Sure they will, but the political reality is that the we're near or at the end-game of the current government policy, which has been to subsidize both cheap oil and cheap suburban housing, hoping to create and then exploit divisions between the suburban middle class and the urban elites and underclass. Within the constraints of economic and political reality, there isn't much further it can do to can take us down the present path.
It could (and in my opinion should) allow the building of nuclear power plants, allow the building of new refinery capacity, end farm subsidies, end food import tariffs (especially on sugar), pull out of the Middle East, and pursue a neutral and nonaggressive foreign policy. This would ease pressure on oil and gasoline prices in the short term while allowing market incentives for research into better/cheaper/greener/safer alternatives, probably (in the short term) based on using cheap nuclear energy to turn less desirable fuels, such as high-sulfur coal or biomass, into more desirable ones such as liquid fuels for fuel cells or hybrids. That is the only sane policy I can imagine. But it won't happen, because each of these steps would lessen the government's power over the average person, whereas governments always act to increase their power, never to decrease it.
If the real economy hasn't grown, the money supply has increased by 10% and your investments have only taken 9% then you've actually become poorer. Even if the real economy has grown, the money supply increased by 10% and your investments only increased by 9% then you may not actually be poorer but your investments are still not increasing in proportion with the economy.
This is my point. In general, the vast majority of the people involved in the housing/stock markets are at the very best standing still in reality.
I agree, and I'm actually frightened by the extent to which people don't understand this. They have a vague understanding that they are losing ground, but no real clue why, or how to protect themselves. The real rate of inflation in the U.S. is very high, probably over 15%, and dollar wages remain stagnant which means real U.S. wages are falling.
Gold is usually a good way to protect wealth from inflation, over the medium to long term, and while commodities in general show a downward trend in the long term, they are an excellent investment for now, because of wildly increasing demand in the developing world as well as the likelihood of war breaking out in Iran or elsewhere.
Some real estate will also hold its real value over time but right now it's overpriced, and it's a risky bet in general. If energy prices continue to rise, people won't want to commute from the new McBurbs. Conversely, if they remain relatively moderate or even fall, which is still possible (if war in the Middle East can be averted), urban real estate will continue to be risky because no one will want to live in the 'hood if they can afford not to.
Not exactly. You don't know the names of the people truly in charge, and neither do I, but, precisely because they're smart enough to stay out of the limelight, I strongly suspect that are not idiots.
It suits their interests, however, to place people in positions of nominal (not real) power, who appeal to the masses, who by and large, thanks to 3 generations of public "schooling," mostly are idiots.
Thus, the people who APPEAR to be in charge may indeed be idiots, or at least actors sufficiently well-versed in the art of political acting to appear to be idiots.
But the real power lies elsewhere.
Think about, for example, how it came to be that the vast majority of us (and I have to include myself in that list) were systematically trained to be just like everyone else, to think the same way (or rather regurgitate the same mostly made-up "facts"), to watch the same insipid TV shows, and to fear and even hate anything or anyone that is different.
If you can identify those responsible for, and/or with a vested interest in, this nihilistic "dumbing down" of our entire society, then you have gotten at least a step closer to understanding who really is "in charge" - and whom you must oppose if you ever wish to slow the descent of our civilization into despotism and tyranny.
In a nutshell, no one is certain how "open" it will really prove to be. There may well be patent issues surrounding Mono, and Microsoft has hinted as much. Of course MS makes similar accusations against other open-source projects, but Mono is one of only a handful which really do attempt to imitate or re-implement a technology invented by Microsoft. (Wine and Samba are among the others; Linux is not. Wine is a reimplementation of the Windows API and is necessary for interoperability, and thus protected in many countries although not necessarily all. Samba implements the SMB spec which is an update of the CIFS spec which has ample prior art, having been developed by IBM. These projects will probably survive at least in countries with reasonable IP laws, but it is very conceivable that Mono will not.)
Nah. Me and Fat Tony go waaay back, and that gnocchi-eating paisan couldn't fit through the door of law school, much less graduate from one. If youse'a askin' me, my money's on Benny the Brain.
I'm sorry, and I do not mean to detract from his significant accomplishments, but I have to agree that this episode speaks poorly to Mr. de Icaza's credibility. The deficiencies of OOXML are severe, well-known, and unfixable. Not only is it not a "superb standard," but it is not something that could correctly be described as a "standard" at all, because no one, including Microsoft, could implement it correctly, and no one including Microsoft even claims to be able to do so. ODF, for whatever problems it might have, is implemented by and/or for all major office suites, including (via a third-party plugin) Microsoft's own, and it is a published ISO and IEC standard.
I don't know whether Mr. de Icaza simply cannot see this, has chosen not to see this, or has not really bothered to seriously examine it before making such an authoritative pronouncement. But any of these problems speaks poorly to his credibility, and bodes poorly for his continued status as a spokesperson for the free software community. My advice to him would be to continue to write great code, but try to refrain from public comment about things he for whatever reason clearly does not understand.
Although it has been a while since there have been any riots in the US.
Because almost all of us, myself included, are gutless sheep, and care more about our own sense of comfort and security than about what kind of world our children and grandchildren will live in.:(
There are few countries I would consider economically free, or even moving in that direction, but nuclear penetration is quite high in at least two of them, China and Japan. And since you mentioned it, South Africa, while far from free by world standards, has developed, deployed, and even exported an impressive amount of nuclear generation technology.
Neither. Just alter or abolish those regulations which no longer make sense given current technology. The demand is there; the capital is there. The regs are what keep it from happening.
Possible, but Japan and France managed, at a time when their economies were much smaller than ours, and worldwide capital availability was much smaller. It'd have an effect, for sure, but I don't think a prohibitive one. Keep in mind that nuclear done right would be significantly cheaper than the way we did it in the 50s and 60s, not to mention less dangerous and more efficient as well.
In the U.S. at least, many city centers are surrounded by run-down, formerly industrial areas that have been largely abandoned, and desperately in need of redevelopment and jobs. This would be perfect for those kinds of areas. Vastly more affordable, but still close to workers, markets, and infrastructure.
That would be my concern as well, but energy, in the form of fissile uranium, is actually one thing we do have in abundance, if only we were willing to use it. Given sufficient nuclear power generation capability, we could easily power vertical farms, water desalinization plants, and liquid fuel production facilities (using coal, biomass, or any number of other things as raw stock). We could thereby not only reduce but probably eliminate, once and for all, any need to import fuel from the Middle East or Russia. It also could significantly reduce net CO2 emissions. There are drawbacks to nuclear, as with all things in life, but compared to the situation we have now, they are very, very minor.
Western values like taking the culture of one country and arbitrarily assign it to another (yeap, I am talking about the so called country of 'Macedonia', one of the biggest thefts of cultural identity in history)?
That a misappropriation of cultural identity occurred is actually not in dispute. The perpetrator is. To learn more about this, study the past history of the region, including the Ottoman occupation and the Balkan wars of the early part of the 20th century. Then also take a look at the relative freedom enjoyed in each country by nationals of the other. I obviously am biased toward the Macedonian or so-called "FYROM" side, my wife being from there, but I have friends from Greece as well, and I think the answers are clear if you try to look at things objectively.
Also, relations are relatively good between the nations of Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, except for these two issues (the naming dispute, and the treatment of minority nationals of one of these countries by the government of the other - I'll leave the identity of each as an exercise to the reader.) Aside from this things are fine. There is significant trade and cultural interchange between the two countries, which would likely increase further if some mutually acceptable compromise could be reached on these two issues.
Surely. "All you degenerate sub-Klingon p'tahks will die a lingering and dishonorable death, as each and every Open Source developer turns his face away from your disgusting targ carcass, and your customers forsake you one by one until there is nothing left of your worthless "honor" for us to piss on."
While I agree with what you're saying, I'd go further. If you read the 9th and 10th Amendments, it becomes clear that the same thing is true of most so-called "laws." Thus I would propose that it is not individual laws, but the corrupt system itself, that needs to be altered or abolished.
Dead animals in small to moderate quantities aren't necessarily harmful. Some, including fish if not raised in a mercury-laden environment, are highly beneficial. However, many people in the developed world eat way too much meat and other animal products, to the great detriment of their own health.
You have spent your time doing things that will result in a better world for your son to grow up in. I'm sure your son knows this already, and if not, he will soon. And in all probability he will learn from you and will grow up to accomplish great things as well. I don't always agree with you 100%, but I am very appreciative and respectful toward what you have done for the cause of software freedom and therefore freedom in general. I also respect the contributions of RMS, Eben Moglen, and everyone else who has helped to give the world great Free and Open Source software.
If it weren't for having family here in the U.S., I would want to stay away as well, and I was born here. I love the ideals on which the United States were founded, but I hate what it has become (note verb pluralization - originally it was a union of mostly sovereign states, not a centralized totalitarian dictatorship). Worst of all I hate that we Americans have become conditioned, like people in much of the rest of the world, to just bend over and accept being servants of governments, rather than it being servants of us. I do not know any effective way to change the situation, and if the opportunity presents itself to escape, perhaps to Eastern Europe where my wife is from, I'm outta here. Not that Eastern Europe doesn't have problems as well, but at least they do not include total, public contempt for the rule of law and for fundamental human rights.
Bruce, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of a legal theory that would make this work the way you describe. Code licensed under GPLv2-only (as opposed to GPL v2 or later) can't legally be distributed under a more restrictive license, such as the GPLv3. To do so would be a copyright violation, and announcing one's intent to do so in advance would not change this. Linus of course can relicense his code, but not that contributed by others without their consent. Everyone, including Linus, must abide by the licenses by which that code was contributed. They must either get the consent of the GPLv2-only contributors, or strip that code, before releasing the entire thing as GPLv3 (or even GPL v2-or-above).
How do you make nuclear reactors that are safe enough to be owned and operated by the average American, whose intelligence is barely adequate...
Dumb, dumb question.
You don't need an electric generator per household today, nor a gasoline refinery, so what makes you think anyone would need their own nuclear power plant?
Even if all portable fuels needed to be produced locally, one nuke plant per town would probably suffice, or a handful per metro area.
And today's nuclear fission techology is pretty safe. Keep in mind that current production facilities in the U.S. are based on 40 to 50 year old designs. In the relatively free world a LOT has happened to make fission better, safer, and cheaper.
Putting antibiotics into meat animals isn't the least bit harmful... directly.
Yes, it is. It has the direct and predictable result of breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria, already a very significant killer and poised to become even more so.
New regulation is not needed in order to correct this problem. Only the cajones to enforce existing law. This situation is well covered by both common and statutory law in every English-speaking country at least (and probably others, though these are the ones I know best). Those responsible are at least civilly, and probably criminally, responsible for the many deaths that will result.
Slashdot Mirror
You do indeed . . . IF she is willing to allow it.
Every person has the right to do anything consistent with the rights of others.
Sure they will, but the political reality is that the we're near or at the end-game of the current government policy, which has been to subsidize both cheap oil and cheap suburban housing, hoping to create and then exploit divisions between the suburban middle class and the urban elites and underclass. Within the constraints of economic and political reality, there isn't much further it can do to can take us down the present path.
It could (and in my opinion should) allow the building of nuclear power plants, allow the building of new refinery capacity, end farm subsidies, end food import tariffs (especially on sugar), pull out of the Middle East, and pursue a neutral and nonaggressive foreign policy. This would ease pressure on oil and gasoline prices in the short term while allowing market incentives for research into better/cheaper/greener/safer alternatives, probably (in the short term) based on using cheap nuclear energy to turn less desirable fuels, such as high-sulfur coal or biomass, into more desirable ones such as liquid fuels for fuel cells or hybrids. That is the only sane policy I can imagine. But it won't happen, because each of these steps would lessen the government's power over the average person, whereas governments always act to increase their power, never to decrease it.
If the real economy hasn't grown, the money supply has increased by 10% and your investments have only taken 9% then you've actually become poorer. Even if the real economy has grown, the money supply increased by 10% and your investments only increased by 9% then you may not actually be poorer but your investments are still not increasing in proportion with the economy.
This is my point. In general, the vast majority of the people involved in the housing/stock markets are at the very best standing still in reality.
I agree, and I'm actually frightened by the extent to which people don't understand this. They have a vague understanding that they are losing ground, but no real clue why, or how to protect themselves. The real rate of inflation in the U.S. is very high, probably over 15%, and dollar wages remain stagnant which means real U.S. wages are falling.
Gold is usually a good way to protect wealth from inflation, over the medium to long term, and while commodities in general show a downward trend in the long term, they are an excellent investment for now, because of wildly increasing demand in the developing world as well as the likelihood of war breaking out in Iran or elsewhere.
Some real estate will also hold its real value over time but right now it's overpriced, and it's a risky bet in general. If energy prices continue to rise, people won't want to commute from the new McBurbs. Conversely, if they remain relatively moderate or even fall, which is still possible (if war in the Middle East can be averted), urban real estate will continue to be risky because no one will want to live in the 'hood if they can afford not to.
The real problem is these idiots are in charge.
Not exactly. You don't know the names of the people truly in charge, and neither do I, but, precisely because they're smart enough to stay out of the limelight, I strongly suspect that are not idiots.
It suits their interests, however, to place people in positions of nominal (not real) power, who appeal to the masses, who by and large, thanks to 3 generations of public "schooling," mostly are idiots.
Thus, the people who APPEAR to be in charge may indeed be idiots, or at least actors sufficiently well-versed in the art of political acting to appear to be idiots.
But the real power lies elsewhere.
Think about, for example, how it came to be that the vast majority of us (and I have to include myself in that list) were systematically trained to be just like everyone else, to think the same way (or rather regurgitate the same mostly made-up "facts"), to watch the same insipid TV shows, and to fear and even hate anything or anyone that is different.
If you can identify those responsible for, and/or with a vested interest in, this nihilistic "dumbing down" of our entire society, then you have gotten at least a step closer to understanding who really is "in charge" - and whom you must oppose if you ever wish to slow the descent of our civilization into despotism and tyranny.
In a nutshell, no one is certain how "open" it will really prove to be. There may well be patent issues surrounding Mono, and Microsoft has hinted as much. Of course MS makes similar accusations against other open-source projects, but Mono is one of only a handful which really do attempt to imitate or re-implement a technology invented by Microsoft. (Wine and Samba are among the others; Linux is not. Wine is a reimplementation of the Windows API and is necessary for interoperability, and thus protected in many countries although not necessarily all. Samba implements the SMB spec which is an update of the CIFS spec which has ample prior art, having been developed by IBM. These projects will probably survive at least in countries with reasonable IP laws, but it is very conceivable that Mono will not.)
Sounds like Fat Tony's been to Law School, eh?
Nah. Me and Fat Tony go waaay back, and that gnocchi-eating paisan couldn't fit through the door of law school, much less graduate from one. If youse'a askin' me, my money's on Benny the Brain.
Interesting that no one noted that modern English is largely Latin-derived as well, being a fusion of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French.
I'm sorry, and I do not mean to detract from his significant accomplishments, but I have to agree that this episode speaks poorly to Mr. de Icaza's credibility. The deficiencies of OOXML are severe, well-known, and unfixable. Not only is it not a "superb standard," but it is not something that could correctly be described as a "standard" at all, because no one, including Microsoft, could implement it correctly, and no one including Microsoft even claims to be able to do so. ODF, for whatever problems it might have, is implemented by and/or for all major office suites, including (via a third-party plugin) Microsoft's own, and it is a published ISO and IEC standard.
I don't know whether Mr. de Icaza simply cannot see this, has chosen not to see this, or has not really bothered to seriously examine it before making such an authoritative pronouncement. But any of these problems speaks poorly to his credibility, and bodes poorly for his continued status as a spokesperson for the free software community. My advice to him would be to continue to write great code, but try to refrain from public comment about things he for whatever reason clearly does not understand.
Although it has been a while since there have been any riots in the US.
Because almost all of us, myself included, are gutless sheep, and care more about our own sense of comfort and security than about what kind of world our children and grandchildren will live in. :(
There are few countries I would consider economically free, or even moving in that direction, but nuclear penetration is quite high in at least two of them, China and Japan. And since you mentioned it, South Africa, while far from free by world standards, has developed, deployed, and even exported an impressive amount of nuclear generation technology.
Neither. Just alter or abolish those regulations which no longer make sense given current technology. The demand is there; the capital is there. The regs are what keep it from happening.
Possible, but Japan and France managed, at a time when their economies were much smaller than ours, and worldwide capital availability was much smaller. It'd have an effect, for sure, but I don't think a prohibitive one. Keep in mind that nuclear done right would be significantly cheaper than the way we did it in the 50s and 60s, not to mention less dangerous and more efficient as well.
In the U.S. at least, many city centers are surrounded by run-down, formerly industrial areas that have been largely abandoned, and desperately in need of redevelopment and jobs. This would be perfect for those kinds of areas. Vastly more affordable, but still close to workers, markets, and infrastructure.
That would be my concern as well, but energy, in the form of fissile uranium, is actually one thing we do have in abundance, if only we were willing to use it. Given sufficient nuclear power generation capability, we could easily power vertical farms, water desalinization plants, and liquid fuel production facilities (using coal, biomass, or any number of other things as raw stock). We could thereby not only reduce but probably eliminate, once and for all, any need to import fuel from the Middle East or Russia. It also could significantly reduce net CO2 emissions. There are drawbacks to nuclear, as with all things in life, but compared to the situation we have now, they are very, very minor.
Western values like taking the culture of one country and arbitrarily assign it to another (yeap, I am talking about the so called country of 'Macedonia', one of the biggest thefts of cultural identity in history)?
That a misappropriation of cultural identity occurred is actually not in dispute. The perpetrator is. To learn more about this, study the past history of the region, including the Ottoman occupation and the Balkan wars of the early part of the 20th century. Then also take a look at the relative freedom enjoyed in each country by nationals of the other. I obviously am biased toward the Macedonian or so-called "FYROM" side, my wife being from there, but I have friends from Greece as well, and I think the answers are clear if you try to look at things objectively.
Also, relations are relatively good between the nations of Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, except for these two issues (the naming dispute, and the treatment of minority nationals of one of these countries by the government of the other - I'll leave the identity of each as an exercise to the reader.) Aside from this things are fine. There is significant trade and cultural interchange between the two countries, which would likely increase further if some mutually acceptable compromise could be reached on these two issues.
Surely. "All you degenerate sub-Klingon p'tahks will die a lingering and dishonorable death, as each and every Open Source developer turns his face away from your disgusting targ carcass, and your customers forsake you one by one until there is nothing left of your worthless "honor" for us to piss on."
While I agree with what you're saying, I'd go further. If you read the 9th and 10th Amendments, it becomes clear that the same thing is true of most so-called "laws." Thus I would propose that it is not individual laws, but the corrupt system itself, that needs to be altered or abolished.
Dead animals in small to moderate quantities aren't necessarily harmful. Some, including fish if not raised in a mercury-laden environment, are highly beneficial. However, many people in the developed world eat way too much meat and other animal products, to the great detriment of their own health.
You have spent your time doing things that will result in a better world for your son to grow up in. I'm sure your son knows this already, and if not, he will soon. And in all probability he will learn from you and will grow up to accomplish great things as well. I don't always agree with you 100%, but I am very appreciative and respectful toward what you have done for the cause of software freedom and therefore freedom in general. I also respect the contributions of RMS, Eben Moglen, and everyone else who has helped to give the world great Free and Open Source software.
If it weren't for having family here in the U.S., I would want to stay away as well, and I was born here. I love the ideals on which the United States were founded, but I hate what it has become (note verb pluralization - originally it was a union of mostly sovereign states, not a centralized totalitarian dictatorship). Worst of all I hate that we Americans have become conditioned, like people in much of the rest of the world, to just bend over and accept being servants of governments, rather than it being servants of us. I do not know any effective way to change the situation, and if the opportunity presents itself to escape, perhaps to Eastern Europe where my wife is from, I'm outta here. Not that Eastern Europe doesn't have problems as well, but at least they do not include total, public contempt for the rule of law and for fundamental human rights.
Bruce, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of a legal theory that would make this work the way you describe. Code licensed under GPLv2-only (as opposed to GPL v2 or later) can't legally be distributed under a more restrictive license, such as the GPLv3. To do so would be a copyright violation, and announcing one's intent to do so in advance would not change this. Linus of course can relicense his code, but not that contributed by others without their consent. Everyone, including Linus, must abide by the licenses by which that code was contributed. They must either get the consent of the GPLv2-only contributors, or strip that code, before releasing the entire thing as GPLv3 (or even GPL v2-or-above).
It scares me that I almost understand what you just said.
How do you make nuclear reactors that are safe enough to be owned and operated by the average American, whose intelligence is barely adequate...
Dumb, dumb question.
You don't need an electric generator per household today, nor a gasoline refinery, so what makes you think anyone would need their own nuclear power plant?
Even if all portable fuels needed to be produced locally, one nuke plant per town would probably suffice, or a handful per metro area.
And today's nuclear fission techology is pretty safe. Keep in mind that current production facilities in the U.S. are based on 40 to 50 year old designs. In the relatively free world a LOT has happened to make fission better, safer, and cheaper.
Putting antibiotics into meat animals isn't the least bit harmful... directly.
Yes, it is. It has the direct and predictable result of breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria, already a very significant killer and poised to become even more so.
New regulation is not needed in order to correct this problem. Only the cajones to enforce existing law. This situation is well covered by both common and statutory law in every English-speaking country at least (and probably others, though these are the ones I know best). Those responsible are at least civilly, and probably criminally, responsible for the many deaths that will result.
most of the people around [GW Bush] are pretty shady too
I hereby nominate this as the Understatement of All Time.