My, you are rude. Just because something is in Wikipedia does not make it true. 6 years spent studying history, much of it Canadian history at the post secondary level ought to make me reasonably knowledgable on the topic. The links from Wiki are WRONG.
When he urged Congress not to ratify Kyoto, and when he pledged the US could never sign on to the program as long as China and India were not held to the same standards. Now that Bush is refusing something similar being proposed by the EU, the US and its administration are characterized as hidebound, etc. China is now poised to pass the US and the EU as the world's largest emittor of CO2, yet is still given a free ride under the current B.S. carbon regime. Oh, and until we can create a really big umbrella to shade the planet, we cannot stop it getting warmer. CO2 is a smokescreen engineered by back room boys at the UN to redistribute wealth as THEY see fit. Don't buy into the hype.
Actually, Hubbard was originally in Naval Intelligence. However, his performance was so desultory and poor, he was marked as not suitable for service in Intelligence, and transferred to the Pacific Fleet. His first command, a mine sweeper, was engaged in an "action" against a "Japanese" submarine shortly after being commissioned, and enroute to San Diego from Bremerton. No evidence was ever found. He was then marked as unsuitable for command of a minesweeper. Miraculously, in San Diego he somehow managed to be put in command of a Patrol Vessel. This did not last long either. After a day long exercise, he decided to engage in gunnery practice against Catalina Island. Unfortunately, this was in Mexican waters, and he was under orders to return to S.D. That very day. Soon after this incident, he was pretty much pegged as unsuitable for any sort of naval command, and was chasiered from that position. Not much later he wound up in a VA hospital undergoing psychiatric treatment. However, to hear the Scientologists tell it, Ron was some sort of God-like war hero who single handedly defeated the Impreial navy.
Let's compare. I live in Canada. I cannot carry a firearm, though if it were legal, I would choose to. Instead, I have to settle for a collapsible baton, for even pepper spray and mace are illegal here. That said, yes, we have fewer murders here. But we also have 10 percent of the population of the US. Also, when you look at all the other violent crimes, you are more likely to be a victim of assault, armed robbery, rape, and home in vaxion in Canada than the US. The difference per 100,000 is amazing. In the US, those class of crimes, which are more common than homicide, are about 4.6 per 100,000. In canada, it si 6 or more per 100,000. So, who is safer? Disarmed Canadians who have been hoodwinked by successive socialist governments, or Americans who still have a constituitional right to defend themselves? I won't give up, and I will continue to lobbty for my RIGHT to protect myself, and anyone I see in need. You may choose to believe the state can protect you, and that too is your right. Just kleep in mind that the average respnse time to a 911 call in any urban area is 18 minutes.
Im plementing stricter gun laws does nothing to prevent violent crime and victimization. It merely ensures that law abiding citizens are more likely to become victims. In the UK and Australia both, they have implemented near total bans on firearms. The govenrments in each country promised the people this was to make them safer. Unfortunately, the reverse is true. In both the UK and Australia the use of firearms by criminals has sky rocketed, armed robberies, assaults, and murders are all increasing, while the private citizen is tol they cannot use lethal force to protect themselves. Recently, it has come to light that many Britons are now smuggling in pistols from France in order to keep them in their homes, and protect themselves against home invasions, which have been increasing. this has thus turned normally law abiding people into criminals themselves. Where is the sense in that? Or consider jamaica, where no private citizen may own a firearm, on penalty of life imprisnment. 15,000 some odd murders in 2003, in a country of barely 2 million people. Disarming the people does not work.
You have every right not to want to carry. However, to say that the wapon would mor than likely be taken from you is inaccurate. In fact, the opposite would seem to be the case. In any given year the FBI estimates that there are 600,000 succesful defensive uses of a firearm, and most without lethal consequences. Furthermore, you need not spend your "whole life doing nothing but learning how to defend" yourself. The actual cost, and time required to learn both the practical uses of, and legal jusitication for using a firearm are suprisingly inexpensive, and don't require much time. As to the risk of the simple mugging turining into a lethal encounter, that is hard to say. However would you rather be beaten or stabbed for your precious iPod, or anything else, or walk away unharmed? Finally, to the Lord of the Rings fan who said he would rather use something that requires skill, like a sword, he has obviously never used a firearm. And should he encounter someone with a firearm, and shooe to use a sword, he best pray he is insidee the "magic zone" of 21 feet, lest he wind up shot. Some of you may not wish to carry, and that is your right. But to say no one should is to argue we all ought to be hapless victims. I choose to demand the right that I be permitteed to defend myself, if the need arises.
Even wiht cell phone video and stills, the police cannot respond fast enough to prevent an unarmed person from becoming a victim, and a statistic. We should all have the unrestrained right to defend ourselves, and go out strapped. Just showing a potential attacker that you are carying on your belt is enough to make him melt away.
I find it ludicrous that the US Government has made online gaming illegal. The only rational answer to this is that the corporations that now run Vegas feared competition from a new player running on a medium that did not require its players to fly to vegas, pay for a hotel, and sit in a highly controlled envirnment. Why else ban joe six pack from sitting at home and playing online poker?
Oprah, lawyers, and socialists have all been telling us for years that everyone is a victim of something, and someone must pay. Because MySpace let the girl use its service, and let a person they ought to have known would turn out to be a rapist use their service, the girl is ENTITLED to compensation. To think otherwise is mere silliness.
17% itself would be respectable. However, when you read the article, it also states that the year previous, 25% of respondents were using Linux. That means usage in the embedded space is falling, and doing so at a rather dramatic rate. That, and 66% saying they were not using it, nor expected to use it in the forseeable future paints a bleak picture for Linux in the embedded space for the immediate future.
Hey, grief can do strange things. While I agree that blaming the child's death WoW makes no sense, the parents are grasping for answers. Sure, we can sit back in our armchairs, and ridicule them, accuse them of being bad parents, and in general find ways to lay the blame on them. However, imagine what they are going through. They lost their son, and are seeking meaning. The person we ought to be reserving our anger for is the so called "anti internet activist". Here he comes, and sooths the parents, saying it is not your fault, it is that evil internet, and you can make them pay for what they did to your son. I imagine the parents are not too familiar with the net, so they, their judgement clouded by guilt, sadness, disbelief and anger, accept what this guy says, and they become pawns in HIS crusade. Remember Columbine? It was not that long ago that seemingly intelligent aduylts blamed death metal and FPS games as part of the cause of the massacre. It doesn't make sense to those of us looking in from outside, but it does happen. People always seek reasons why their loved ones die.
What a quaint story. It was an interesting read, and the Doctor did a good job of cobbling together some related, and disparate technologies. However, it is going to be somewhat limited in it's use. PACS (Picture Archiving and Communications Systems) are wear the real work is unfolding in medical imaging. I work in the field. We provide practioners access to evbery image through dedicateed workstations, and web clients. We store, index, and backup all the images and data. This cute little gizmo will not displace PACS. Oh, and it will likely NEVER be used for diagnostic reading. Why? There are stringent regulatory requirements for image interpretation, image display, etc. No iPod will ever clear that, and Osirix will not, as a reader, either. Why? Too darned expensive for the two docs who created Osirix to clear those hurdles in EERY country in which they would expect that software to be used. So, neat little "Oh look what you can do with an iPod" story, but I do not expect it to gain significant ground in medical imaging.
While I may not agree with much of what ICANN has done, I fear UN control of the net much more. What was it Ms. Reding said? Not so much control, but ' "model of cooperation", of an international forum to discuss the internet.'. Yes, the famous "model of cooperation" that has crippled the UN for years. Remember, we are talking of the same organization that put Libya in charge of the UN human rights organizations. The same UN that is run by a crooked family business that pirated funds away fro the so called "Oil for Food" program in Iraq. The same UN that stood idly by in both Bosnia and Rwanda while attrocities were committed. The article then goes on to claim China, Iran, Brazil and a lot of African countries want more control. Of course they do. They want to rope off their own neck of the woods and supress true free speach within their countries. I say $2#** the UN.
Well, to all the people here who have been jumping down Mr. Malcom's throat, groklaw.net has an excellent article here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508160 92029989 that explains precisely why a trademark is being filed. Seems that most of the flames here on this topic have been morbidly misinformed. Alas, I have come to expect this often here.
Asking Sun to GPL SOlaris will never fly. Why? Even if they wanted to, they couldn't, as Solaris is basically an System V release, and we know how SCO feels about GPL, Linux, and so called leaking of SVRx code into Linux. Sun is a licencee, and if they did release the kernel code, they would be hooped. Same goes for HP with HP-UX, and IBM with AIX. Until the SVR code is GPL'd, no Unix based on SVR will every be GPL'd, regardless of who actually owns the copyright to the code.
Having read the article, and several of the replies here, the conclusion I came to si that Google got pissy when cnet called them onto the carpet. All cnet did was show that there are, indeed, valid privacy concerns. Google reacted like a spoiled child, basically saying you can't come to my party because you looked at me funny.
Zdnet's reply is, frankly, a good riposte to Google's petulant response to the cnet article. Rather than deal with the concerns raised in the article, and explain how, or if they intend to act as trustworthy guardians of our information, Google threw a hissy fit. Damned nice response, guys.
Information cannot "want" anything. Information is a conctruct, and has no attributes of its own. There is only that which WE, as individuals, or a collective, want FOR information. The statement "Information wants to be free" is not much more than propoganda. Really, when someone says that, what they acutally mean is "I want this information to be free, but it is not, so it should be. Why? Because I want it to be." Now, if we were to take the rallying cry literally, we could never impose upon our personal information any caveats or restrictions at all. However, what we have to recognoze is that some people want some information to be free, espeically source code to programs that they feel should not be closed, proprietary source, and that some information must be kept secret.
I was listening to the local talk radio here on the way to work, and they had a union rep, and a Telus rep on the line to discuss this. Evidently, Telus elected to block the page due to the union showing union members and contract workers who crossed the picket line on the web page. Since then, that content has apparently been taken down. Telus claims they took the action to protect the privacy of what it says are the 50% of the union members who showed up to work today. If in fact the union had been showing the faces of members who showed up for work, then I would say Telus did the right thing. Anyhow, you can still see the page on Telus's network as it has been proxied by someone. This is just part of a 4 year pissing match between management and the union. And believe me, both sides are equally F***** up, and intransigent.
Slashdot Mirror
My, you are rude. Just because something is in Wikipedia does not make it true. 6 years spent studying history, much of it Canadian history at the post secondary level ought to make me reasonably knowledgable on the topic. The links from Wiki are WRONG.
When he urged Congress not to ratify Kyoto, and when he pledged the US could never sign on to the program as long as China and India were not held to the same standards. Now that Bush is refusing something similar being proposed by the EU, the US and its administration are characterized as hidebound, etc. China is now poised to pass the US and the EU as the world's largest emittor of CO2, yet is still given a free ride under the current B.S. carbon regime. Oh, and until we can create a really big umbrella to shade the planet, we cannot stop it getting warmer. CO2 is a smokescreen engineered by back room boys at the UN to redistribute wealth as THEY see fit. Don't buy into the hype.
Well, at the time, it was called New France, and not Canada.
Actually, Hubbard was originally in Naval Intelligence. However, his performance was so desultory and poor, he was marked as not suitable for service in Intelligence, and transferred to the Pacific Fleet. His first command, a mine sweeper, was engaged in an "action" against a "Japanese" submarine shortly after being commissioned, and enroute to San Diego from Bremerton. No evidence was ever found. He was then marked as unsuitable for command of a minesweeper. Miraculously, in San Diego he somehow managed to be put in command of a Patrol Vessel. This did not last long either. After a day long exercise, he decided to engage in gunnery practice against Catalina Island. Unfortunately, this was in Mexican waters, and he was under orders to return to S.D. That very day. Soon after this incident, he was pretty much pegged as unsuitable for any sort of naval command, and was chasiered from that position. Not much later he wound up in a VA hospital undergoing psychiatric treatment. However, to hear the Scientologists tell it, Ron was some sort of God-like war hero who single handedly defeated the Impreial navy.
Here's an idea http://www.getafirstlife.com/
What, praytell is denial spam? Do you mean that anyone who questions the validity of the IPCC and its reports is engaging in denial spam?
Let's compare. I live in Canada. I cannot carry a firearm, though if it were legal, I would choose to. Instead, I have to settle for a collapsible baton, for even pepper spray and mace are illegal here. That said, yes, we have fewer murders here. But we also have 10 percent of the population of the US. Also, when you look at all the other violent crimes, you are more likely to be a victim of assault, armed robbery, rape, and home in vaxion in Canada than the US. The difference per 100,000 is amazing. In the US, those class of crimes, which are more common than homicide, are about 4.6 per 100,000. In canada, it si 6 or more per 100,000. So, who is safer? Disarmed Canadians who have been hoodwinked by successive socialist governments, or Americans who still have a constituitional right to defend themselves? I won't give up, and I will continue to lobbty for my RIGHT to protect myself, and anyone I see in need. You may choose to believe the state can protect you, and that too is your right. Just kleep in mind that the average respnse time to a 911 call in any urban area is 18 minutes.
Im plementing stricter gun laws does nothing to prevent violent crime and victimization. It merely ensures that law abiding citizens are more likely to become victims. In the UK and Australia both, they have implemented near total bans on firearms. The govenrments in each country promised the people this was to make them safer. Unfortunately, the reverse is true. In both the UK and Australia the use of firearms by criminals has sky rocketed, armed robberies, assaults, and murders are all increasing, while the private citizen is tol they cannot use lethal force to protect themselves. Recently, it has come to light that many Britons are now smuggling in pistols from France in order to keep them in their homes, and protect themselves against home invasions, which have been increasing. this has thus turned normally law abiding people into criminals themselves. Where is the sense in that? Or consider jamaica, where no private citizen may own a firearm, on penalty of life imprisnment. 15,000 some odd murders in 2003, in a country of barely 2 million people. Disarming the people does not work.
Is that your idea of a witty retort?
You have every right not to want to carry. However, to say that the wapon would mor than likely be taken from you is inaccurate. In fact, the opposite would seem to be the case. In any given year the FBI estimates that there are 600,000 succesful defensive uses of a firearm, and most without lethal consequences. Furthermore, you need not spend your "whole life doing nothing but learning how to defend" yourself. The actual cost, and time required to learn both the practical uses of, and legal jusitication for using a firearm are suprisingly inexpensive, and don't require much time. As to the risk of the simple mugging turining into a lethal encounter, that is hard to say. However would you rather be beaten or stabbed for your precious iPod, or anything else, or walk away unharmed? Finally, to the Lord of the Rings fan who said he would rather use something that requires skill, like a sword, he has obviously never used a firearm. And should he encounter someone with a firearm, and shooe to use a sword, he best pray he is insidee the "magic zone" of 21 feet, lest he wind up shot. Some of you may not wish to carry, and that is your right. But to say no one should is to argue we all ought to be hapless victims. I choose to demand the right that I be permitteed to defend myself, if the need arises.
Even wiht cell phone video and stills, the police cannot respond fast enough to prevent an unarmed person from becoming a victim, and a statistic. We should all have the unrestrained right to defend ourselves, and go out strapped. Just showing a potential attacker that you are carying on your belt is enough to make him melt away.
I find it ludicrous that the US Government has made online gaming illegal. The only rational answer to this is that the corporations that now run Vegas feared competition from a new player running on a medium that did not require its players to fly to vegas, pay for a hotel, and sit in a highly controlled envirnment. Why else ban joe six pack from sitting at home and playing online poker?
Oprah, lawyers, and socialists have all been telling us for years that everyone is a victim of something, and someone must pay. Because MySpace let the girl use its service, and let a person they ought to have known would turn out to be a rapist use their service, the girl is ENTITLED to compensation. To think otherwise is mere silliness.
17% itself would be respectable. However, when you read the article, it also states that the year previous, 25% of respondents were using Linux. That means usage in the embedded space is falling, and doing so at a rather dramatic rate. That, and 66% saying they were not using it, nor expected to use it in the forseeable future paints a bleak picture for Linux in the embedded space for the immediate future.
If Dell has bought them, it will sound the death toll for them. Dell sucks. Always has, always will.
I see a judge hauling Diebold back into court, and refining his order to clarify it...so that the numbskulls at Diebold cannot obfuscate any longer.
Hey, grief can do strange things. While I agree that blaming the child's death WoW makes no sense, the parents are grasping for answers. Sure, we can sit back in our armchairs, and ridicule them, accuse them of being bad parents, and in general find ways to lay the blame on them. However, imagine what they are going through. They lost their son, and are seeking meaning. The person we ought to be reserving our anger for is the so called "anti internet activist". Here he comes, and sooths the parents, saying it is not your fault, it is that evil internet, and you can make them pay for what they did to your son. I imagine the parents are not too familiar with the net, so they, their judgement clouded by guilt, sadness, disbelief and anger, accept what this guy says, and they become pawns in HIS crusade. Remember Columbine? It was not that long ago that seemingly intelligent aduylts blamed death metal and FPS games as part of the cause of the massacre. It doesn't make sense to those of us looking in from outside, but it does happen. People always seek reasons why their loved ones die.
What a quaint story. It was an interesting read, and the Doctor did a good job of cobbling together some related, and disparate technologies. However, it is going to be somewhat limited in it's use. PACS (Picture Archiving and Communications Systems) are wear the real work is unfolding in medical imaging. I work in the field. We provide practioners access to evbery image through dedicateed workstations, and web clients. We store, index, and backup all the images and data. This cute little gizmo will not displace PACS. Oh, and it will likely NEVER be used for diagnostic reading. Why? There are stringent regulatory requirements for image interpretation, image display, etc. No iPod will ever clear that, and Osirix will not, as a reader, either. Why? Too darned expensive for the two docs who created Osirix to clear those hurdles in EERY country in which they would expect that software to be used. So, neat little "Oh look what you can do with an iPod" story, but I do not expect it to gain significant ground in medical imaging.
While I may not agree with much of what ICANN has done, I fear UN control of the net much more. What was it Ms. Reding said? Not so much control, but ' "model of cooperation", of an international forum to discuss the internet.'. Yes, the famous "model of cooperation" that has crippled the UN for years. Remember, we are talking of the same organization that put Libya in charge of the UN human rights organizations. The same UN that is run by a crooked family business that pirated funds away fro the so called "Oil for Food" program in Iraq. The same UN that stood idly by in both Bosnia and Rwanda while attrocities were committed. The article then goes on to claim China, Iran, Brazil and a lot of African countries want more control. Of course they do. They want to rope off their own neck of the woods and supress true free speach within their countries. I say $2#** the UN.
Well, to all the people here who have been jumping down Mr. Malcom's throat, groklaw.net has an excellent article here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200508160 92029989 that explains precisely why a trademark is being filed. Seems that most of the flames here on this topic have been morbidly misinformed. Alas, I have come to expect this often here.
Asking Sun to GPL SOlaris will never fly. Why? Even if they wanted to, they couldn't, as Solaris is basically an System V release, and we know how SCO feels about GPL, Linux, and so called leaking of SVRx code into Linux. Sun is a licencee, and if they did release the kernel code, they would be hooped. Same goes for HP with HP-UX, and IBM with AIX. Until the SVR code is GPL'd, no Unix based on SVR will every be GPL'd, regardless of who actually owns the copyright to the code.
Having read the article, and several of the replies here, the conclusion I came to si that Google got pissy when cnet called them onto the carpet. All cnet did was show that there are, indeed, valid privacy concerns. Google reacted like a spoiled child, basically saying you can't come to my party because you looked at me funny. Zdnet's reply is, frankly, a good riposte to Google's petulant response to the cnet article. Rather than deal with the concerns raised in the article, and explain how, or if they intend to act as trustworthy guardians of our information, Google threw a hissy fit. Damned nice response, guys.
Information cannot "want" anything. Information is a conctruct, and has no attributes of its own. There is only that which WE, as individuals, or a collective, want FOR information. The statement "Information wants to be free" is not much more than propoganda. Really, when someone says that, what they acutally mean is "I want this information to be free, but it is not, so it should be. Why? Because I want it to be." Now, if we were to take the rallying cry literally, we could never impose upon our personal information any caveats or restrictions at all. However, what we have to recognoze is that some people want some information to be free, espeically source code to programs that they feel should not be closed, proprietary source, and that some information must be kept secret.
I was listening to the local talk radio here on the way to work, and they had a union rep, and a Telus rep on the line to discuss this. Evidently, Telus elected to block the page due to the union showing union members and contract workers who crossed the picket line on the web page. Since then, that content has apparently been taken down. Telus claims they took the action to protect the privacy of what it says are the 50% of the union members who showed up to work today. If in fact the union had been showing the faces of members who showed up for work, then I would say Telus did the right thing. Anyhow, you can still see the page on Telus's network as it has been proxied by someone. This is just part of a 4 year pissing match between management and the union. And believe me, both sides are equally F***** up, and intransigent.
OOPs. Last post was meant to be nested under MinstrelBoy, and for some reason I am not able to change it. Sorry.