I bought a candy-bar yesterday. Obviously, I should have donated that money to charity instead, right?
You guys are completely missing the point. But then again, that is what happens when you suggest that a mediocre TV isn't worth the money and that the money will be put to better use elsewhere. Forgive my insensativity, but I didn't mean to step on the toes of a cult.
Live long and prosper. 'ie [a] [waste] hvaedroalh [a] [human] d'aer
I could get in a pissing match and tell the world how much time and money I have donated to humanitarian projects over the last year. I could tell you about how I gave over two years bettering the lives of my fellow man. But I won't.
My point is merely why are people organizing and launching a campaign for a cause that, in the long run is trivial. I am not belittling people who go to the movies, or buy things that provide them utility. I am however question why people organize and raise money to save a TV show. People with organization skills to raise money for the purpouse saving a TV show are the people that should be raising money for humanitarian aide. I don't need to say much on the issue -- raising money to save a TV show comments both on the role of TV in our society and also on American Culture. You don't have to be a liberal to see it.
Wow...raising money to save a TV show? Forgive the cynnism, but, you would think they could put the money to better use than saving a mediocre TV show. How many real problems are worthy of our money? As of writing this they raised $4,940.48. With one guy pledging $1,000. Worse yet they want $14,700 to run an ad in a paper. But don't worry, "Funds collected in excess of cost will be donated to the victims of the devastating tsunami in South Asia via UNICEF, CARE, Save The Children or American Red Cross on behalf of Star Trek Enterprise." . Wow. That is all I have to say. Wow.
From the article: "The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority."
I don't know about your high school experience, but when I was in HS seven years ago, I was not afforded anything in terms of rights. The interesting thing was they would preach to us for a week on "Student Rights and Responsabilities" in order to cover their butts. As I recall we did not enjoy free speech (no, I am not saying that I was trying to get up and preach on the tables of the lunch room. There was strong censorship in our assignments about what we could right about. When it came to classroom discussion on political ideas, I was censored multiple times by a teacher. Anything a student might want to distribute required administration aproval, and they never approved anything except for student elections.), free expression (although not me, where of straight black was strictly prohibited), and even free assembly (the clubs had to recieve school board approval, and a group that had any sort of semblence of leadership and a cause is considered a club. With out offical sanctions, it would lead to censorship) was restricted.
The interesting thing is the balance and the role of what school systems are supposed to accomplish. Part of that goal is for the school systems to provide political education -- schools are considered the primary source of teaching citizenship and to acclimate them to the social norms of politics. When the school system teaches you by example that repression, although well meaning, is acceptable for one thing, it teaches it is acceptable for other things. If you teach people that repressing one freedom, ie censoring student writings, is acceptable to prevent indecent material from propagating through the school, it is easy to follow that people will think that it is acceptable to supress free speech in the name of "Homeland Security."
It is something that has been debated for a long time -- how much "freedom" do you allow students in High School? Do you suspend the First Amendment while they are in their High School years, restrict them or let them excerise them. My personal feeling as to the reason that they are able to get away with it, is because High School students, generally speaking are unable to effectively fight the system -- they don't have money, and few parents care if Little Jimmy can't write about something or express himself.
Agreed. This is something that I have a big problem with -- staggered ages of majority. When you reach 18 then you can smoke and vote. You can also do somethings with out the consent of your parents -- if you still in high school, even though you're legally an adult, you are not recognized as an adult by the school systems. Then you can't drink until 21. Which, in my mind is morally wrong (BTW, this is just out of principle, not practice. I don't drink, never have, and never will). If you are expected to maintain the responsabilities of a citizen, but you don't enjoy all the privelages of citizenship (and you haven't done anything to have those privelages revoked) then that is a social injustice. I am way past the ages of majority and still feel that we should give full rights to those reaching the age of 18. Laws should happen that at the age of 18 you enjoy full majority rights, or 21. Not 18, 21, and then 24. Else, the laws regarding responsability and liability should reflect the different ages of majority.
Actually, I am not a moral relativists -- I believe in inherent rights of man, and I believe that Truth is Truth regardless of what you believe. Morality has absolutely no bearing in any of my statements.
The sum of my position is simply that of a neo-classical liberal: the rights of individual freedom are paramount. However, I don't believe that anyone has the right to force their views on another in any way. Since some people don't share our view point of basic human rights, it is wrong to force another on that view point. Frankly, the view point of China and the actions of its Government are reprehensable, wrong, and it should not be. My position is that we have no right to force our beliefs on another country unless that countries views and actions are direct threat to us.
Good research. However, the Declaration of Human Rights is not a document that binds -- it is not a treaty. Furthermore "the United Nations may not interfere in the domestic affairs of any state." The UN is "bound" to respect soviergn issues unless those issues leak out of the boarders of those nations. The UN can complain, but can not intervien.
Saying this is like saying, "If you don't like Nazi Germany, just don't go there."
Why would you voluntarily choose to go to a country that does not value the same rights you do. If you are going for employment than it means that you value econmic benefit more than rights.
The "Rights of Man" are a culturally defined idea. Just because we have rights, doesn't give us the rights to force them on others. The Laissez Faire attitude that you are complaining about is just about allowing a people the Right of Self-determination -- which is a basic human right. The Chinese must decide that they want the right of self-determination enough to take it. Otherwise attempting to force that right, and other human rights on the Chinese will proof to be ineffecitve. You can't force a people to be free -- it isn't freedom, but another form of slavery. Forcing someone to an ideal that may be accpeted in Western Civilization on another country is no more acceptable than forcing Communism on us. The Soviets and the United States fought hard to keep each other's differing world views out of their countries.
But based on your comments, then I would have to say that you support cultural imperialism. On your arguments, then the war in Iraq is justified. The war in Korea, too. In fact, any war that results in a "democratic" country is justified.
Somehow I don't think it's wise to do such circumvention if you want to stay there short-term/long-term/permanently. If you engage in that sort of thing, then you are pretty much accepting that sort of relationship. The question is whether your deported immediately, held for a time, then deported, or put in prision for a long-time.
What I think people need to get past is the idea that their political culture and ideas are both acceptable and compatiable with other cultures. The United States and other western countries all have very incompatable world views when it comes countries like China. The only reason that the United States and China can get along is due to the trade relationship.
There is only one place in China that you enjoy the freedoms that your looking for -- Hong Kong. When China assumed ownership of Hong Kong there were fears that the financial strength of the former British colony would suffer. Hong Kong was granted certain freedoms that the rest of China does not enjoy.
However, when traveling to another country you must RESPECT that country. You are a guest, just as your a guest in someone's home. Failure to obey the rules of that country is rude, inconsiderate and frankly, you deserve whatever punishment is given for violations. It is arrogent to assume that you have the same rights and priveleages that you enjoy here in another country. Further, if you really want to enjoy such privelages, then stay. Part of leaving for that job is the cost of losing some of your freedoms. And just because your a citizen of XXXXXX doesn't mean that your country will bail you out in the event of a problem.
Re:Important points of a good manager
on
Geeks in Management?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Agreed. Obviously, unlike other posters, you have had the opportunity to lead. Some people are total jerks when they lead. It is easier to follow a leader than a manager. And if you must, be a managing leader. The interesting thing is that people misdefine leadership. True leadership is the capacity to build those around you, and to have people strive to become better. A good manager is a good leader.
Secondly, I am a huge fan of defending your people. At work I am a jealous defender of my people. When people sense and see your loyalty to them, then they are more likely to perform.
People are also an asset. The goal of managment is to get people to perform. Those doing the work are the people that are likely to come up with the ideas that help you. Create an enviroment that allows for effective communication. Something that I had to learn the hard way was taking feedback. Sometimes a worker will tell you that you aren't doing the job right -- allow them the opportunity to tell you that you suck. Don't allow them to walk all over you, but take their opinion, and when warented, make changes.
Empower your people. Allow them the opportunity to succeed. This also creates the opportunity to fail. But realize that allowing the opportunity for failure and success can yield rewards that will get you noticed. Don't be afraid of the guys under you looking good. If they look good, your leadership will be noticed.
Finally, you never hear in business that so-and-so are good managers. You usually hear that they are good leaders. Hardly do people get promoted on management potential than proven leadership skills. Remember, leadership is the capacity to build those around you.
Although there is much good done by the Gates Foundation to state that the overall effect of his wealth is good, is a fallacy. Just because he betters the lives of people with his money, doesn't mean that you should overlook the net effect of what bad has been done in the acquisition of that wealth.
An interesting thing, since people have been quoting Machiavelli is the story of the Medici family. The short of it is, the Medici family, was incrediably wealthy, but was not royalty. Through the spending of wealth, the Medici family was able to become the most powerful family in all of Florance. The family used wealth only to their advantage while at the same time ruthlessly cutting down their oppopenants.
Since the Machiavelli quote has been brought in, you have to ask the question of what is the purpouse of this donation? Is it being used to enhance the lives of millions, or is it a tax write-off and a publicity?
My personal opinion on the subject is that we should neither say it is good or bad. In judging whether is something good or bad, you have to have the knowledge of how and why the decision was made. Since we neither have all the information, and we don't know what was the motivation for it, making judgment calls can't be done with any accuracy.
For those of us in the laptop market, which one do we buy? I have been looking at the Centrino, P4, the AMD Athlon XP-M and the AMD 64. But the problem is, I can't figure out which one I want. I _think_ that I want AMD, but I am unsure about whether I want a XP-M or and AMD64. Can some explain what an IS major who wants to use the thing for programming and a little mobility would want? Does anyone know of a good site that compares the four in performance?
"or are they just leaping upon the nearest bandwagon in pursuit of a few extra bucks?"
Now that is just an unfair spin -- after Slashdot ran a story about Intel's reluctance to support Centrino for BSD, this just appears to be a case of advocacy working. The story was a couple months back on the BSD's and their effort to get Centrino support. There was even a some information on how to bother Intel to get the support. I personally sent an email to at least ten of the Intel people on the subject. So instead of trying to spin this as Intel trying to make an extra buck, we should be celebrating a win for the open source community.
On a side note -- of course they did this to earn a buck. Why else would they do it -- just out of the goodness of their heart. They are a hardware vendor and do what is in the best interest of earning money. But the cynical light in which the comment was given is inappropraite. Because we like free software so much, we are in a different paradigm of economic thought. We think economically in terms of value while Intel thinks in terms of money. Intel gains very little by giving software and ideas away; IBM gains a lot since they offer support for the product. So the only thing that we have that Intel wants is our money. And that is generally true for every corparation. So whether or not this is a philisophical shift is moot -- we vote with our dollars and if the philisophy of the consumer is X and is willing to vote for X with the dollar, then the producer is going to adopt X if it produces the money it wants. Those of us in the open source community, users and developers alike need to be understanding of our philisophical positions and what it means for companies. Just because we don't think that software should have a cost, doesn't mean that we should be cynical jerks about some company filling our demand for a product.
However, in areas, i.e. apartment buildings, this paint would be extremely useful. In some apartment buildings there are too many WiFi access points. A paint like this could help people to prevent problems with comflicting signals -- in otherwords you keep your signal in, but you can also keep other signals out, thus reducing interference. The paint has far more implicications in protecting wireless technologies as well as keeping wireless out. University testing centers could use it to insulate a room against radio signals without using jamming equipement. Hospitals could use it to prevent signals from interfering with sensative medical equipment. The government applications are endless -- paint an embassy with the stuff, and you prevent foriegn signal intellegence from happening. If someone thought a place was bugged, they could simply paint the room and place some film on the windows. So while encryption is a smart way to go, it allows people the security of wires with out having the wires and can put borders on signals. My only question is what about the carpet -- say an apartment complex? You can't paint the carpet, so the leak goes through the floor. Does that mean that your downstairs neighbor gets to enjoy a really strong signal?
You're right -- but what they can do is agree to a non-punitive settlement: they let him admit guilt and then enter into a agreement. Something along the lines of turn in anyone that you know is trading Mac software, and then if you do it again then agree to pay so much money. The advantage to it is that Mac gets the good publicity of not burying some med-student and having a forgiving heart, yet they will still have the teeth to protect their intellectual property and trade secrets. Mac fans are usually extremely loyal; Mac has it's own software culture. Even in the Windows culture, Macs are know to be user friendly and stable. So why not capitalize on that image by being a friendly company to a repentent sinner? With a little cleaver legal manuevuering, Apple could walk away looking good and the kid could be pardoned. But that is if they want to. Apple doesn't need, and hopefully doesn't want to look like RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft/BSA, et al.
Normally I don't waste my time on AC's -- but something that needs to be understood: democracy and culture are inseprable. The reason that democracies rise is the result of the culture of that democracy. The term democracy is also very loosely used. For example, the United States is actually a Constitutional republic that uses the principles of democracy. We call it democratic because our culture defines it as democratic. But if you compare American democracy to British, they are very, very different. Democracy can only flurish in a culture that both values it and understands the implications of it. Same is true for freedom (people tend to lump freedom and democracy as being the same word, but they are extremely different: you can be in a democracy and not be free). Right now there are clerics that are telling people to boycott the elections -- they feel that if enough people boycott the elections then the elections will be illegitamate. In our minds we look at it and say that by not voting they have excercised their vote. Not in their cultural mind -- it is a protest of the whole process. There has never been a democracy in that part of the world. It is a first time endevuer. Right now Political Commentators and Scientists are talking about civil war. The question is not if, but when the country will be in civil war. So before we go around claiming a victory or stating a failure happened we need to understand the culture of the area and then we need to watch. We don't know enough to say whether or not it will work. It is not freedom when freedom is imposed. Freedom is something that is earned, bought and fought for. Otherwise people don't realize what they have. Iraq may or may not relize what they have, or can have. And if they don't relize it, then the pervasive culture of tyranny will come back, just in a different person or group or form.
This whole TC computer thing is interesting. What is more interesting is the FOSS movement is lamenting it. As FOSS becomes more and more prominent, then the TC computing thing will have to adapt. If businesses are using Linux, BSD, Solaris, MacOSX for web serving then why would they bend over and adopt TC platforms in favor of the solution that they are currently employing. We are saying that we are likely to be forced into a propritory OS, when businesses are going to say the same thing -- except they are going to scream louder. With a business if they are going to upgrade a few computers, and then find out that they have to upgrade all the computers just to have inter-office operbility they are not going to fly with it. The home consumer may groan about it, but they are really going to wig out when they can't email a picture to a friend using an older computer. I think that we are placing too much stress on the whole DRM thing -- because it will become unpopular. I don't think that people will just accept it. And since we tend to vote on things with dollars, the message will be clear. Also, you can gaurentee the DOJ won't let TC become the reality they are pushing for. If the TC people try to exclude Mac and all the FOSS OS's you can bet that DOJ will push for anti-trust issues. The thing that will happen is that TC will have to be ported over to the other operating systems. The anti-trust issues would be amazing -- there would be charges of collusion and unfair business practices especailly if the FOSS and Mac OS's were left out. It may be the direction that some industries want, but when the people making hardware purchasing decisions for companies, and when the government sees the cost of this attempt, they will step in. Imagine the outcry when a University with library of 300 computers, finds out that in order to upgrade its 50 oldest computers, has to upgrade all 300. Or a government agency finds out that to upgrade some department will have to upgrade the entire agency -- just for the ability to share documents. I'm interested to see the demand for this sort of thing. My guess is that it will go over as well as the Windows Media Center PC thing.
The big problem is getting to work on a browser. That the main reason that I don't surf the web in FreeBSD -- getting a Java plugin to work is less fun than going over to the dentist. And I hate the dentist.
Yeah, can you imagine the problems that would happen with self-aware Sims? You would have your own cult of Sims worshipping you. Everytime you would open the Sims, they would praise you and beg for your benevolence or beg that your menevolence would be adverted. That could be a fun, yet cruel game. It could be called Sim God. If only AI tech was that advanced. I would buy a game where I could tinker with the lives of a self-aware AI....muhahaha
I have fixed many computers with NAV -- in fact most of the time I end up demoting the machines that I fix from NAV200X with Spyware blocker because it slows the system down and doesn't work all that well. Since my school sells NAV Corp 2005 for $3 to students, I just get them to buy a copy and then install it. Throw in Firefox, install SP2, enable the firewall, and update, and I don't have problems with the computer. I think that relying to heavily on one product or another is where the problems begin. When you have one product that you _think_ works then you develop a false sense of security. My method is to employ several different products/tools that are in some cases redundant. If spyware has to jump over three walls, it is a whole lot better than one wall. Besides it is harder to figure out how to bypass several products than it is to bypass one -- if I were a spyware maker, I would purpously target NAV2005 with Spyware blocker and other commercial products.
Perhaps the next anti-spam law should include a provision that people that engage in spamming activites and are convicted are to be excluded from using the internet anything other than personal reasons; if your a spammer and caught you can only use the internet for paying your bills, surfing the internet, etc, but if you use the internet for business purpouses, then your committed a felony and get to become Bubba's Butt Buddy -- again. Also make it part of the sentencing that those convicted can not engage in consoltations or the like. Pretty much make it a life sentence for them to stay away from the internet.
Why wait for lightning? I mean you could get a corona discharge of the thing, just off the earth's ambienent electric field. My Dad, who happens to be a physcist argues that the discharge would be about 1,000 volts per foot. The only reason you don't get a discharge with out a device like this is because the impedenace of air is too high. And if you make it out of something that is non-conductive, you managed to make a huge capacitor -- the wings would generate a huge electric charge, and everytime a wing came down it would arch to the nearest grounded object (aka the world's larges capacitor). In other words, you want this be conductive, just so you don't have some unlucky bi/quad-ped walking by to get zapped by some serious static electricity. Corona discharges would be _better_ since you could run it to ground -- but it brings new meaning to the term "hi-voltage" power lines.
The other problem is that the cable would have to, at a minium, support something on the order of 20,000 psi. The only way to offset that would be use hellium or some other lighter-than-air gas in the sails. However, then you have to put this thing under stress in order to generate the power, so were back to the 20,000+ psi range. Steal is pretty much out. What sort of fiber/metal/ceramic are thinking of?
"It's time to stop blaming the ratings system and the media itself for peoples' actions, and start taking personal responsibility."
You must not be an American?
I don't think revamping the ratings system will will fix the problem per se. My reason for promoting a ratings revamp that would span across all media is based on the fact of being able to make good decision based on strict rules. If you are looking for smut, then you may or may not bea able to find it in an R rating. The same goes for games -- if you are looking to avoid violence, then you know to avoid an M rated game; the game also includes the reason on the box, but not always on movies. It would be easier for parents and those wanting to avoid certain content material if the rating system was uniform and consistant. But as it stands now you have to do research like http://www.screenit.com/ in order to find out if there is potentially objectionable material in a movie.
I whole-heartedly agree with you on blaming the ratings system. I don't think that we should blame anything on the ratings system. The reason that objectionable material is being produced is based on the fact that it is supported by the almighty dollar. If money wasn't flowing into the coffers of the smut peddler, then porn wouldn't be an issue. If people weren't buying video games it wouldn't be an issue. The problems that society is seeking to shield children from are the very things that have been created by some of those people themselves; by voting for the content on TV and movies and music via the almighty dollar they have made that content avaliable. The fact is that we live in a society that seeks freedom in choice and then to seeks protection from the consquences (few people realize that chosing A or B is not that simple, you actually choose conquences -- if you chose to touch the burner, then you will be burned, you chose to be burned). If parents would be actual parents and parent, then I doubt that we would have half of the problems society is facing. But when you seek to fix the symptom with out solving the root problem, then the problem will find another way to express itself. So no, I don't think that "it takes a villege to raise a child" but the standards of that villege will affect that child one way or the other. But then again, America has grown so materialistic that parenting has become a chore.
Slashdot Mirror
You guys are completely missing the point. But then again, that is what happens when you suggest that a mediocre TV isn't worth the money and that the money will be put to better use elsewhere. Forgive my insensativity, but I didn't mean to step on the toes of a cult.
Live long and prosper. 'ie [a] [waste] hvaedroalh [a] [human] d'aer
My point is merely why are people organizing and launching a campaign for a cause that, in the long run is trivial. I am not belittling people who go to the movies, or buy things that provide them utility. I am however question why people organize and raise money to save a TV show. People with organization skills to raise money for the purpouse saving a TV show are the people that should be raising money for humanitarian aide. I don't need to say much on the issue -- raising money to save a TV show comments both on the role of TV in our society and also on American Culture. You don't have to be a liberal to see it.
Wow...raising money to save a TV show? Forgive the cynnism, but, you would think they could put the money to better use than saving a mediocre TV show. How many real problems are worthy of our money? As of writing this they raised $4,940.48. With one guy pledging $1,000. Worse yet they want $14,700 to run an ad in a paper. But don't worry, "Funds collected in excess of cost will be donated to the victims of the devastating tsunami in South Asia via UNICEF, CARE, Save The Children or American Red Cross on behalf of Star Trek Enterprise." . Wow. That is all I have to say. Wow.
I don't know about your high school experience, but when I was in HS seven years ago, I was not afforded anything in terms of rights. The interesting thing was they would preach to us for a week on "Student Rights and Responsabilities" in order to cover their butts. As I recall we did not enjoy free speech (no, I am not saying that I was trying to get up and preach on the tables of the lunch room. There was strong censorship in our assignments about what we could right about. When it came to classroom discussion on political ideas, I was censored multiple times by a teacher. Anything a student might want to distribute required administration aproval, and they never approved anything except for student elections.), free expression (although not me, where of straight black was strictly prohibited), and even free assembly (the clubs had to recieve school board approval, and a group that had any sort of semblence of leadership and a cause is considered a club. With out offical sanctions, it would lead to censorship) was restricted.
The interesting thing is the balance and the role of what school systems are supposed to accomplish. Part of that goal is for the school systems to provide political education -- schools are considered the primary source of teaching citizenship and to acclimate them to the social norms of politics. When the school system teaches you by example that repression, although well meaning, is acceptable for one thing, it teaches it is acceptable for other things. If you teach people that repressing one freedom, ie censoring student writings, is acceptable to prevent indecent material from propagating through the school, it is easy to follow that people will think that it is acceptable to supress free speech in the name of "Homeland Security."
It is something that has been debated for a long time -- how much "freedom" do you allow students in High School? Do you suspend the First Amendment while they are in their High School years, restrict them or let them excerise them. My personal feeling as to the reason that they are able to get away with it, is because High School students, generally speaking are unable to effectively fight the system -- they don't have money, and few parents care if Little Jimmy can't write about something or express himself.
Agreed. This is something that I have a big problem with -- staggered ages of majority. When you reach 18 then you can smoke and vote. You can also do somethings with out the consent of your parents -- if you still in high school, even though you're legally an adult, you are not recognized as an adult by the school systems. Then you can't drink until 21. Which, in my mind is morally wrong (BTW, this is just out of principle, not practice. I don't drink, never have, and never will). If you are expected to maintain the responsabilities of a citizen, but you don't enjoy all the privelages of citizenship (and you haven't done anything to have those privelages revoked) then that is a social injustice. I am way past the ages of majority and still feel that we should give full rights to those reaching the age of 18. Laws should happen that at the age of 18 you enjoy full majority rights, or 21. Not 18, 21, and then 24. Else, the laws regarding responsability and liability should reflect the different ages of majority.
The sum of my position is simply that of a neo-classical liberal: the rights of individual freedom are paramount. However, I don't believe that anyone has the right to force their views on another in any way. Since some people don't share our view point of basic human rights, it is wrong to force another on that view point. Frankly, the view point of China and the actions of its Government are reprehensable, wrong, and it should not be. My position is that we have no right to force our beliefs on another country unless that countries views and actions are direct threat to us.
Good research. However, the Declaration of Human Rights is not a document that binds -- it is not a treaty. Furthermore "the United Nations may not interfere in the domestic affairs of any state." The UN is "bound" to respect soviergn issues unless those issues leak out of the boarders of those nations. The UN can complain, but can not intervien.
Why would you voluntarily choose to go to a country that does not value the same rights you do. If you are going for employment than it means that you value econmic benefit more than rights.
The "Rights of Man" are a culturally defined idea. Just because we have rights, doesn't give us the rights to force them on others. The Laissez Faire attitude that you are complaining about is just about allowing a people the Right of Self-determination -- which is a basic human right. The Chinese must decide that they want the right of self-determination enough to take it. Otherwise attempting to force that right, and other human rights on the Chinese will proof to be ineffecitve. You can't force a people to be free -- it isn't freedom, but another form of slavery. Forcing someone to an ideal that may be accpeted in Western Civilization on another country is no more acceptable than forcing Communism on us. The Soviets and the United States fought hard to keep each other's differing world views out of their countries.
But based on your comments, then I would have to say that you support cultural imperialism. On your arguments, then the war in Iraq is justified. The war in Korea, too. In fact, any war that results in a "democratic" country is justified.
You either misunderstood what I said, or your a moron. Take your own advice.
If you engage in that sort of thing, then you are pretty much accepting that sort of relationship. The question is whether your deported immediately, held for a time, then deported, or put in prision for a long-time.
What I think people need to get past is the idea that their political culture and ideas are both acceptable and compatiable with other cultures. The United States and other western countries all have very incompatable world views when it comes countries like China. The only reason that the United States and China can get along is due to the trade relationship.
There is only one place in China that you enjoy the freedoms that your looking for -- Hong Kong. When China assumed ownership of Hong Kong there were fears that the financial strength of the former British colony would suffer. Hong Kong was granted certain freedoms that the rest of China does not enjoy.
However, when traveling to another country you must RESPECT that country. You are a guest, just as your a guest in someone's home. Failure to obey the rules of that country is rude, inconsiderate and frankly, you deserve whatever punishment is given for violations. It is arrogent to assume that you have the same rights and priveleages that you enjoy here in another country. Further, if you really want to enjoy such privelages, then stay. Part of leaving for that job is the cost of losing some of your freedoms. And just because your a citizen of XXXXXX doesn't mean that your country will bail you out in the event of a problem.
Secondly, I am a huge fan of defending your people. At work I am a jealous defender of my people. When people sense and see your loyalty to them, then they are more likely to perform.
People are also an asset. The goal of managment is to get people to perform. Those doing the work are the people that are likely to come up with the ideas that help you. Create an enviroment that allows for effective communication. Something that I had to learn the hard way was taking feedback. Sometimes a worker will tell you that you aren't doing the job right -- allow them the opportunity to tell you that you suck. Don't allow them to walk all over you, but take their opinion, and when warented, make changes.
Empower your people. Allow them the opportunity to succeed. This also creates the opportunity to fail. But realize that allowing the opportunity for failure and success can yield rewards that will get you noticed. Don't be afraid of the guys under you looking good. If they look good, your leadership will be noticed.
Finally, you never hear in business that so-and-so are good managers. You usually hear that they are good leaders. Hardly do people get promoted on management potential than proven leadership skills. Remember, leadership is the capacity to build those around you.
Although there is much good done by the Gates Foundation to state that the overall effect of his wealth is good, is a fallacy. Just because he betters the lives of people with his money, doesn't mean that you should overlook the net effect of what bad has been done in the acquisition of that wealth.
An interesting thing, since people have been quoting Machiavelli is the story of the Medici family. The short of it is, the Medici family, was incrediably wealthy, but was not royalty. Through the spending of wealth, the Medici family was able to become the most powerful family in all of Florance. The family used wealth only to their advantage while at the same time ruthlessly cutting down their oppopenants.
Since the Machiavelli quote has been brought in, you have to ask the question of what is the purpouse of this donation? Is it being used to enhance the lives of millions, or is it a tax write-off and a publicity?
My personal opinion on the subject is that we should neither say it is good or bad. In judging whether is something good or bad, you have to have the knowledge of how and why the decision was made. Since we neither have all the information, and we don't know what was the motivation for it, making judgment calls can't be done with any accuracy.
For those of us in the laptop market, which one do we buy? I have been looking at the Centrino, P4, the AMD Athlon XP-M and the AMD 64. But the problem is, I can't figure out which one I want. I _think_ that I want AMD, but I am unsure about whether I want a XP-M or and AMD64. Can some explain what an IS major who wants to use the thing for programming and a little mobility would want? Does anyone know of a good site that compares the four in performance?
Now that is just an unfair spin -- after Slashdot ran a story about Intel's reluctance to support Centrino for BSD, this just appears to be a case of advocacy working. The story was a couple months back on the BSD's and their effort to get Centrino support. There was even a some information on how to bother Intel to get the support. I personally sent an email to at least ten of the Intel people on the subject. So instead of trying to spin this as Intel trying to make an extra buck, we should be celebrating a win for the open source community.
On a side note -- of course they did this to earn a buck. Why else would they do it -- just out of the goodness of their heart. They are a hardware vendor and do what is in the best interest of earning money. But the cynical light in which the comment was given is inappropraite. Because we like free software so much, we are in a different paradigm of economic thought. We think economically in terms of value while Intel thinks in terms of money. Intel gains very little by giving software and ideas away; IBM gains a lot since they offer support for the product. So the only thing that we have that Intel wants is our money. And that is generally true for every corparation. So whether or not this is a philisophical shift is moot -- we vote with our dollars and if the philisophy of the consumer is X and is willing to vote for X with the dollar, then the producer is going to adopt X if it produces the money it wants. Those of us in the open source community, users and developers alike need to be understanding of our philisophical positions and what it means for companies. Just because we don't think that software should have a cost, doesn't mean that we should be cynical jerks about some company filling our demand for a product.
However, in areas, i.e. apartment buildings, this paint would be extremely useful. In some apartment buildings there are too many WiFi access points. A paint like this could help people to prevent problems with comflicting signals -- in otherwords you keep your signal in, but you can also keep other signals out, thus reducing interference. The paint has far more implicications in protecting wireless technologies as well as keeping wireless out. University testing centers could use it to insulate a room against radio signals without using jamming equipement. Hospitals could use it to prevent signals from interfering with sensative medical equipment. The government applications are endless -- paint an embassy with the stuff, and you prevent foriegn signal intellegence from happening. If someone thought a place was bugged, they could simply paint the room and place some film on the windows. So while encryption is a smart way to go, it allows people the security of wires with out having the wires and can put borders on signals. My only question is what about the carpet -- say an apartment complex? You can't paint the carpet, so the leak goes through the floor. Does that mean that your downstairs neighbor gets to enjoy a really strong signal?
You're right -- but what they can do is agree to a non-punitive settlement: they let him admit guilt and then enter into a agreement. Something along the lines of turn in anyone that you know is trading Mac software, and then if you do it again then agree to pay so much money. The advantage to it is that Mac gets the good publicity of not burying some med-student and having a forgiving heart, yet they will still have the teeth to protect their intellectual property and trade secrets. Mac fans are usually extremely loyal; Mac has it's own software culture. Even in the Windows culture, Macs are know to be user friendly and stable. So why not capitalize on that image by being a friendly company to a repentent sinner? With a little cleaver legal manuevuering, Apple could walk away looking good and the kid could be pardoned. But that is if they want to. Apple doesn't need, and hopefully doesn't want to look like RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft/BSA, et al.
Normally I don't waste my time on AC's -- but something that needs to be understood: democracy and culture are inseprable. The reason that democracies rise is the result of the culture of that democracy. The term democracy is also very loosely used. For example, the United States is actually a Constitutional republic that uses the principles of democracy. We call it democratic because our culture defines it as democratic. But if you compare American democracy to British, they are very, very different. Democracy can only flurish in a culture that both values it and understands the implications of it. Same is true for freedom (people tend to lump freedom and democracy as being the same word, but they are extremely different: you can be in a democracy and not be free). Right now there are clerics that are telling people to boycott the elections -- they feel that if enough people boycott the elections then the elections will be illegitamate. In our minds we look at it and say that by not voting they have excercised their vote. Not in their cultural mind -- it is a protest of the whole process. There has never been a democracy in that part of the world. It is a first time endevuer. Right now Political Commentators and Scientists are talking about civil war. The question is not if, but when the country will be in civil war. So before we go around claiming a victory or stating a failure happened we need to understand the culture of the area and then we need to watch. We don't know enough to say whether or not it will work. It is not freedom when freedom is imposed. Freedom is something that is earned, bought and fought for. Otherwise people don't realize what they have. Iraq may or may not relize what they have, or can have. And if they don't relize it, then the pervasive culture of tyranny will come back, just in a different person or group or form.
This whole TC computer thing is interesting. What is more interesting is the FOSS movement is lamenting it. As FOSS becomes more and more prominent, then the TC computing thing will have to adapt. If businesses are using Linux, BSD, Solaris, MacOSX for web serving then why would they bend over and adopt TC platforms in favor of the solution that they are currently employing. We are saying that we are likely to be forced into a propritory OS, when businesses are going to say the same thing -- except they are going to scream louder. With a business if they are going to upgrade a few computers, and then find out that they have to upgrade all the computers just to have inter-office operbility they are not going to fly with it. The home consumer may groan about it, but they are really going to wig out when they can't email a picture to a friend using an older computer. I think that we are placing too much stress on the whole DRM thing -- because it will become unpopular. I don't think that people will just accept it. And since we tend to vote on things with dollars, the message will be clear. Also, you can gaurentee the DOJ won't let TC become the reality they are pushing for. If the TC people try to exclude Mac and all the FOSS OS's you can bet that DOJ will push for anti-trust issues. The thing that will happen is that TC will have to be ported over to the other operating systems. The anti-trust issues would be amazing -- there would be charges of collusion and unfair business practices especailly if the FOSS and Mac OS's were left out. It may be the direction that some industries want, but when the people making hardware purchasing decisions for companies, and when the government sees the cost of this attempt, they will step in. Imagine the outcry when a University with library of 300 computers, finds out that in order to upgrade its 50 oldest computers, has to upgrade all 300. Or a government agency finds out that to upgrade some department will have to upgrade the entire agency -- just for the ability to share documents. I'm interested to see the demand for this sort of thing. My guess is that it will go over as well as the Windows Media Center PC thing.
The big problem is getting to work on a browser. That the main reason that I don't surf the web in FreeBSD -- getting a Java plugin to work is less fun than going over to the dentist. And I hate the dentist.
Yeah, can you imagine the problems that would happen with self-aware Sims? You would have your own cult of Sims worshipping you. Everytime you would open the Sims, they would praise you and beg for your benevolence or beg that your menevolence would be adverted. That could be a fun, yet cruel game. It could be called Sim God. If only AI tech was that advanced. I would buy a game where I could tinker with the lives of a self-aware AI....muhahaha
I have fixed many computers with NAV -- in fact most of the time I end up demoting the machines that I fix from NAV200X with Spyware blocker because it slows the system down and doesn't work all that well. Since my school sells NAV Corp 2005 for $3 to students, I just get them to buy a copy and then install it. Throw in Firefox, install SP2, enable the firewall, and update, and I don't have problems with the computer. I think that relying to heavily on one product or another is where the problems begin. When you have one product that you _think_ works then you develop a false sense of security. My method is to employ several different products/tools that are in some cases redundant. If spyware has to jump over three walls, it is a whole lot better than one wall. Besides it is harder to figure out how to bypass several products than it is to bypass one -- if I were a spyware maker, I would purpously target NAV2005 with Spyware blocker and other commercial products.
Perhaps the next anti-spam law should include a provision that people that engage in spamming activites and are convicted are to be excluded from using the internet anything other than personal reasons; if your a spammer and caught you can only use the internet for paying your bills, surfing the internet, etc, but if you use the internet for business purpouses, then your committed a felony and get to become Bubba's Butt Buddy -- again. Also make it part of the sentencing that those convicted can not engage in consoltations or the like. Pretty much make it a life sentence for them to stay away from the internet.
Cool...new insurance fraud scam. Paint your car with this stuff, claim it was tagged by a gang, and get your car painted for free.
The other problem is that the cable would have to, at a minium, support something on the order of 20,000 psi. The only way to offset that would be use hellium or some other lighter-than-air gas in the sails. However, then you have to put this thing under stress in order to generate the power, so were back to the 20,000+ psi range. Steal is pretty much out. What sort of fiber/metal/ceramic are thinking of?
You must not be an American?
I don't think revamping the ratings system will will fix the problem per se. My reason for promoting a ratings revamp that would span across all media is based on the fact of being able to make good decision based on strict rules. If you are looking for smut, then you may or may not bea able to find it in an R rating. The same goes for games -- if you are looking to avoid violence, then you know to avoid an M rated game; the game also includes the reason on the box, but not always on movies. It would be easier for parents and those wanting to avoid certain content material if the rating system was uniform and consistant. But as it stands now you have to do research like http://www.screenit.com/ in order to find out if there is potentially objectionable material in a movie.
I whole-heartedly agree with you on blaming the ratings system. I don't think that we should blame anything on the ratings system. The reason that objectionable material is being produced is based on the fact that it is supported by the almighty dollar. If money wasn't flowing into the coffers of the smut peddler, then porn wouldn't be an issue. If people weren't buying video games it wouldn't be an issue. The problems that society is seeking to shield children from are the very things that have been created by some of those people themselves; by voting for the content on TV and movies and music via the almighty dollar they have made that content avaliable. The fact is that we live in a society that seeks freedom in choice and then to seeks protection from the consquences (few people realize that chosing A or B is not that simple, you actually choose conquences -- if you chose to touch the burner, then you will be burned, you chose to be burned). If parents would be actual parents and parent, then I doubt that we would have half of the problems society is facing. But when you seek to fix the symptom with out solving the root problem, then the problem will find another way to express itself. So no, I don't think that "it takes a villege to raise a child" but the standards of that villege will affect that child one way or the other. But then again, America has grown so materialistic that parenting has become a chore.