I thought the government was for the people by the people. What a fucking joke.
No offense, but that's taking naivety awfully far.
The fourth branch of government, corporations and banks, swing as much power as any two of the other branches. Our government has faded from a bright, hopeful experiment to one bunch of people lording it over another bunch of people- Pretty much how most "governments" have always worked throughout history. The primary difference nowadays is that the dominant group has a historically unheard of technological advantage with which to distract the peons from that reality.
I have a "local expectation" that in a totalitarian state, there exists a reasonable chance that if they want him, he will eventually be identified, generic name or not.
I've always imagined the President as standing on a parade float, fulfilling the needs of the masses with all the theater that goes with the office.
There is someone, hidden from view, driving the parade float of American State, but who it actually is, and to whom they are accountable, is, and probably will always remain a question.
I'm not claiming any conspiracy nonsense, just saying that observation doesn't seem to support popular statements of belief regarding our political systems.
Sorry for the pessimism, but with an entire class of wealthy sociopaths such as the Koch brothers lurking about:
>>As it grows, adapts and gradually proves itself,... and is infiltrated, then subtly brought under the control of the powerful groups whose grip it was meant to loosen in the first place.
You know, what the poster is trying to say is that after 35+ years of designing, building and launching space vehicles, we should have a high level of mastery of the subject. The following applies more to established organizations than to spaceflight "start-ups":
I propose that this is more a question of emotional intelligence rather than engineering skill. The question is: Do you want to get something into orbit, or feel good about sexy new innovations implemented into spacecraft design? I remember the argument I read in the 80's regarding using the Shuttle vs Large Soviet-type rockets to launch the components for the space station, that went something like this: If the goal is to get chunks of this thing into orbit, why build the most complicated machine known to man, with myriads of potential points of failure, when you can use something big and stupid to man-handle stuff into LEO? We all know which technology won that debate. It seems as if time and time again, in fields that employ marvelously skilled people, that the elegance of a solution trumps the reason for doing it in the first place, whether we're talking about rocket science or software.
...I'm gone for a day, and look what happens.
Thanks for all the responses, everyone.
This is exactly what I was hoping for when I first posted- You all are great.
...uh, sorry, it's sort of late, but you remember the movie "Powder" ? If not, order a copy from Amazon and watch it...You sound like you may be this guy's brother.:-)
Actually, after reading your first post, then reading some of the replies ( particularly the linked article here-> http://www.geocities.com/the_fantastic_lad//cyclot ronic_resonance.htm ), then reading "...an endless parade of drivel. Dont worry I wont be back." above, maybe it's a good thing you won't be back.
Sure, some replies were crappy, but so what? Some of them presented a better set of facts than you managed to- And instead of rebutting with facts of your own, you instead got your whiny, "You're not going to have me to push around anymore" thang going.
Sorry (sort of) about the direct attack, but if you're going to open your mouth, especially around here, grow a pair and stand behind your verbage, pal.
Use the same sites that've been used to generate Flash Mobs to organize some small groups of people around the nation to stake out some CD outlets. It doesn't have to be some full blown "protest", we could walk around in front of the stores for just enough time to get the attention of CNN, or the local 10 O'Clock news, but in many different cities across the nation, and at the same time...Make sure that someone has a sign showing a RIAA dragging a 12 year-old girl by the scruff of the neck....
...might embarass the RIAA mafia, might not, but it's worth throwing the idea out here...
This crap is not the desparate strategy of a dying company. We are witnessing an oft repeated strategy from a group of people that does business "Enron-Style" (generate high profits without generating anything of value). I lifted a portion of a post from "mec", and an article from the thread:
___________________________
Mec's post:
The SCO Group is not a real company. They are an operating tentacle of The Canopy Group.
More news of interest:
Computer Associates Agrees to a $40 million settlement [thestreet.com]
Level 7, another Canopy Group tentacle, sued CA and settled for $40 million. Check this line out: Level 7 didn't write its own software, it bought software, entered a contract with Computer Associates, and then turned around and sued them.
These aren't the death spasms of a dying company. It's actually the ordinary life cycle of a Canopy tentacle. The very name "The SCO Group" masks this, because it's associated with 20 years of Unix history.
___________________________
Below is a portion of an article from Forbes magazine; I bolded several sections.
In 1996, SCO's predecessor company, Caldera, bought the rights to a decrepit version of the DOS operating system and used it to sue Microsoft, eventually shaking a settlement out of the Redmond, Wash., software giant. In 1997, Darl McBride, now SCO's chief executive, sued his then employer, IKON Office Solutions, and won a settlement that he says was worth multiple millions. (IKON acknowledges the settlement but disputes the amount.)
McBride joined Caldera as chief executive in June 2002. Two months later he changed the company's name to The SCO Group, based on the name of an ailing Unix product that Caldera had purchased in 2001 from its creator, The Santa Cruz Operation, of Santa Cruz, Calif. The Santa Cruz Operation now calls itself Tarantella. As with the 1996 DOS lawsuit against Microsoft, in the current lawsuit over Unix and Linux this company aims to take a nearly dead chunk of old code, bought for a song, and parlay it into a windfall. Not only is the strategy the same--so are some of the players.
SCO is basically owned and run by The Canopy Group, a Utah firm with investments in dozens of companies. Canopy's chief executive, Ralph J. Yarro III, is chairman of SCO's board of directors and engineered the suit against Microsoft in 1996. Darcy Mott, Canopy's chief financial officer, is another SCO director, along with Thomas Raimondi, chief executive of a Canopy company called MTI Technology. In this cozy company, SCO even leases its office space from Canopy--a fact disclosed in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, along with the fact that SCO's chief financial officer, Robert Bench, has a side job as a partner in a Utah consulting firm that last year billed SCO for $71,200.
Canopy companies sometimes share more than a common parent. They form joint ventures and buy and sell one another's stock. Last November SCO formed a joint venture called Volution with Center 7, a Canopy company. In 2000, Caldera sold off part of its business to EBIZ Enterprises, a Texas company in which Canopy holds a controlling interest and whose board boasts three Canopy execs, including Mott, according to SEC filings. Previously, Caldera bought shares in two other Canopy companies, Troll Tech and Lineo, and later wrote off the Troll Tech investment but sold the Lineo shares at a profit, according to SEC filings. In 1999, Caldera sold its own shares to MTI, then bought those shares back last year, according to SEC filings.
Uhh... sour grapes about what, exactly? I left the firm because I found a better position, one that didn't require me to be on the road Sunday night through Thursday evening. In 15 years I've worked for 5 companies and one of my own, and I've never come across a policy as draconian as IBM's. If I spend time of my own working on an innovative concept using my own resources and in a field having nothing to do with that of my employer, then my employer should not force me to give it first right of refusal. I understand if the employer's primary business is general research, such as a university, but not otherwise.
I feel like I'm about to walk into a party, uninvited and carrying something that smells bad. Let me say first that I'm happy in my faith that IBM will someday mount Darl's head over the entrance to the executive restroom in Armonk.
This having been said, don't be too quick to embrace IBM as our savior. On my first day at IBM I had to sign away, as a condition of employment, any rights to anything that I might create at any time during my term of employment. If I came up with an innovative way to fold cardboard boxes while sitting at my kitchen table, I was required to present this to my functional manager. She would then pass this on to the proper deptartment, where the IP folks would decide if they wanted it or not. More than 2 hours were spent during orientation drilling us over the "no nonsense attitude" that IBM took concerning this.
This experience, and several other eye-openers that occurred before I quit, left no doubt in my mind that upper management at IBM would skin us all if they thought there was a profit to be made selling custom wet suits to China. We're watching SCO, a bottom-feeder, try it's best to parasite Linux. While IBM may stop SCO, let's not forget that IBM embraces the revenue from Linux as a substantial addition to it's bottom-line. IBM may or may not embrace the interests of the open source community quite as strongly....Those that make a lot of cash from something usually prefer to control it. I can't imagine how IBM could contrive to SCOrew the Linux community, but I -do- know that they would not hesitate the least little bit if they thought it necessary...and they've got the clout to do it right.
Re:Heres some evidence. To anyone who argued with
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
One article in the Washington Post is pretty thin supporting evidence, considering all of the broad, self-assured assertions that you have so confidently made.
Re:About the MRI and so called studies.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
> "The MRI stuff on children is useless students because a childs brain is still developing."...You have a veritable cornucopia of opinions presented as fact. Out of the 30 or 40 of these "factpinions", I've selected one above that could be easily supported with references to the studies backing your statement.
> "I did mine and can post up dozens of URLs if I need to which backs up every single statement or comment..."
O.K., I'll call you on it. If you want any credibility, back it up with your references.
You may want to look into Concerta- It's got a rather complex mechanism for releasing the ritalin over time (I took one apart after reading about it...It seems like I have to take -everything- apart). Anyway, I found that I would experience just under a 2 hour effective window with standard 5 or 10mg ritalin tabs, but one Concerta, at around 8am, did the trick until around 3:30 or so.
One other thing that had a very positive effect was Piracetam....My wife said the difference was like day and night. Anyway, Good Luck.
I was diagnosed with ADD quite a while ago, by several different doctors. It was amusing when the latest tried to "break it to me" with a long, gradual, build-up of a speech- It's nothing to be afraid of...It's going to be O.K.... I thought he was going to tell me I had freak'n cancer.
Anyway, I've had a lot of time for introspection about this. From reading, talking with other ADD types as well as a couple friends who are docs, I've come to believe that there might be several different types of ADD, each stemming from roughly the same basic biochemistry, yet each subtly different, somehow, in source & expression. This having been said, my point is that I believe ADD is relatively unique in it's manifestation and treatment for individuals. You have to be very proactive in seeking treatment(s) that work for you. Even more important, once you've found a treatment, you then have to work hard to dismantle the habits (usually bad ones) that you created in order to cope with the untreated condition- You know what I'm talking about.
For me, the chemicals to treat my condition include Concerta (Time-released Ritalin), Piracetam (Look it up...I get mine from InHome Health Services, and it is legal), and Vinpocetine. Again, this regimen was created over a number of years- I read incessantly, and carefully titrated doses of different prescription / non-prescription drugs up and down, while watching what they did to me- I also kept my doctor in the loop as a judgment sanity-check. PITA, yes, but it paid off. Don't forget to explore bio-feedback training; I've read some good (neutral and bad as well) things about it...it's worth looking into. Good Luck.
Here's a slice of DTV's strategy- They are basing much of their strategy on 18 USC Sections 2511 & 2512. The first punishes unauthorized viewing...Nobody thinks they have a leg to stand on here, for obvious reasons. 2512, on the other hand, gives them an advantage in that it punishes possession of a device if you know or have reason to know that 1) it's primarily useful to receive unauthorized satellite programming, and 2) that it came in the mail...!?!
There is also a difference between the programmers sold that handle DTV - type access cards and those that handle most all of the other types. You can't do much else with the DTV type; It's more or less useless with the bulk of the other types of smart cards.
I bought a card reader a couple years ago, farted around with it, looked at some of the code on my access card, lost interest & threw it in a drawer. I might be lazy, but It looked like too much of a pain in the ass to do anything worthwhile with it. I never considered myself a signal thief- I've been a DTV subscriber for nearly two years- I pay my bill on time, usually buy a couple ppv's each month. I received my second threat letter from DTV yesterday, complete with a copy of court docs. I have 10 days from the 27th to respond. The word is that you can do nothing and get nailed with a $10k default judgment, call the phone number on the letter and settle for 3 payments totaling $3500, or fight it in court. I looked around and found that most people are saying that they are paying these DTV assholes the $3500. I intend to fight it to the bitter end- From what I hear, this will cost me around $300-$500 in liar fees up front, with God knows how much later. I've got the cash and intend to not be an easy mark. I'm also making a miniscule gesture and moving to cable or dish network- Doesn't hurt DTV in the least, but it makes *me* feel better:-). I wish there *was* something that I *could* do (uuummmm...within the boundaries of state and federal law, of course...) that would produce, in the correct persons, the the feelings of my fist slowly rotating in their asses.
Microsoft has a history of resorting to it's bag of crappy tricks when dealing with products & services that have enough value to threaten the market share of it's own offerings. This behavior manifests itself very consistently- Consistently enough that tech companies should start using it as a metric. Hell- You could put it in your business plan as criteria for success: "... we will guage our product to be a success in the market place when the Microsoft Corporation has attempted to steal or destroy it...".
Opera ought to be congratulating itself on a job well done.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the government was for the people by the people. What a fucking joke.
No offense, but that's taking naivety awfully far.
The fourth branch of government, corporations and banks, swing as much power as any two of the other branches. Our government has faded from a bright, hopeful experiment to one bunch of people lording it over another bunch of people- Pretty much how most "governments" have always worked throughout history. The primary difference nowadays is that the dominant group has a historically unheard of technological advantage with which to distract the peons from that reality.
I have a "local expectation" that in a totalitarian state, there exists a reasonable chance that if they want him, he will eventually be identified, generic name or not.
>>"Kim Dong-cheol is a North Korean with 'a double life' Not anymore.
I thought they were just taking the long way around through our broken patent system.
There is someone, hidden from view, driving the parade float of American State, but who it actually is, and to whom they are accountable, is, and probably will always remain a question.
I'm not claiming any conspiracy nonsense, just saying that observation doesn't seem to support popular statements of belief regarding our political systems.
Sorry for the pessimism, but with an entire class of wealthy sociopaths such as the Koch brothers lurking about: >>As it grows, adapts and gradually proves itself, ... and is infiltrated, then subtly brought under the control of the powerful groups whose grip it was meant to loosen in the first place.
I propose that this is more a question of emotional intelligence rather than engineering skill. The question is: Do you want to get something into orbit, or feel good about sexy new innovations implemented into spacecraft design? I remember the argument I read in the 80's regarding using the Shuttle vs Large Soviet-type rockets to launch the components for the space station, that went something like this: If the goal is to get chunks of this thing into orbit, why build the most complicated machine known to man, with myriads of potential points of failure, when you can use something big and stupid to man-handle stuff into LEO? We all know which technology won that debate. It seems as if time and time again, in fields that employ marvelously skilled people, that the elegance of a solution trumps the reason for doing it in the first place, whether we're talking about rocket science or software.
...I'm gone for a day, and look what happens. Thanks for all the responses, everyone. This is exactly what I was hoping for when I first posted- You all are great.
...uh, sorry, it's sort of late, but you remember the movie "Powder" ? If not, order a copy from Amazon and watch it...You sound like you may be this guy's brother. :-)
Sure, some replies were crappy, but so what? Some of them presented a better set of facts than you managed to- And instead of rebutting with facts of your own, you instead got your whiny, "You're not going to have me to push around anymore" thang going.
Sorry (sort of) about the direct attack, but if you're going to open your mouth, especially around here, grow a pair and stand behind your verbage, pal.
Use the same sites that've been used to generate Flash Mobs to organize some small groups of people around the nation to stake out some CD outlets. It doesn't have to be some full blown "protest", we could walk around in front of the stores for just enough time to get the attention of CNN, or the local 10 O'Clock news, but in many different cities across the nation, and at the same time...Make sure that someone has a sign showing a RIAA dragging a 12 year-old girl by the scruff of the neck....
___________________________
Mec's post:
The SCO Group is not a real company. They are an operating tentacle of The Canopy Group. More news of interest: Computer Associates Agrees to a $40 million settlement [thestreet.com] Level 7, another Canopy Group tentacle, sued CA and settled for $40 million. Check this line out: Level 7 didn't write its own software, it bought software, entered a contract with Computer Associates, and then turned around and sued them.
These aren't the death spasms of a dying company. It's actually the ordinary life cycle of a Canopy tentacle. The very name "The SCO Group" masks this, because it's associated with 20 years of Unix history.
___________________________
Below is a portion of an article from Forbes magazine; I bolded several sections.
In 1996, SCO's predecessor company, Caldera, bought the rights to a decrepit version of the DOS operating system and used it to sue Microsoft, eventually shaking a settlement out of the Redmond, Wash., software giant. In 1997, Darl McBride, now SCO's chief executive, sued his then employer, IKON Office Solutions, and won a settlement that he says was worth multiple millions. (IKON acknowledges the settlement but disputes the amount.)
McBride joined Caldera as chief executive in June 2002. Two months later he changed the company's name to The SCO Group, based on the name of an ailing Unix product that Caldera had purchased in 2001 from its creator, The Santa Cruz Operation, of Santa Cruz, Calif. The Santa Cruz Operation now calls itself Tarantella. As with the 1996 DOS lawsuit against Microsoft, in the current lawsuit over Unix and Linux this company aims to take a nearly dead chunk of old code, bought for a song, and parlay it into a windfall. Not only is the strategy the same--so are some of the players.
SCO is basically owned and run by The Canopy Group, a Utah firm with investments in dozens of companies. Canopy's chief executive, Ralph J. Yarro III, is chairman of SCO's board of directors and engineered the suit against Microsoft in 1996. Darcy Mott, Canopy's chief financial officer, is another SCO director, along with Thomas Raimondi, chief executive of a Canopy company called MTI Technology. In this cozy company, SCO even leases its office space from Canopy--a fact disclosed in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, along with the fact that SCO's chief financial officer, Robert Bench, has a side job as a partner in a Utah consulting firm that last year billed SCO for $71,200.
Canopy companies sometimes share more than a common parent. They form joint ventures and buy and sell one another's stock. Last November SCO formed a joint venture called Volution with Center 7, a Canopy company. In 2000, Caldera sold off part of its business to EBIZ Enterprises, a Texas company in which Canopy holds a controlling interest and whose board boasts three Canopy execs, including Mott, according to SEC filings. Previously, Caldera bought shares in two other Canopy companies, Troll Tech and Lineo, and later wrote off the Troll Tech investment but sold the Lineo shares at a profit, according to SEC filings. In 1999, Caldera sold its own shares to MTI, then bought those shares back last year, according to SEC filings.
Reminds me of the aliens in "Independence Day".
Uhh... sour grapes about what, exactly? I left the firm because I found a better position, one that didn't require me to be on the road Sunday night through Thursday evening. In 15 years I've worked for 5 companies and one of my own, and I've never come across a policy as draconian as IBM's. If I spend time of my own working on an innovative concept using my own resources and in a field having nothing to do with that of my employer, then my employer should not force me to give it first right of refusal. I understand if the employer's primary business is general research, such as a university, but not otherwise.
This having been said, don't be too quick to embrace IBM as our savior. On my first day at IBM I had to sign away, as a condition of employment, any rights to anything that I might create at any time during my term of employment. If I came up with an innovative way to fold cardboard boxes while sitting at my kitchen table, I was required to present this to my functional manager. She would then pass this on to the proper deptartment, where the IP folks would decide if they wanted it or not. More than 2 hours were spent during orientation drilling us over the "no nonsense attitude" that IBM took concerning this.
This experience, and several other eye-openers that occurred before I quit, left no doubt in my mind that upper management at IBM would skin us all if they thought there was a profit to be made selling custom wet suits to China. We're watching SCO, a bottom-feeder, try it's best to parasite Linux. While IBM may stop SCO, let's not forget that IBM embraces the revenue from Linux as a substantial addition to it's bottom-line. IBM may or may not embrace the interests of the open source community quite as strongly....Those that make a lot of cash from something usually prefer to control it. I can't imagine how IBM could contrive to SCOrew the Linux community, but I -do- know that they would not hesitate the least little bit if they thought it necessary...and they've got the clout to do it right.
One article in the Washington Post is pretty thin supporting evidence, considering all of the broad, self-assured assertions that you have so confidently made.
> "The MRI stuff on children is useless students because a childs brain is still developing." ...You have a veritable cornucopia of opinions presented as fact. Out of the 30 or 40 of these "factpinions", I've selected one above that could be easily supported with references to the studies backing your statement.
> "I did mine and can post up dozens of URLs if I need to which backs up every single statement or comment..."
O.K., I'll call you on it. If you want any credibility, back it up with your references.
You may want to look into Concerta- It's got a rather complex mechanism for releasing the ritalin over time (I took one apart after reading about it...It seems like I have to take -everything- apart). Anyway, I found that I would experience just under a 2 hour effective window with standard 5 or 10mg ritalin tabs, but one Concerta, at around 8am, did the trick until around 3:30 or so. One other thing that had a very positive effect was Piracetam....My wife said the difference was like day and night. Anyway, Good Luck.
I was diagnosed with ADD quite a while ago, by several different doctors. It was amusing when the latest tried to "break it to me" with a long, gradual, build-up of a speech- It's nothing to be afraid of...It's going to be O.K. ... I thought he was going to tell me I had freak'n cancer.
Anyway, I've had a lot of time for introspection about this. From reading, talking with other ADD types as well as a couple friends who are docs, I've come to believe that there might be several different types of ADD, each stemming from roughly the same basic biochemistry, yet each subtly different, somehow, in source & expression. This having been said, my point is that I believe ADD is relatively unique in it's manifestation and treatment for individuals. You have to be very proactive in seeking treatment(s) that work for you. Even more important, once you've found a treatment, you then have to work hard to dismantle the habits (usually bad ones) that you created in order to cope with the untreated condition- You know what I'm talking about.
For me, the chemicals to treat my condition include Concerta (Time-released Ritalin), Piracetam (Look it up...I get mine from InHome Health Services, and it is legal), and Vinpocetine. Again, this regimen was created over a number of years- I read incessantly, and carefully titrated doses of different prescription / non-prescription drugs up and down, while watching what they did to me- I also kept my doctor in the loop as a judgment sanity-check. PITA, yes, but it paid off. Don't forget to explore bio-feedback training; I've read some good (neutral and bad as well) things about it...it's worth looking into. Good Luck.
Here's a slice of DTV's strategy- They are basing much of their strategy on 18 USC Sections 2511 & 2512. The first punishes unauthorized viewing...Nobody thinks they have a leg to stand on here, for obvious reasons. 2512, on the other hand, gives them an advantage in that it punishes possession of a device if you know or have reason to know that 1) it's primarily useful to receive unauthorized satellite programming, and 2) that it came in the mail ...!?!
There is also a difference between the programmers sold that handle DTV - type access cards and those that handle most all of the other types. You can't do much else with the DTV type; It's more or less useless with the bulk of the other types of smart cards.
"... bought a card reader a couple years ago,..."
I bought a card reader a couple years ago, farted around with it, looked at some of the code on my access card, lost interest & threw it in a drawer. I might be lazy, but It looked like too much of a pain in the ass to do anything worthwhile with it. I never considered myself a signal thief- I've been a DTV subscriber for nearly two years- I pay my bill on time, usually buy a couple ppv's each month. I received my second threat letter from DTV yesterday, complete with a copy of court docs. I have 10 days from the 27th to respond. The word is that you can do nothing and get nailed with a $10k default judgment, call the phone number on the letter and settle for 3 payments totaling $3500, or fight it in court. I looked around and found that most people are saying that they are paying these DTV assholes the $3500. I intend to fight it to the bitter end- From what I hear, this will cost me around $300-$500 in liar fees up front, with God knows how much later. I've got the cash and intend to not be an easy mark. I'm also making a miniscule gesture and moving to cable or dish network- Doesn't hurt DTV in the least, but it makes *me* feel better :-). I wish there *was* something that I *could* do (uuummmm...within the boundaries of state and federal law, of course...) that would produce, in the correct persons, the the feelings of my fist slowly rotating in their asses.
Microsoft has a history of resorting to it's bag of crappy tricks when dealing with products & services that have enough value to threaten the market share of it's own offerings. This behavior manifests itself very consistently- Consistently enough that tech companies should start using it as a metric. Hell- You could put it in your business plan as criteria for success: "... we will guage our product to be a success in the market place when the Microsoft Corporation has attempted to steal or destroy it...". Opera ought to be congratulating itself on a job well done.