I don't want to start a big argument about this, because it's already off-topic enough, but...how does a company take away your rights? Through a legally binding (i.e. enforced by laws and the government) contract. Sure, you can agree to the contract and thus give up your rights. But is it legal to create a contract, enforcable by government power, that requires you to give up your Constitutionally guaranteed rights? Furthermore, for a company to suppress your speech, they have to have the backing of the government in most cases. Witness libel, slander, etc.
Besides, it's better to point too many fingers at the government than not enough IMO.
There's no such thing as free speech. Haven't you noticed that the First Amendment to the Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech,
except in those cases where it is deemed to harm corporate profits, [...]
Libel, slander, copyright trademark or patent violations, licensing agreements, saying posting or printing anything that someone with more money and more lawyers than you doesn't like...Free speech is a dream.
--jb
Let me ask you this: did the men who served in Vietnam put their lives on the line for their country? Iraq? Somalia? Kosovo? Central America? I personally don't give a damn about those places. We haven't had veterans who served in action in defense of this country since WWII (and yes, members of my family have been in the military in most of the places I listed above).
So, people who have been pawns of our government's misguided use of force as foreign policy should be the only ones allowed to vote, huh? That would do a pretty good job of making sure that our foreign policy doesn't change much, that's for sure.
I'm not attacking you personally because I don't know if you really believe this, but I think the idea itself is absolutely ridiculous.
Almost every post on here uses some kind of analogy to show why port scanning is or isn't bad. Analogies are interesting, but ultimately useless in proving your point. Deal with the facts of the issue as they are. It's just like when record company execs say "downloading copies of songs is no different than walking into a store and stealing a CD." Yes, it is different. Deal with the facts as they are. Don't cling to analogies your mind has already come to terms with.
Adding the context to the quote only makes it worse:-).
If anyone is still reading this thread, it's going to fall off the radar soon, so I've created an sid under my name here if anyone wants to talk about this stuff.
The only reason I posted was to point out that the article you linked to didn't mean anything.
It did mean something in the context of the discussion I was having, which is to say someone outside of so-called American big business had acknowledged the fact that Canadian doctors were leaving for the US. That's the only reason it got linked. If you read back to the post I was replying to you'll see this.
Apparently it now sways American libertarians as well.
Laugh. I am not basing any of my political views on it, believe me.
Canadian doctors are probably leaving for the U.S. I'll give you that. But you haven't proved that this affects the Canadian health care system
Net loss in doctors every year...health care depends on doctors...you figure it out.
--jb
I've provided 2 articles that show Canadian doctors are leaving for the US. Show me some counter evidence. (Read my previous article for the MSNBC link, that is clearly not talking about one isolated area.)
If anything, people are afraid that it will become more like the U.S. system.
You may want to read some of the other posts in this thread.
--jb
Just because I hate big government doesn't mean I hate the poor. However, when you say:
The idea that we, as individual citizens, are no longer responsible things once the government is involved is as much of problem as the idea that we would be better off everything ourselves.
That is exactly what happens. People feel no sense of responsibility for this country because they expect the government to take care of everything. I'm not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of your post; suffice it to say I have a lot of disagreements. I want to address this issue specifically.
I would love to see this country in the following state: the government does almost nothing. There are competing charities which help people with things like unemployment, homelessness, and health care. People give their money, by choice, to organizations which solve problems that are important to them and solve the problems in the ways with which they most agree. People feel a genuine responsibility for the state of their communities and country. People don't feel like the lifting of the federal income tax is winning the lottery, but instead brings them the freedom to choose how they help others in society.
But most importantly, where the government is not involved in our lives.
With the right leadership, this could happen. The poster from Canada above said something to the effect of the dark side of the American dream is that losers deserve no help. It doesn't have to be this way, but the government hasn't solved any of the major problems of this country and they're already taking half of our money. How much do they have to take before they will really come up with solutions that work? 60%? 75%? It is never going to happen.
And one more thing: as requested, a non-big-business link describing the Canadian health care issue. Comes right from the transcript of a House session: link. Search for the word "doctor."
Just to make one thing clear: I'm not a Bush supporter. If you saw the last two links in my post, I'm basically a libertarian and will be voting for Harry Browne. I'm appalled at our current foreign policy. Also: I do respect that you have your beliefs, but that's not going to stop me from trying to convince you that they're wrong.:-)
Let me ask you this: do you think we're in the midst of an economic boom? If so, what do you think is responsible for it?
As far as the national debt goes...it was big government that created it in the first place! You want to give them more money?? I won't list them all here, but check out some of the ways libertarians and Harry Browne want to eliminate the debt. You might be surprised.
Anytime the government solves a problem, it solves it one way, and by brute force. Competition breeds efficiency. We have one solution for public schools, social security, medicare, military spending, the postal service. All of those things are in dire need of repair.
Getting the federal government involved in new places in society will never, never lead to long term benefits. Please realize that.
From his website: "[We need] universal health care from the cradle through the nursing home, with a single-payer system like Canada's."
Yeah, Canada's doctors think it's great: check this out.
He wants bigger government, and will raise taxes even higher (I know he said this recently but I can't find a URL right now).
Also, he says: "[A]ccording to the World Health Organization, the United States was ranked 37th among nations in the world regarding the quality of health care a country provides its people. This is not only embarrassing but also unacceptable. Western European countries provided for their people thirty to fifty years ago. Why can't we do it now in a period of economic boom?", and follows that up with "I would have labor treaties that have teeth, consumer protection treaties, and food and environmental treaties." So we have this great economic boom, but we want to put all these new restrictions on the way businesses operate? I love people who think forced redistribution of wealth will solve all of our problems. Where do you think your jobs come from?
I give a shit jball, but voting for Ralph Nader is not the answer. Nader's policies may provide a short term benefit for some, at the long term cost of the future of our country. And to your last comment, that the government is not Big Brother: the FBI might disagree with you.
While I agree with your general frustration, I don't agree that the lawyers are the root cause. They are a symptom of a larger problem, which is: corporations lobbying Congress to create laws which favor them. In the extreme: no laws, no lawyers. Now, I'm not an anarchist, but if you take away Congress' ability to pass laws to protect corporations, you take away the lawyers' ability to get involved as well.
The Oracle installer (written in Java so you must have the blackdown JRE - it is just sick and wrong) commonly fails when configuring a database instance.
The latest version includes a JRE. I've installed it 5+ times and never seen a failure. No argument about earlier versions.
When you have Oracle running, it lights up your process table like a Christmas tree - at least 4 server processes, plus some sundry rubbish. A UNIX admin who admires efficiency will be happier with Sybase.
Yeah, no UNIX admin would ever run something like Apache because it creates too many processes.:-)
Oracle can use raw partitions, it doesn't have to. Last I heard, the use of raw devices wasn't recommended under Linux...I'll check the release notes again.
Just FYI: a 30GB database doesn't imply one file. I have a 10GB+ Oracle on Linux database right now; Oracle organizes data into tablespaces which contain one or more data files. The data files can be spread over any number of partitions; in fact for performance it's better to spread them over multiple disks.
Now what I'm doing isn't mission critical, so I can't comment on that aspect of it, but I will say this: a 30GB database will certainly require more than 1GB of memory.
--jb
Re:Yes -- and one opportunity we missed!
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
Yup, only on Slashdot is Probably because they thought it was a stupid idea? == flamebait. Sigh.
Whew, glad you threw that in there. I mean, I got your examples and everything, but something just wasn't clicking for me. Then, VB under Solaris. OK, bad! bad FBI! Wiretapping bad!
Atlas Shrugged is certainly relevant (and I highly recommend it to anyone who's never read it), but surely you're commenting with respect to government intervention and not this specific instance of "corporate espionage"?
Regarding transactions: well, HTTP is stateless, innit. The only way you're going to lose integrity with a half-done transaction... [snip]
Bob: a lot of work has gone in to being able to maintain session state across stateless HTTP request/response calls. This is a feature of ASP, JSP, PHP, etc. A transaction can certainly start on one page and end on another, and in the meantime, the client can experience communication problems, change his mind, Windows 98 could blue screen:-), etc.
Can anyone think of a legitimate reason to keep VBScripting on their box?
Sure. MS' intention for this is to eventually replace good old batch files, and instead be COM 'glue' that uses the functionality of different COM-based applications. If every app you run (e.g. Internet Explorer) exposes its functionality through COM, you will have the ability to write extremely powerful scripts. Think Perl, but without the necessity of writing new packages to get new functionality. For example, using the XML parser that ships with IE and the standard ADO objects you could do something like the Slashcode demon that parses RDF files and updates Slashdot's mySQL database.
As a COM developer (ex- now), I would also write simple test scripts in VBScript to test my code instead of having separate programs that needed to be built.
So, right now, a non-power user may not need it. I could certainly see a time when programs ship with scripts to perform tasks instead of compiled code, however.
Despite the request above, this is not going to be short (sorry CT).
Metallica has always seemed to be on the cutting edge of being on the fans' side. The 5.98 EP is one example. In the Yahoo chat, Lars admitted he has never been on a web site. That's why I feel you guys may be a little out of touch with what's really going on here. People in general feel like music is
just too expensive
not flexible enough with respect to owner's rights
Also generalizing, I really don't believe most Napster users think artists should be stiffed and all music should be free. On the contrary, I think artists should get more money and the record companies should get less. We hear stories about the cost of production of a CD being 50 cents, yet we pay 12-16 dollars for it in a store. What I want, personally, is:
the ability to download any music to check it out before I buy it, possibly at a reduced audio quality level
the ability to only pay for the songs I want
less money to go to the middleman (i.e. record companies, music stores, lawyers) and more money to go to artists
So here's the question: why not join the revolution instead of fight it? You guys have enough money (I believe) to take a chance and try and really change the way the system works. Get down in to the trenches, listen (I mean really listen) to what the people are saying instead of your lawyers and agents. And by the way, I have bought copies of almost every one of your CDs and think you guys rock.
Look at KDE, they've made a desktop environment that's every bit as good (or better in some cases) as Microsoft's explorer, in far less time than it took MS.
Oh my god, please tell me you're joking.
1. The Windows shell (I'm talking NT4 or Win2k) is far better than KDE, in features, integration, stability, speed,... 2. MS gets flamed for innovation (or lack thereof). How does KDE compare on innovation? I think I've seen every single one of KDE's concepts somewhere before, I just can't remember where...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to start a big argument about this, because it's already off-topic enough, but...how does a company take away your rights? Through a legally binding (i.e. enforced by laws and the government) contract. Sure, you can agree to the contract and thus give up your rights. But is it legal to create a contract, enforcable by government power, that requires you to give up your Constitutionally guaranteed rights? Furthermore, for a company to suppress your speech, they have to have the backing of the government in most cases. Witness libel, slander, etc.
Besides, it's better to point too many fingers at the government than not enough IMO.
--jbThere's no such thing as free speech. Haven't you noticed that the First Amendment to the Constitution reads:
Libel, slander, copyright trademark or patent violations, licensing agreements, saying posting or printing anything that someone with more money and more lawyers than you doesn't like...Free speech is a dream. --jbLet me ask you this: did the men who served in Vietnam put their lives on the line for their country? Iraq? Somalia? Kosovo? Central America? I personally don't give a damn about those places. We haven't had veterans who served in action in defense of this country since WWII (and yes, members of my family have been in the military in most of the places I listed above).
So, people who have been pawns of our government's misguided use of force as foreign policy should be the only ones allowed to vote, huh? That would do a pretty good job of making sure that our foreign policy doesn't change much, that's for sure.
I'm not attacking you personally because I don't know if you really believe this, but I think the idea itself is absolutely ridiculous.
--jbAlmost every post on here uses some kind of analogy to show why port scanning is or isn't bad. Analogies are interesting, but ultimately useless in proving your point. Deal with the facts of the issue as they are. It's just like when record company execs say "downloading copies of songs is no different than walking into a store and stealing a CD." Yes, it is different. Deal with the facts as they are. Don't cling to analogies your mind has already come to terms with.
--jbAdding the context to the quote only makes it worse :-).
If anyone is still reading this thread, it's going to fall off the radar soon, so I've created an sid under my name here if anyone wants to talk about this stuff.
--jbI've provided 2 articles that show Canadian doctors are leaving for the US. Show me some counter evidence. (Read my previous article for the MSNBC link, that is clearly not talking about one isolated area.)
You may want to read some of the other posts in this thread. --jbJust because I hate big government doesn't mean I hate the poor. However, when you say:
That is exactly what happens. People feel no sense of responsibility for this country because they expect the government to take care of everything. I'm not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of your post; suffice it to say I have a lot of disagreements. I want to address this issue specifically.I would love to see this country in the following state: the government does almost nothing. There are competing charities which help people with things like unemployment, homelessness, and health care. People give their money, by choice, to organizations which solve problems that are important to them and solve the problems in the ways with which they most agree. People feel a genuine responsibility for the state of their communities and country. People don't feel like the lifting of the federal income tax is winning the lottery, but instead brings them the freedom to choose how they help others in society.
But most importantly, where the government is not involved in our lives.
With the right leadership, this could happen. The poster from Canada above said something to the effect of the dark side of the American dream is that losers deserve no help. It doesn't have to be this way, but the government hasn't solved any of the major problems of this country and they're already taking half of our money. How much do they have to take before they will really come up with solutions that work? 60%? 75%? It is never going to happen.
--jbAnd one more thing: as requested, a non-big-business link describing the Canadian health care issue. Comes right from the transcript of a House session: link. Search for the word "doctor."
--jbJust to make one thing clear: I'm not a Bush supporter. If you saw the last two links in my post, I'm basically a libertarian and will be voting for Harry Browne. I'm appalled at our current foreign policy. Also: I do respect that you have your beliefs, but that's not going to stop me from trying to convince you that they're wrong. :-)
Let me ask you this: do you think we're in the midst of an economic boom? If so, what do you think is responsible for it?
As far as the national debt goes...it was big government that created it in the first place! You want to give them more money?? I won't list them all here, but check out some of the ways libertarians and Harry Browne want to eliminate the debt. You might be surprised.
Anytime the government solves a problem, it solves it one way, and by brute force. Competition breeds efficiency. We have one solution for public schools, social security, medicare, military spending, the postal service. All of those things are in dire need of repair.
Getting the federal government involved in new places in society will never, never lead to long term benefits. Please realize that.
--jbRalph Nader?
From his website: "[We need] universal health care from the cradle through the nursing home, with a single-payer system like Canada's." Yeah, Canada's doctors think it's great: check this out.
He wants bigger government, and will raise taxes even higher (I know he said this recently but I can't find a URL right now).
Also, he says: "[A]ccording to the World Health Organization, the United States was ranked 37th among nations in the world regarding the quality of health care a country provides its people. This is not only embarrassing but also unacceptable. Western European countries provided for their people thirty to fifty years ago. Why can't we do it now in a period of economic boom?", and follows that up with "I would have labor treaties that have teeth, consumer protection treaties, and food and environmental treaties." So we have this great economic boom, but we want to put all these new restrictions on the way businesses operate? I love people who think forced redistribution of wealth will solve all of our problems. Where do you think your jobs come from?
I give a shit jball, but voting for Ralph Nader is not the answer. Nader's policies may provide a short term benefit for some, at the long term cost of the future of our country. And to your last comment, that the government is not Big Brother: the FBI might disagree with you.
Libertarian party
Harry Browne for President
--jb
While I agree with your general frustration, I don't agree that the lawyers are the root cause. They are a symptom of a larger problem, which is: corporations lobbying Congress to create laws which favor them. In the extreme: no laws, no lawyers. Now, I'm not an anarchist, but if you take away Congress' ability to pass laws to protect corporations, you take away the lawyers' ability to get involved as well.
--jbThe Oracle installer (written in Java so you must have the blackdown JRE - it is just sick and wrong) commonly fails when configuring a database instance.
The latest version includes a JRE. I've installed it 5+ times and never seen a failure. No argument about earlier versions.
When you have Oracle running, it lights up your process table like a Christmas tree - at least 4 server processes, plus some sundry rubbish. A UNIX admin who admires efficiency will be happier with Sybase.
Yeah, no UNIX admin would ever run something like Apache because it creates too many processes. :-)
--jbOracle can use raw partitions, it doesn't have to. Last I heard, the use of raw devices wasn't recommended under Linux...I'll check the release notes again.
--jbJust FYI: a 30GB database doesn't imply one file. I have a 10GB+ Oracle on Linux database right now; Oracle organizes data into tablespaces which contain one or more data files. The data files can be spread over any number of partitions; in fact for performance it's better to spread them over multiple disks.
Now what I'm doing isn't mission critical, so I can't comment on that aspect of it, but I will say this: a 30GB database will certainly require more than 1GB of memory.
--jbYup, only on Slashdot is Probably because they thought it was a stupid idea? == flamebait. Sigh.
--jbOh no?
Libertarian party
--jb
Like VB under Solaris, it's just a bad idea.
Whew, glad you threw that in there. I mean, I got your examples and everything, but something just wasn't clicking for me. Then, VB under Solaris. OK, bad! bad FBI! Wiretapping bad!
--jb
Atlas Shrugged is certainly relevant (and I highly recommend it to anyone who's never read it), but surely you're commenting with respect to government intervention and not this specific instance of "corporate espionage"?
--jbDead on. You can't criticize Microsoft's lack of innovation on one hand and blatantly copy everything they do on the other hand.
--jbBob: a lot of work has gone in to being able to maintain session state across stateless HTTP request/response calls. This is a feature of ASP, JSP, PHP, etc. A transaction can certainly start on one page and end on another, and in the meantime, the client can experience communication problems, change his mind, Windows 98 could blue screen :-), etc.
--jbCan anyone think of a legitimate reason to keep VBScripting on their box?
Sure. MS' intention for this is to eventually replace good old batch files, and instead be COM 'glue' that uses the functionality of different COM-based applications. If every app you run (e.g. Internet Explorer) exposes its functionality through COM, you will have the ability to write extremely powerful scripts. Think Perl, but without the necessity of writing new packages to get new functionality. For example, using the XML parser that ships with IE and the standard ADO objects you could do something like the Slashcode demon that parses RDF files and updates Slashdot's mySQL database.
As a COM developer (ex- now), I would also write simple test scripts in VBScript to test my code instead of having separate programs that needed to be built.
So, right now, a non-power user may not need it. I could certainly see a time when programs ship with scripts to perform tasks instead of compiled code, however.
--jbMetallica has always seemed to be on the cutting edge of being on the fans' side. The 5.98 EP is one example. In the Yahoo chat, Lars admitted he has never been on a web site. That's why I feel you guys may be a little out of touch with what's really going on here. People in general feel like music is
just too expensive
not flexible enough with respect to owner's rights
Also generalizing, I really don't believe most Napster users think artists should be stiffed and all music should be free. On the contrary, I think artists should get more money and the record companies should get less. We hear stories about the cost of production of a CD being 50 cents, yet we pay 12-16 dollars for it in a store. What I want, personally, is:
the ability to download any music to check it out before I buy it, possibly at a reduced audio quality level
the ability to only pay for the songs I want
less money to go to the middleman (i.e. record companies, music stores, lawyers) and more money to go to artists
So here's the question: why not join the revolution instead of fight it? You guys have enough money (I believe) to take a chance and try and really change the way the system works. Get down in to the trenches, listen (I mean really listen) to what the people are saying instead of your lawyers and agents. And by the way, I have bought copies of almost every one of your CDs and think you guys rock.
--jb
Oh my god, please tell me you're joking.
1. The Windows shell (I'm talking NT4 or Win2k) is far better than KDE, in features, integration, stability, speed,2. MS gets flamed for innovation (or lack thereof). How does KDE compare on innovation? I think I've seen every single one of KDE's concepts somewhere before, I just can't remember where...
--jb
I made no such comparison. I provided an example for the statement that no corporation had ever killed 6 million people.