting words in my mouth (for-profit), I'll clarify that I was talking mostly about past private libraries that typically didn't run as a profit-making endevour, but were mainly charitable or a break-even service that went along with a print-shop (in the time of great masses of people beginning to learn to read and frequent print-shops, the new technology of the time) or with a club with specific needs, like a group of lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
the American people are by and large more liberal than the members of Congress
Which decade are you talking about? It can't be the current one. More Americans have identified themselves as conservatives than Liberals for a very long time.
A quick Google search turns up the Harris Poll that been taken from 1968 to the present.
The most recent poll from this year shows "that conservatives continue to outnumber liberals by 36 to 18 percent but that the largest number of people think of themselves as moderates (41%)."
Now compare that to the self-identification of the media and of whom they voted for. It's instantly clear that the media in general is much more liberal than the people in the country.
About the only place that the New York Times possibly reflects the public's beliefs is in NY City itself and maybe SF, DC or LA.
Any near monopoly Microsoft has is only due to government enforced IP laws. If those competition restricting laws didn't exist in their current form, Microsoft would become virtually unviable as a business as other companies sprang up to undersell them in making copies of their software. It's an interesting debate as to whether that would be a good or bad thing (I tend to think some sort of major loosening would be a good thing, but stop short of complete removal of IP laws, that's another discussion), but it's certainly not a market that's created the situation.
So, I'm not sure how you can attribute Microsoft's present position to "market forces". They're a better example of government limiting competition than they are of operating in a market environment.
Can you give a few examples of your original premise? I am sincerely interested, because I've never been able to find any except a few really limited examples along the local water monopoly line, so some examples based on simply becoming large would be very useful.
"there's a mechanism whereby one actor can establish a positive feedback loop and expand to the limits of their market segment and choke off the competition that's essential to the proper workings of the market"
Can you give me a few real-life examples of this happening?
Thanks.
Most of the recent population growth in Utah are immigrants from California and other neighboring states, primarily for the lower cost of living. While many of those are Mormon, the proportion probably makes the percentages lower, not higher. The 50% proportion is pretty steady.
Just to clear up possible misconceptions:
About 72% of the population of Utah is LDS/Mormon.
About 50% of those could be considered "active" members of the church.
So we're really talking about 36% of the Utah population, not 80%, who would be likely to vote a certain way based on active church participation.
But yeah, the people in Utah tend to vote for people who promote their moral standards and worldview? The question is, where are the people in the U.S. that consistently vote against their own moral standards and worldview? It's a non-issue. How else are they supposed decide whom to vote for? Based on things they don't believe in?
Also, as mentioned by others, the LDS church itself goes out of it's way to rarely take sides on political issues, pretty much restricting themselves to what they see as large and important moral issues.
What, you mean looking like an idiot isn't a great way to get a good paying job?
Amazing the things you can learn on slashdot.
The worst part is that the article submitter seems to frame the question as if he is part of some great repressed minority fighting to gain the right to look like an idiot.
Perhaps we should point out that wearing your pants around your ankles and farting loudly during interviews also have the potential to decrease your job prospects?
"There's no way I should pay more for a product because I make more than someone else. I hope it's illegal in the US to do this."
Actually, it's not. Government is the most obvious example. How much you pay for "government services" in the US almost totally depends on how much you make.
And yes, that's just as unfair.
Nothing to see here... move on... I'm just confused, confused, confused..... this has obviously been a bad article for me... you're fine.
:)
Sorry.
I'm not above admitting when I'm wrong. Just mostly misread this one, apparently twice... I swear I remember the summary title and first line different the first time I read it to now... but apparently not.
Was just about to reply to myself.
The summary conflicts with the headline and the article.
The Court of appeals rejected the appeal and the Supremes just refused to hear the case at all, ending it.
Of course, if you read the summary above, it was a District Court of Appeals, not the Supremes.... but that's probably asking too much of the slashdot audience, and it's not like you were the only one to make that mistake.
Might we all suggest that you be the first to volunteer to "solve" this problem you claim exists?
In other words, turn off your computer and go try to recycle it so that the rest of us don't have to listen to your hypocritical bullshit anymore?
Maybe some time living without ANY technology or use of natural resources will cure you of your professed opinions?
Then when the big bully down the street comes and makes you his butt-boy you'll wish you had spent some resources on a "military budget"?
I'll give you one point, if you are representative of human thinkers, they must all be as stupid as you say.
Yeah, go ahead and mod this flamebait, but don't forget the parent post. I'll post this non-anonymous anyway and take my lumps.
I think it's nice of them to make the explanation for needing to subscribe require registration.
How much sense does that make?
Anyway, anything that reduces their readership is fine by me...
Based on your information, I'd win my bet.
According to your link, "An experimental electrolysis unit was installed on the Kvant module that was linked to 'Mir' in April 1987. This was superceded by an operational unit, the first 'Elektron', aboard Kvant-2 launched in December 1989. " and "In 1992, visiting NASA engineers were shown an Elektron unit that weighed 110 kg and expended 3385 watt-hours per lb of oxygen". Presumably this is the model the current version in the ISS is based on, if not the exact same model.
Now check the company history, which reads "In 1992-1993 due to reorganization of state-owned enterprises they became privatized and transformed into joint stock companies. In October 1993 NIICHIMMAH was also turned into a joint stock company with 38% stake in Federal ownship."
So when this device was designed, they were a government institute, then later they were turned into a partially privately owned concern.
Umm.... since we are talking about an older Russian oxygen generator failing, the odds of it having anything to do with any kind of private contractor are pretty slim.
This is more along the lines of a "government factory turns out more crappy goods that don't work right" failure.
Different SSN prefixes are assigned to specific SS offices to give out. What determines which one you get is which office you get your numbers/original card through.
In many cases (especially recently), SSNs are applied for semi-automatically through the hospital someone is born in, so in that case the hospital location would determine the prefix.
Personally, I didn't have a SSN until I was 23 (and only then because I couldn't avoid it anymore without causing myself hassles with otherwise-decent employers that I didn't feel like hassling with), so my prefix is the same as the office I applied through when I got mine at age 23, nothing to do with my birth location.
Below is the full text of the linked version of the article, including the non-existent (because they were not cached) pictures:
These are the pictures of my oilcomputer: (at the end, there are some pictures of the oilcomputer of a friend of me)
Hi, in the "forum"-section on the left ist now also an english-speaking discussions-board available. I will translate the whole site into english tomorrow.
Hier sind die Bilder vom Ölrechner meines Kumpels:
Perhaps in the future (say, 10-20 years out?) we'll get better links in the summary....
From the release notes:
"The -f option of tail(1) utility now supports more than one file at a time."
That enhancement alone is worthy of upgrading!
"Note that we only have this guy's word for why he was rejected. "
No, we have copies of the actual messages sent back and forth between Reiser and Science, which have been validated by the Telegraph (among others) for their news story on the topic of journal censorship of similar views.
Not only is the server itself running AIX, but the groklaw article reproduces the instructions for accessing it, which includes among other things, the root password for the box as well as all the other user names and passwords.
Maybe IBM is hoping they'll plug the thing into a network connected to the internet so that more people can access it?
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want to spend the cash on this when they could just tunnel through SSH, use a VPN, etc... etc...
Sure, it might use slightly more bandwidth than this, but come on, for that price....
You know, for some websites, live chat is the most expensive part of ths site... all those call center reps to pay... not that you could slashdot a call center and run up a huge bill, could you ...?
Using a different computer, such as that of a roommate, friend, neighbor, computer lab, library....
We are talking college dorms here, not a home ISP user. There are probably computers open for use in their dorm's lobby, let alone all over campus.
You pull the plug because they're disrupting the network. That makes it so that other people can check their email.
They disconnected can go check their email in a campus computer lab or on their friend's computer.
Or slightly faster:
1. IDS set to trigger on specific patterns and events (if you have been seeing this stuff on your network constantly, you'll know what to look for already.), you can even set some up free using FOSS.
2. the IDS alerts then trigger shutting down their switch port and notify an admin. Depending on your switch port mapping database, you can even email the user.
3. See Scott's post above for signature/cleaning cycle.
Well, a quick web search away, and we have your answer.
Read through a history of libraries and you'll notice that the vast majority of the earliest ones are private, not public. They record great private libraries being around for over a thousand years before the first public library in most places.
The Library of Alexandria is noted as the first "research" library, about a thousand years after the first known libraries.
Little definite is actually known about the library itself (not even it's exact location in the city) and it was most likely a private library with a very restricted set of rules for scholars being able to access it. It certainly wasn't "public" in the sense that anyone could walk in off the street and use it. It's noted for the breadth of it's collection, not being as regional as previous libraries.
I'm no library expert (despite having worked as a volunteer in several and having read tens of thousands of books), but since a simple couple of minutes with a web browser and a search engine demonstrates your lack of knowledge, apparently neither are you.
Since you insist on putting words in my mouth (for-profit), I'll clarify that I was talking mostly about past private libraries that typically didn't run as a profit-making endevour, but were mainly charitable or a break-even service that went along with a print-shop (in the time of great masses of people beginning to learn to read and frequent print-shops, the new technology of the time) or with a club with specific needs, like a group of lawyers.
Yes, charity predates government-enforced theft.