Web sites are still in no way "if you built it they will come" kind of media. Because I write something about a subject doesn't mean it's journalism. I would argue that almost anything we write is only news if it's noticed, promoted or a part of a subject non-random sweep such as an agent looking for specific things. Journalism is rarely biased, rarely unpromoted without an agenda behind it and rarely noticed without a subject's interest. What is your opinion on blogs and this so-called Journalistic independence?
>what the deal is with the fundamentalists who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
These people are instructed via the leaders of their religion to not think, to not question, to not consider. They are instructed on what the word of god is, how it exactly should be interpreted.
These people have very little memory of the history of their own religion, that fundamentalism extended to the basic beliefs achieved by questioning the world they live in and realizing they needed order. However, to never question that belief again (not that using science to examine things) is rediculous in the extreme and simply means you learn a lot less about what God's intended for everyone to learn.
Ultimately we're talking about hatred of something they do not want or feel they can't, or more importantly won't understand -- and it might be something that can potentially derail their view of the world. It's scary to them. It makes their religious leaders insecure and in turn makes them worried that science might some day effect them in some unforseen way. Ultimately these people probably don't trust God too much, or at the very least themselves.
You're wondering where the oversight is? Welcome to Post 1980's Reagan/Bush, where oversight was a thing of the past even back then. Remember the "Star Wars" program? This same thing is back, just "on the ground" to begin with.
It seems to me that there are more newbies to Linux every day. With Apache 2 being such an important Web services platform, it appears very powerful but not all that easy for a person new to Apache to set up. Why kind of efforts do you plan to undertake to improve the set-up process for Windows and Linux flavors?
Yes. it's very ironic. However, if that's what you have to do in order to compete as a company (and to convince the information providers to give you what you ask for in terms of content) then you have to bow to industry security measures in the form of DRM.
Without it you're stuck without any "worthwhile" content. I'm really happy that this guy from Yahoo is talking about it, because he's right. This kind of DRM as in No DRM, or invisible, manageable DRM with a good customer experience is exactly what the industry should be pursuing.
I'd rather have these costs hit bandwidth providers like SBC in the pocketbook. Year after year they post incredible profits and they whine about not being able to provide us with faster connections and infrastructure. Eat some profits providers. Spend some money, instead of pushing it back on us with higher costs.
...from work...But *I* have created an application that prevents sensationalist articles by CNET and applications written by Abe Usher from being run or seen on my employers network! SO THERE!
Roger: PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPhhhhppPPppLLLEEASE EDDIE!?! Can I get Oswald? Please? Iger: Only if you bring me the head of Al Michaels. Roger: Okay! Can I bring a few rounds of golf too? Iger: Sure, but only if they complain that Al's not enough. Roger: Great! I'll also ask for some Olympic Highlights, and see what I can do about getting the Toon rights to Star Trek back! Igre: You go right ahead Roger. Roger: Thanks! I'll be Riiiiiighhhhhttttt Back!
Given that Darwin graduated college and this guy didn't, and now again that he's resigned in disgrace, that would argue quite strongly for this guy's 'lack of survival skills'.
Darwin's proven correct once again. Evolve, Write the paper on it, Survive...
I have to agree with this wholeheartedly. UI is everything in the world of Photoshop. It's why their lawyers protect the UI carefully. It's also why every change to the UI in Photoshop is tested and retested and agonized over and the team working on it is locked in a closet and only allowed to come out for NAPP meetings when there's a new feature to show off.
If the GIMP community wants to compete then they must get people on the project who have total control over fashioning the UI. In fact they could do something the Photoshop team won't DARE do, which is create several different UIs for GIMP, or allow people to completely reconfigure the shape of the pallets, the buttons, etc. That way if the user wishes to make it look like Photoshop they arrange it to do that themselves, thereby keeping the lawyers from whining about how GIMP stole PS's UI. It's not GIMP that does it you see, it's the USERS to who do that.
Or, alternatively a user can configure an interface with their favorite settings, in the order they wish them in.
Sure it's configuration hell, but it's time the GIMP team give up their current lousy UI. It has been years, and face it --- your potential community knows more than they GIMP UI team knows. They know it doesn't work for them, and THAT's why they stay away.
I don't want to gtalk-advertise anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to gtalk-advertise anything bought or processed, or buy anything gtalk-advertized or processed, or process anything gtalk-advertized, bought, or processed, or repair anything gtalk-advertized, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.
When I hear Bush express these views regarding animal-human hybrids, I'm confused. He seems to be attempting to protect us from rampaging hordes of cat people we have yet to see. However I have to ask about Little People. (Stay with me for a second) I'm sure Bush realizes that a lot of Little People (And their parents) would prefer to be 'normal'. The best hope for a change in growth patterns or elimination of the disease that causes this malady would likely require gene therapy. Where does gene therapy begin and embryo modification end? Is he concerned about gene therapy at all?
Yes and good luck accepting responsibilty for your dismal failures that you most certainly will happily hereafter blame on others...or so says the article...
Part of my point in this regard is that I'm suggesting the government create a minimum. It would then be up to the company to provide a stronger healthcare package over and above that as the benefit they'd rather you have. Competition would still exist (not just among healthcare companies but among companies as to who can be attractive to new employees) and everyone would be much happier. Then you'd have your opportunity for us all to deludely believe that the corporation might actually have your best interests at heart.
This is not a corporate issue. It doesn't have to be. It's a public one. Nobody really cares if the minimum is the same so long as the minimum makes sense. NO healthcare makes NO sense. Minimum you can always build on. As for regulation, stop being afraid of it. The current healthcare insurance companies aren't, and neither should you be. Healthcare insurance companies regulate the hell out of your use of their plans. This wouldn't be any different.
>People banding together to make the world better is >what makes a community. The government taking care of >you does not.
Again, I would have to disagree with you there. The "government" is people. It's about people. In this nation we are supposed to govern ourselves. We elect people to support and act on public opinion, beliefs, etc. We also expect the government to protect us. I have to agree with the person who responded to you who said [paraphrasing], "in most civilized countries, the government IS the community", and that *should be* true here as well. Unfortunately we don't have a true democracy or even a true republic. Sad that. Each and every adult needs vote in this country, and our representatives are usually pretty out of touch with their public. That should change.
> I know a man whose family is destitute. About a year ago > he did a job and got paid $2000. He bought a TV. He can > afford health care, he just doesn't want it. I realize >there are some who truly need health care, but I don't >see what the deal is.
That's part of the problem, and it is interesting that you seem to say here that the guy got paid $2000, and somehow that should equal enough for health care and health care should be what he wants in his daily life. 2K isn't what 100% health care insurance costs for a year anyway. Most people don't think that long term. As the Romans were fond of saying "Rome is the Mob". And the Mob lives in the moment, or as short term as is able. I think this guy spending $2k on a tv means that he probably feels he's healthy enough, and healthy enough right now. $2k doesn't buy you long term health. Comprehensive healthcare can. The goal here is to practice prevention and sustaining a healthy community. Not to mention that what we're talking about is the government buying a minimum standard of healthcare. In that instance, the government isn't giving you cash. It's giving you insurance. $2k isn't insurance, insurance can't be willingly spent, at least not without something happening to you first. That's long term thinking.
>Also, I truly don't know anyone who can't get access to a >doctor if they need it. One of my friends works for the >county health dept. as a doctor for those who can't afford > it. There is a Free Doctor's clinic here in town. >While I admit I don't have a clear picture of the whole health > care problem, I know there are a lot of POOR families around > here, and they all have access to medical attention. I don't >want to change that right now, but I don't want to expand it, either.
That's a huge mistake in my opinion. There isn't a county (in the United States, which by the way the US covers not just your locale; it's the ENTIRE country) that isn't overburdened by medical costs and the strain of supporting the uninsured within our population. A free doctor's clinic won't serve everyone - they can't. If everyone in your town stopped using their insurance altogether, and everyone went to the free clinic, it would fall apart. The resources and cash for support aren't there. Support at a national level can help resolve the resources issue.
Just consider how much health care really costs. Employers will tell you healthcare costs rise all the time. It doubles, it triples. How many people buy healthcare? Companies buy healthcare for 100, 200, 500, 1000 people at a time. You buy more health insurance; you get more benefits and big discounts... Now, here's a simple scenario -- suppose we have every man, woman and child guaranteed healthcare. As opposed to a company buying 1000 spots and getting a discount, you suddenly have millions of spots being purchased every year. This buys you a much, much bigger, in fact phenomenal discount. It sounds simple, but no healthcare insurance organization is going to turn down millions of guaranteed, sold healthcare insurance plans. Then again, why should anyone need an insurance company in the first place? Well an insurance company makes
I'd love to purchase Nettwerk Music Group's products, but their Websites used to be unprofessional, poorly designed, rarely worked properly and have been a pain in the ass for years. Your comment gave me the urge to go take a look. Nice new site.
Considering what Nettwerk's espousing, I have a lot more respect for them now. I'll see if I can find another way of supporting them that doesn't involve their Web-based marketing/sales efforts, like going and buying a CD or two, or using iTunes... As Sarah McLachlan's on that label, that shouldn't be a problem... Of course Avril Levine's on that label, so I may have to alternate between smiling and throwing up.
Why doesn't Bush do an end run around this situation another way? If he wants to detect communictions going on between other countries and our own, why not just set up Wiretaps outside of the US? Order the CIA to do something? You're the President aren't you?
Surely he can get cooperation from other countries, then he wouldn't have to come to us for approval, and violate OUR civil liberties.:::tongue in cheek:::
Slashdot Mirror
Web sites are still in no way "if you built it they will come" kind of media. Because I write something about a subject doesn't mean it's journalism. I would argue that almost anything we write is only news if it's noticed, promoted or a part of a subject non-random sweep such as an agent looking for specific things. Journalism is rarely biased, rarely unpromoted without an agenda behind it and rarely noticed without a subject's interest.
What is your opinion on blogs and this so-called Journalistic independence?
>what the deal is with the fundamentalists who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
These people are instructed via the leaders of their religion to not think, to not question, to not consider. They are instructed on what the word of god is, how it exactly should be interpreted.
These people have very little memory of the history of their own religion, that fundamentalism extended to the basic beliefs achieved by questioning the world they live in and realizing they needed order. However, to never question that belief again (not that using science to examine things) is rediculous in the extreme and simply means you learn a lot less about what God's intended for everyone to learn.
Ultimately we're talking about hatred of something they do not want or feel they can't, or more importantly won't understand -- and it might be something that can potentially derail their view of the world. It's scary to them. It makes their religious leaders insecure and in turn makes them worried that science might some day effect them in some unforseen way. Ultimately these people probably don't trust God too much, or at the very least themselves.
All opinions at any rate.
You're wondering where the oversight is? Welcome to Post 1980's Reagan/Bush, where oversight was a thing of the past even back then. Remember the "Star Wars" program? This same thing is back, just "on the ground" to begin with.
It seems to me that there are more newbies to Linux every day. With Apache 2 being such an important Web services platform, it appears very powerful but not all that easy for a person new to Apache to set up. Why kind of efforts do you plan to undertake to improve the set-up process for Windows and Linux flavors?
MOD PARENT UP!!!!
Yes. it's very ironic. However, if that's what you have to do in order to compete as a company (and to convince the information providers to give you what you ask for in terms of content) then you have to bow to industry security measures in the form of DRM.
Without it you're stuck without any "worthwhile" content. I'm really happy that this guy from Yahoo is talking about it, because he's right. This kind of DRM as in No DRM, or invisible, manageable DRM with a good customer experience is exactly what the industry should be pursuing.
Can I presume that this signals the Second Coming or should I feel free to book my flight to the Bahamas now?
I'd rather have these costs hit bandwidth providers like SBC in the pocketbook. Year after year they post incredible profits and they whine about not being able to provide us with faster connections and infrastructure. Eat some profits providers. Spend some money, instead of pushing it back on us with higher costs.
Feel free to give some o' that to me!
...from work...But *I* have created an application that prevents sensationalist articles by CNET and applications written by Abe Usher from being run or seen on my employers network! SO THERE!
I store it between two slices of bread with a little mutton and a touch of garlic and lemon...Mmmm... Makes the mouth water...
Roger: PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPhhhhppPPppLLLEEASE EDDIE!?! Can I get Oswald? Please?
Iger: Only if you bring me the head of Al Michaels.
Roger: Okay! Can I bring a few rounds of golf too?
Iger: Sure, but only if they complain that Al's not enough.
Roger: Great! I'll also ask for some Olympic Highlights, and see what I can do about getting the Toon rights to Star Trek back!
Igre: You go right ahead Roger.
Roger: Thanks! I'll be Riiiiiighhhhhttttt Back!
Two words:
"Thank Jobs"
Given that Darwin graduated college and this guy didn't, and now again that he's resigned in disgrace, that would argue quite strongly for this guy's 'lack of survival skills'.
Darwin's proven correct once again. Evolve, Write the paper on it, Survive...
*SPIDEY*
There, someone added the critical missing sense...
I have to agree with this wholeheartedly. UI is everything in the world of Photoshop. It's why their lawyers protect the UI carefully. It's also why every change to the UI in Photoshop is tested and retested and agonized over and the team working on it is locked in a closet and only allowed to come out for NAPP meetings when there's a new feature to show off.
If the GIMP community wants to compete then they must get people on the project who have total control over fashioning the UI. In fact they could do something the Photoshop team won't DARE do, which is create several different UIs for GIMP, or allow people to completely reconfigure the shape of the pallets, the buttons, etc. That way if the user wishes to make it look like Photoshop they arrange it to do that themselves, thereby keeping the lawyers from whining about how GIMP stole PS's UI. It's not GIMP that does it you see, it's the USERS to who do that.
Or, alternatively a user can configure an interface with their favorite settings, in the order they wish them in.
Sure it's configuration hell, but it's time the GIMP team give up their current lousy UI. It has been years, and face it --- your potential community knows more than they GIMP UI team knows. They know it doesn't work for them, and THAT's why they stay away.
I don't want to gtalk-advertise anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to gtalk-advertise anything bought or processed, or buy anything gtalk-advertized or processed, or process anything gtalk-advertized, bought, or processed, or repair anything gtalk-advertized, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.
When I hear Bush express these views regarding animal-human hybrids, I'm confused. He seems to be attempting to protect us from rampaging hordes of cat people we have yet to see. However I have to ask about Little People. (Stay with me for a second) I'm sure Bush realizes that a lot of Little People (And their parents) would prefer to be 'normal'. The best hope for a change in growth patterns or elimination of the disease that causes this malady would likely require gene therapy. Where does gene therapy begin and embryo modification end? Is he concerned about gene therapy at all?
Yes and good luck accepting responsibilty for your dismal failures that you most certainly will happily hereafter blame on others...or so says the article...
Funny, but look at WHEN he posts. 9PM to 1AM. Looks to me like he really does work a heck of a lot of hours if he starts before 9, and ends at 8. Eh?
Part of my point in this regard is that I'm suggesting the government create a minimum. It would then be up to the company to provide a stronger healthcare package over and above that as the benefit they'd rather you have. Competition would still exist (not just among healthcare companies but among companies as to who can be attractive to new employees) and everyone would be much happier. Then you'd have your opportunity for us all to deludely believe that the corporation might actually have your best interests at heart.
This is not a corporate issue. It doesn't have to be. It's a public one. Nobody really cares if the minimum is the same so long as the minimum makes sense. NO healthcare makes NO sense. Minimum you can always build on. As for regulation, stop being afraid of it. The current healthcare insurance companies aren't, and neither should you be. Healthcare insurance companies regulate the hell out of your use of their plans. This wouldn't be any different.
>People banding together to make the world better is
>what makes a community. The government taking care of
>you does not.
Again, I would have to disagree with you there. The "government" is people. It's about people. In this nation we are supposed to govern ourselves. We elect people to support and act on public opinion, beliefs, etc. We also expect the government to protect us. I have to agree with the person who responded to you who said [paraphrasing], "in most civilized countries, the government IS the community", and that *should be* true here as well. Unfortunately we don't have a true democracy or even a true republic. Sad that. Each and every adult needs vote in this country, and our representatives are usually pretty out of touch with their public. That should change.
> I know a man whose family is destitute. About a year ago
> he did a job and got paid $2000. He bought a TV. He can
> afford health care, he just doesn't want it. I realize
>there are some who truly need health care, but I don't
>see what the deal is.
That's part of the problem, and it is interesting that you seem to say here that the guy got paid $2000, and somehow that should equal enough for health care and health care should be what he wants in his daily life. 2K isn't what 100% health care insurance costs for a year anyway. Most people don't think that long term. As the Romans were fond of saying "Rome is the Mob". And the Mob lives in the moment, or as short term as is able. I think this guy spending $2k on a tv means that he probably feels he's healthy enough, and healthy enough right now. $2k doesn't buy you long term health. Comprehensive healthcare can. The goal here is to practice prevention and sustaining a healthy community. Not to mention that what we're talking about is the government buying a minimum standard of healthcare. In that instance, the government isn't giving you cash. It's giving you insurance. $2k isn't insurance, insurance can't be willingly spent, at least not without something happening to you first. That's long term thinking.
>Also, I truly don't know anyone who can't get access to a
>doctor if they need it. One of my friends works for the
>county health dept. as a doctor for those who can't afford
> it. There is a Free Doctor's clinic here in town.
>While I admit I don't have a clear picture of the whole health
> care problem, I know there are a lot of POOR families around
> here, and they all have access to medical attention. I don't
>want to change that right now, but I don't want to expand it, either.
That's a huge mistake in my opinion. There isn't a county (in the United States, which by the way the US covers not just your locale; it's the ENTIRE country) that isn't overburdened by medical costs and the strain of supporting the uninsured within our population. A free doctor's clinic won't serve everyone - they can't. If everyone in your town stopped using their insurance altogether, and everyone went to the free clinic, it would fall apart. The resources and cash for support aren't there. Support at a national level can help resolve the resources issue.
Just consider how much health care really costs. Employers will tell you healthcare costs rise all the time. It doubles, it triples. How many people buy healthcare? Companies buy healthcare for 100, 200, 500, 1000 people at a time. You buy more health insurance; you get more benefits and big discounts... Now, here's a simple scenario -- suppose we have every man, woman and child guaranteed healthcare. As opposed to a company buying 1000 spots and getting a discount, you suddenly have millions of spots being purchased every year. This buys you a much, much bigger, in fact phenomenal discount. It sounds simple, but no healthcare insurance organization is going to turn down millions of guaranteed, sold healthcare insurance plans. Then again, why should anyone need an insurance company in the first place? Well an insurance company makes
I'd love to purchase Nettwerk Music Group's products, but their Websites used to be unprofessional, poorly designed, rarely worked properly and have been a pain in the ass for years. Your comment gave me the urge to go take a look. Nice new site.
Considering what Nettwerk's espousing, I have a lot more respect for them now. I'll see if I can find another way of supporting them that doesn't involve their Web-based marketing/sales efforts, like going and buying a CD or two, or using iTunes... As Sarah McLachlan's on that label, that shouldn't be a problem... Of course Avril Levine's on that label, so I may have to alternate between smiling and throwing up.
"That's not a "Request" son! That's an Order!"
Why doesn't Bush do an end run around this situation another way?
:::tongue in cheek:::
If he wants to detect communictions going on between other countries and our own, why not just set up Wiretaps outside of the US? Order the CIA to do something? You're the President aren't you?
Surely he can get cooperation from other countries, then he wouldn't have to come to us for approval, and violate OUR civil liberties.