In any country, if you're going hungry, then you want to be hungry. Unless of course you live under some random dictatorship that holds back the food and medicine people.
Seriously though, if Europe would accept that genetically altered food has YET to kill the USA off, then maybe they might relay this to Africa so they will actually eat our food. In other words, Europe is starving Africa.
Is his networth still $60 billion? I thought it declined to around $36... oh well, poor baby either way.
Are you suggesting that he should not get the tax right off, which everyone does? He still pays more in taxes than I earn. So... uh, what's your point? He's so rich that he does not deserve any more and someone more deserving can make use of the money (i.e., you?)?
I'm really getting sick of people whining that rich people don't give a greater percentage of their money away. I'd like to see a figure where the average percentage of American single mother donates x amount. Regardless of whether they even gave 1% more of their money, that's in no way proptionate to the scale of his amounts. Yes, it makes sense to raise the point because if I give 10% of my money, then you should give that percentage too because otherwise you're being a stiff. However, let's say I'm a 16 year old kid (which I am not) and I have a job at the local grocery store. When it comes time to feel good about myself I buy one of those tabs at the counter for $5. Now that's a decent percentage of his wages, even though it's still only $5. Now, if Bill Gates (who amusingly complained about American McDonalds coupons not working in China...now that's cheap heh:)) turned around and gave that same percentage, then well, he'd be giving what, 1%? 0.5%? Maybe?
Turn that around and look at a single mother. How much can she afford to give away? Unless she is middle class, which not many are, then she is probably a close benefactor of those things; so donating to them is like hiding money under the couch... she's gonna get it back in the end (even if it's from a different group or the government). In essence, she's giving 0% of her money. So should Bill give 5%?
It was one of these billionaires that gave $1 billion dollars away to charity (it was either Ted Turner or Bill Gates... I think). Now, are you going to turn around and say that's not enough? He's still never going to worry about money, but would you be willing to sign off that large of a portion of your cash (that's AT LEAST in the 5-10% range) for charity on any given day...as opposed to a life span? (Don't give me the "No I can't afford it crap..." just because you make good choices in life or get lucky, that does not mean you have to give everything back).
On Burt... from looking at a few bios of him, I noticed that he's not exactly giving himself to charity. After all, his space craft is in the contest to win the $10 million. Now you can tell me that he's in it for the engineering, but oh well, he's also in it for the money and the greatness of his profession (innovation).
Rutan unveiled his âoeSpaceShipOneâ aircraft in Mojave, Calif., on April 18. It is designed to become the first private craft able to successfully achieve sub-orbital space travel, and win the $10-million âoeX-Prizeâ offered to the creators of the first private vehicle to accomplish such a feat. Rutan, always a popular speaker at EAA AirVenture, will talk about the project on Saturday, August 2 at 10 a.m. and Sunday, August 3 at 2:30 p.m. He will also host two other forums: The annual âoeTent Talk Showâ with designer John Roncz on Saturday, August 2 at 2:30 p.m. and âoeLife After Airlinersâ with NASAâ(TM)s Bruce Holmes on Sunday, August 3 at 8:30 a.m. All of his presentations will be held in EAA AirVentureâ(TM)s Forums Plaza.
Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Burt and I hope he succeeds, but I'll never believe that the money has nothing to do with it.
I'm not defending SCO here; I've used some of their products... there's nothing quality there.
However, you are lumping in every company inside of the horrible practices group. Just because you want a profit does not make you a bad person/company. It is the general purpose of a business to DOMINATE in its arena(s) so that it makes the most money. After all, what is the goal of any business? To help people? No, to make money with maybe a side issue of being the best (most profitable and best are two very different things). Non-Profit Org's are for helping people.
Obviously the search for a buck should not go without right and wrong ideals and that is why there are all of these lawsuits being thrown around and audits (Enron, Worldcom, etc.).
There's also the general feeling that if you are not part of the big fish (i.e., in the OS market, MS), then you're A) in the right and B) hurt because of brutal tactics. However, if you were in the position of said big fish, then you would do exactly the same thing because it is the smarter business decision. What would you do if you did not? The other company would take over and wipe YOU out and it would be the same issue, only in reverse.
Burt Rutan may very well be in search of a life long dream to be an astronaut, but I am sure the first thought of it was 'if I am the first to a safe consumer driven space market, then not only will my name be down in history, but I'll also make an almost uncanny amount of money.' Look at Bill Gate's ("M$" feelings aside), he is still looking for more money, yet he still gives away more than probably you and I will ever earn, combined.
Rich people don't stay rich by blowing their money and they know it.
I agree with this 95%. However, there still needs to be a ton of work done on prevention. Look at the RE: support@microsoft.com virus/worm/whatever it was.
If people would stop and think, "hey, I never e-mailed them to begin with" then we'd have less problems. Obviously people will fall through the cracks, and then there are of course those that did e-mail Microsoft, but the body of those e-mails were patheticly obvious. "Here's the file" or some such idiocy. Who runs those?... oh sh... I didn't e-mail them did I?
The ladder people obviously then fall into your basket.
So I assume it will have a similar future? I don't know, maybe with the benefit of it already happening to the computer industry and the combination of it will overcome it?
I figure that around when nanotechnology gets figured out this will be at the tip of the bubble.
I forgot, it's against the law to be a company and try to make money. Constitution gets in the way of every thing:(.
Really though, do you not have a job during the day? If not, good luck. If so, then what are you talking about, hypocrite?
The right to use proprietary software is not freedom of speech. You can legislate that all software must be open source just like you legislate the content of mayonaise must be on the jar.
I hope that you're never elected to office. That's the most close-minded view point I have ever seen. You'd be aggressively limiting any users right to choose, which is a lack of freedom.
Comparing mayonaise labels to computer software is apples and oranges. Computer software is not going to kill you just because you paid for it. As a matter of fact, you get tech support from most proprietary software.
This also comes down to the next argument of picking and choosing. You're singling out and supporting a set of companies of YOUR choice. RedHat, and the bunch are are exclusively supported by such a decision and any company such as Sun, MS, and other companies that make their own closed source OS are ruined by it. That sounds like Facism. Again, just because it is open source DOES not make it better. Mozilla blows (I mean good lord, what kind of a person wants tabbing in that manner--with new pages being new browsers?), and Opera doesn't. What's the point? It's opinion.
I've seen secretaries that are better at vi than I am. Users will use whatever they are given or used to. So it only goes to further the argument that a little social engineering would ween people off their M$ addction.
Is that a complement to the secretary or a shot at yourself? I have the feeling the secretary was at IBM and probably a programmer on the side? You're throwing out the general person for a subset user that is probably made up anyway. I cannot stand people that make the "M$" argument. If you want to hate MS, then hate them. But don't go down the path of putting M$, otherwise you have to put $un, $u$e, etc.. AS THEY ALL WANT MONEY. Hate them because they did it wrong, not because they came first.
Wonder how they feel about people realizing there is definitely a valid reason not to pay for CDs from them? Has anyone done the math for how much EXTRA profit they made? That would be interesting; once we all meet that one times 3 (damages), then they can maybe cry.
Hell, it's not like a lot of us don't buy the CDs we really like. I honestly never use Kazaa (don't trust it), but I then again, I don't listen to music much and I NEVER buy CDs because I thought they were too expensive years ago. $15-20 for 1 good song? Screw that.
I don't care about brand (which is why I have almost never stayed with the same car company).
A lot of it is about the economy and a lot of it is about user expectations.
Lets say you're John Doe and you get a job as a Customer Service rep at company A. Have you ever seen half of the [moronic] people that sit down at computers with open source and REFUSE to think about what they're doing because there is not a MS Word icon at the top.
It's like they're talking to a foreigner that speaks their own language BETTER, yet they still seem to fail to understand that they know it.
Is it right that smarter users and other power users are hurt by this? No. But the sad fact is that the majority of non-technical users are that way.
For an example, my former company managed an internal website and we had a link to transfer one of our files to another division's server (in another state). The link simply said "transfer to x server." Now, at one point they changed the server and someone forgot to change the word "x" (new place), but the actual file copy itself worked (it was dynamic enough...the "x" was hard coded though as I specifically remember them telling said person it would not change...hahaha, woops). As would be expected, the first use gave us a phone call, "why does it say 'x' instead of 'y'?" Whoever was on the phone said something along the lines of "the actual transfer works correctly, but the displayed NAME is wrong; when you use it the file will be on the 'y' server as expected, so it is okay to use and we will have the wrong displayed name changed some time today." Then they replied, "okay." A few minutes they called back and wondered how to get the file off of the old 'x' server (which was not hooked up), even though the file was on the 'y' server. I understand the first call, but it was clearly stated that the file would be on the 'y' server, yet they REFUSED to think. We obviously set everything aside and fixed that (it was all of one line...now that is dynamic too:)). When it was fixed they called back and asked, "Is that all it takes to put the file on the 'y' server?"
Anyway, the point is that anything not expected is misunderstood immediately and that's how it is with most people.
Anyway, the right to use proprietary software is freedom of speech, as is the right to use Open Source; any restriction would be like them saying you can only buy car y. The next thing they'd do was start forcing people to use the government led OS. Can they rightfully say the government must use OpenSource? Yes. Can they say people must use it? No. I especially don't want any of these current morons making the decisions. Not ONE of them seems to understand a damn thing about technology.
I do not elect someone that thinks about these issues because I want him too; I elect someone that thinks about these issues because they feel the same way I do (even if they do not know why) and the other guy does not.
If they'd be buying the next version they go to the open source version? Or after a set amount of time they start putting it on computers?
I don't see a valid reason to change from something in use already to something else simply because it is open source. More features, reliability and other things (security..) are valid reasons. I'm in love with Open Source as much as the next geek, but lets be honest, we're not a government ready to spend the money to shift to it. Hopefully they honestly have a good phase-in plan, but I find that hard to believe from a politician:(.
Is six million dollars an honest amount for this project? It takes like 2 billion (or did) to make a stealth fighter/bomber and we already have the design down!
They, on the other hand, are going to have to build the ship and a nuclear core (or something) and ensure it works for 6 million dollars? Games are starting to cost this much and do much less [sarcasm].
Seriously though, this seems like a starter fund. Hit or miss, I don't see this one staying at or lower than $6 million even though it's just to make the design (and test I assume as it's a study)!
1. You write less logic in code with Java if the class is written for you. It's exactly the same for every other language. The only time Java beats out these other languages is when it uses the GC... as you obviously don't need to free it yourself.
You contradict yourself in the last sentence. Whenever I'm forced to write Java code, I do it on the system it will run on. Otherwise you never know what the results may be because of horrible JVM's.
It took over because of people like you that are in love with the language for no reason other than a GC. It's slow and poorly managed. I'm surprised people don't call it a script yet (as it is not native code and is running against an interepretter...you know, the definition of a script).
Oh, there goes number 2:(.
Relatively error free code? When the f...ing JVM can have its own interpretation on any given box then you do not have error free code.
Everyone you know, eh? I guess you don't know anyone working somewhere that requires versioning, speed, or otherwise reliability? The version of JVM that is used at work (off-site actually) crashes every now and then (on a Unix AND Sun box) and the documentation seems more like a blog because of the code bases (to get into #1).
You again contradict yourself with number 2. The sole purpose I hate JVM's are because they have to be written separately (because obviously they are written for operating systems to get the most speed, which I do not question). This really brings to life the idea of questioning Java as a language amongst C/C++, rather than PHP. In otherwords, compiled or scripted. Honestly I think it's closer to C/C++ than Java, but the fact remains that there is a program out there interpretting what to do and that HURTS speed.
The only reason I'd suggest using Java is because of the GC, which is even slow, combined with the chance of multi-platform code. To get down to it, the GC is the only piece of Java that might actually help it 100% of the time because it should create/eliminate the memory efficiently, which C/C++ cannot do for you.
Other than that, I would never use Java for reliability because come the next (next is a generalized term here, not in direct reference to the specific NEXT one) JVM it might kill everything.
Why are we making such a big deal out of him? He created JAVA. Big deal. What has he done that was good for computer programming (in other words, Java was bad for it)? Java created:
Horrible amounts of code
'Multi-platform code' that isn't always. ..
Extremely slow execution
Slow GUI performance...(someone please mention Eclipse as an anti-argument... then refer to #2).
Nothing new other than forced OOP.
So what has Java brought us? You can write multi-platform C/C++ code, so what does Java honestly offer that nothing else does? Maybe possibly misinterpreted code because of various JVM versions? That's nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously though, if Europe would accept that genetically altered food has YET to kill the USA off, then maybe they might relay this to Africa so they will actually eat our food. In other words, Europe is starving Africa.
- Drop $20 million in the development.
- Make half of it back in one day).
- Make the rest back plus a hell of a lot more from the tech (including licensing of technology).
Again, your point is not proven.Are you suggesting that he should not get the tax right off, which everyone does? He still pays more in taxes than I earn. So... uh, what's your point? He's so rich that he does not deserve any more and someone more deserving can make use of the money (i.e., you?)?
Regardless of whether they even gave 1% more of their money, that's in no way proptionate to the scale of his amounts. Yes, it makes sense to raise the point because if I give 10% of my money, then you should give that percentage too because otherwise you're being a stiff. However, let's say I'm a 16 year old kid (which I am not) and I have a job at the local grocery store. When it comes time to feel good about myself I buy one of those tabs at the counter for $5. Now that's a decent percentage of his wages, even though it's still only $5. Now, if Bill Gates (who amusingly complained about American McDonalds coupons not working in China...now that's cheap heh
Turn that around and look at a single mother. How much can she afford to give away? Unless she is middle class, which not many are, then she is probably a close benefactor of those things; so donating to them is like hiding money under the couch... she's gonna get it back in the end (even if it's from a different group or the government). In essence, she's giving 0% of her money. So should Bill give 5%?
It was one of these billionaires that gave $1 billion dollars away to charity (it was either Ted Turner or Bill Gates... I think). Now, are you going to turn around and say that's not enough? He's still never going to worry about money, but would you be willing to sign off that large of a portion of your cash (that's AT LEAST in the 5-10% range) for charity on any given day...as opposed to a life span? (Don't give me the "No I can't afford it crap..." just because you make good choices in life or get lucky, that does not mean you have to give everything back).
On Burt... from looking at a few bios of him, I noticed that he's not exactly giving himself to charity. After all, his space craft is in the contest to win the $10 million. Now you can tell me that he's in it for the engineering, but oh well, he's also in it for the money and the greatness of his profession (innovation).
Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Burt and I hope he succeeds, but I'll never believe that the money has nothing to do with it.However, you are lumping in every company inside of the horrible practices group. Just because you want a profit does not make you a bad person/company. It is the general purpose of a business to DOMINATE in its arena(s) so that it makes the most money. After all, what is the goal of any business? To help people? No, to make money with maybe a side issue of being the best (most profitable and best are two very different things). Non-Profit Org's are for helping people.
Obviously the search for a buck should not go without right and wrong ideals and that is why there are all of these lawsuits being thrown around and audits (Enron, Worldcom, etc.).
There's also the general feeling that if you are not part of the big fish (i.e., in the OS market, MS), then you're A) in the right and B) hurt because of brutal tactics. However, if you were in the position of said big fish, then you would do exactly the same thing because it is the smarter business decision. What would you do if you did not? The other company would take over and wipe YOU out and it would be the same issue, only in reverse.
Burt Rutan may very well be in search of a life long dream to be an astronaut, but I am sure the first thought of it was 'if I am the first to a safe consumer driven space market, then not only will my name be down in history, but I'll also make an almost uncanny amount of money.' Look at Bill Gate's ("M$" feelings aside), he is still looking for more money, yet he still gives away more than probably you and I will ever earn, combined.
Rich people don't stay rich by blowing their money and they know it.
If people would stop and think, "hey, I never e-mailed them to begin with" then we'd have less problems. Obviously people will fall through the cracks, and then there are of course those that did e-mail Microsoft, but the body of those e-mails were patheticly obvious. "Here's the file" or some such idiocy. Who runs those?... oh sh... I didn't e-mail them did I?
The ladder people obviously then fall into your basket.
I figure that around when nanotechnology gets figured out this will be at the tip of the bubble.
So the glass is half empty?
Tripod's exceeded bandwidth page is the sign of everything. Who knew?
I forgot, it's against the law to be a company and try to make money. Constitution gets in the way of every thing :(.
Really though, do you not have a job during the day? If not, good luck. If so, then what are you talking about, hypocrite?
Comparing mayonaise labels to computer software is apples and oranges. Computer software is not going to kill you just because you paid for it. As a matter of fact, you get tech support from most proprietary software.
This also comes down to the next argument of picking and choosing. You're singling out and supporting a set of companies of YOUR choice. RedHat, and the bunch are are exclusively supported by such a decision and any company such as Sun, MS, and other companies that make their own closed source OS are ruined by it. That sounds like Facism. Again, just because it is open source DOES not make it better. Mozilla blows (I mean good lord, what kind of a person wants tabbing in that manner--with new pages being new browsers?), and Opera doesn't. What's the point? It's opinion.
Is that a complement to the secretary or a shot at yourself? I have the feeling the secretary was at IBM and probably a programmer on the side? You're throwing out the general person for a subset user that is probably made up anyway. I cannot stand people that make the "M$" argument. If you want to hate MS, then hate them. But don't go down the path of putting M$, otherwise you have to put $un, $u$e, etc.. AS THEY ALL WANT MONEY. Hate them because they did it wrong, not because they came first.Good to see it's completely unbiased ................
Wonder how they feel about people realizing there is definitely a valid reason not to pay for CDs from them? Has anyone done the math for how much EXTRA profit they made? That would be interesting; once we all meet that one times 3 (damages), then they can maybe cry.
Hell, it's not like a lot of us don't buy the CDs we really like. I honestly never use Kazaa (don't trust it), but I then again, I don't listen to music much and I NEVER buy CDs because I thought they were too expensive years ago. $15-20 for 1 good song? Screw that.
A lot of it is about the economy and a lot of it is about user expectations.
Lets say you're John Doe and you get a job as a Customer Service rep at company A. Have you ever seen half of the [moronic] people that sit down at computers with open source and REFUSE to think about what they're doing because there is not a MS Word icon at the top.
It's like they're talking to a foreigner that speaks their own language BETTER, yet they still seem to fail to understand that they know it.
Is it right that smarter users and other power users are hurt by this? No. But the sad fact is that the majority of non-technical users are that way.
For an example, my former company managed an internal website and we had a link to transfer one of our files to another division's server (in another state). The link simply said "transfer to x server." Now, at one point they changed the server and someone forgot to change the word "x" (new place), but the actual file copy itself worked (it was dynamic enough...the "x" was hard coded though as I specifically remember them telling said person it would not change...hahaha, woops). :)). When it was fixed they called back and asked, "Is that all it takes to put the file on the 'y' server?"
As would be expected, the first use gave us a phone call, "why does it say 'x' instead of 'y'?" Whoever was on the phone said something along the lines of "the actual transfer works correctly, but the displayed NAME is wrong; when you use it the file will be on the 'y' server as expected, so it is okay to use and we will have the wrong displayed name changed some time today." Then they replied, "okay." A few minutes they called back and wondered how to get the file off of the old 'x' server (which was not hooked up), even though the file was on the 'y' server. I understand the first call, but it was clearly stated that the file would be on the 'y' server, yet they REFUSED to think. We obviously set everything aside and fixed that (it was all of one line...now that is dynamic too
Anyway, the point is that anything not expected is misunderstood immediately and that's how it is with most people.
Anyway, the right to use proprietary software is freedom of speech, as is the right to use Open Source; any restriction would be like them saying you can only buy car y. The next thing they'd do was start forcing people to use the government led OS. Can they rightfully say the government must use OpenSource? Yes. Can they say people must use it? No. I especially don't want any of these current morons making the decisions. Not ONE of them seems to understand a damn thing about technology.
I do not elect someone that thinks about these issues because I want him too; I elect someone that thinks about these issues because they feel the same way I do (even if they do not know why) and the other guy does not.
If they'd be buying the next version they go to the open source version? Or after a set amount of time they start putting it on computers?
I don't see a valid reason to change from something in use already to something else simply because it is open source. More features, reliability and other things (security..) are valid reasons. I'm in love with Open Source as much as the next geek, but lets be honest, we're not a government ready to spend the money to shift to it. Hopefully they honestly have a good phase-in plan, but I find that hard to believe from a politician :(.
Is six million dollars an honest amount for this project? It takes like 2 billion (or did) to make a stealth fighter/bomber and we already have the design down! They, on the other hand, are going to have to build the ship and a nuclear core (or something) and ensure it works for 6 million dollars? Games are starting to cost this much and do much less [sarcasm]. Seriously though, this seems like a starter fund. Hit or miss, I don't see this one staying at or lower than $6 million even though it's just to make the design (and test I assume as it's a study)!
'closer to C/C++ than Java' should be 'closer to C/C++ than PHP'
- 1. You write less logic in code with Java if the class is written for you. It's exactly the same for every other language. The only time Java beats out these other languages is when it uses the GC... as you obviously don't need to free it yourself.
- You contradict yourself in the last sentence. Whenever I'm forced to write Java code, I do it on the system it will run on. Otherwise you never know what the results may be because of horrible JVM's.
- It took over because of people like you that are in love with the language for no reason other than a GC. It's slow and poorly managed. I'm surprised people don't call it a script yet (as it is not native code and is running against an interepretter...you know, the definition of a script).
- Oh, there goes number 2
:(. - Relatively error free code? When the f...ing JVM can have its own interpretation on any given box then you do not have error free code.
Everyone you know, eh? I guess you don't know anyone working somewhere that requires versioning, speed, or otherwise reliability? The version of JVM that is used at work (off-site actually) crashes every now and then (on a Unix AND Sun box) and the documentation seems more like a blog because of the code bases (to get into #1). You again contradict yourself with number 2. The sole purpose I hate JVM's are because they have to be written separately (because obviously they are written for operating systems to get the most speed, which I do not question). This really brings to life the idea of questioning Java as a language amongst C/C++, rather than PHP. In otherwords, compiled or scripted. Honestly I think it's closer to C/C++ than Java, but the fact remains that there is a program out there interpretting what to do and that HURTS speed. The only reason I'd suggest using Java is because of the GC, which is even slow, combined with the chance of multi-platform code. To get down to it, the GC is the only piece of Java that might actually help it 100% of the time because it should create/eliminate the memory efficiently, which C/C++ cannot do for you. Other than that, I would never use Java for reliability because come the next (next is a generalized term here, not in direct reference to the specific NEXT one) JVM it might kill everything.- Horrible amounts of code
- 'Multi-platform code' that isn't always. .
. - Extremely slow execution
- Slow GUI performance...(someone please mention Eclipse as an anti-argument... then refer to #2).
- Nothing new other than forced OOP.
So what has Java brought us? You can write multi-platform C/C++ code, so what does Java honestly offer that nothing else does? Maybe possibly misinterpreted code because of various JVM versions? That's nice.