OH MY GOD! This is jawdroppingly funny and yet sad. It just defies correction, akin to countering a belief in UFO abductions and bovine anal probing -- fruitless.
I am -personally- allowed to hate black people, or women, or those with red hair, and refuse entirely to associate with or speak to them. (Note: I don't -support- this behavior in any way, I'm just noting it is allowed!)
OMG! Because, like, for a second there, I was thinking you were, like, some KKK guy or something. Whew!
And the Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich; and the disco bombing in Italy (was it?); and the Achille Lauro hijacking; and the Lockerbie bombing; and...
Speaking of those events, while cleaning up I just recently found my copy of Time from the bombing of Tripoli (and our "accidental" bombing of the French embassy).
You know, I have taken a lot of flights inside the US, north, south, east and west, and I have never once had anybody strike up a conversation about religion. You must just be lucky -- or maybe you dress like a priest. The strangest conversation I ever had was on my flight back from Sydney, with some freak who flew all the way to Australia to meet some guy she'd "met" online, who turned out to, surprise, be a freak too. Hour after hour after hour after hour...
As for Poland, I was recently there for a couple weeks, and I never experienced anyone discuss religion. The closest we got to anything religious was visiting the graveyard containing some of my wife's relatives, plus some ancient churches/cathedrals. Religion there was no more overt than here in Chicago, and infinitely less than in many southern states.
Um, double major here, history, focus on American Constitutional Legal Development and Roman history. So I do admit that I see our legal history through a lens influenced by the Roman Republic and some by the later Empire.
The President in our system of government has inherent powers that he can exercise without any authorization from Congress. Those powers are inherent in his office, and they are inherent in the power to execute law. The question is, has always been, and always will be the extent. The Constitution is hailed as a flexible document -- that flexibility provides for these arguments. We have had these arguments for a long time. See Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison. So long as our Constitution remains a flexible, minimal document, we will continue to do so, and this will continue to be a natural part of our legal system and its constant evolution. It's a lot more complex than what your grade school teacher taught you.
I have heard this 'above the law' bit a lot. However, it seems rather shrill.
At one time, Congress declared that the Supreme Court could not strike down acts of Congress. Yet the Supreme Court seized that power. Marbury. At one time, Congress was unable to do a great deal of what it does today, yet its power has expanded through seizure and through jurisprudence, not amendment. Our legal history is rife with seminal moments, recognized by name, when once branch of government accumulated additional authority it wasn't previously considered to have.
What the President is doing is promoting a view of Presidential authority that has waxed and waned throughout our history. I am sympathetic to some of the view. The President is not a Prime Minister. The Presidency is a co-equal branch of government, with inherent powers that were not created by the Congress, and that cannot be constrained by the Congress. The extent of those powers is the question. The President, obviously, wants to maximize his inherent powers to act decisively and rapidly without legislative action. Congress wants to maximize its power to define what is and is not legal. The Supremes want to maximize their power of review, and the further we get from 1937 the more comfortable they are reclaiming it.
People should realize that the Presidency has given up a lot of its powers in the latter 20th century, and its going to start reclaiming them. The Supremes gave up a lot throughout the 20th century, and they too are reclaiming them. Those accustomed to the Congress being the more-equal among equals won't like it.
The current "negotiation" among the branches of government over power seems ominous and terrible and unprecedented to many today because they didn't live through the numerous prior precedents, or, less nobly, because they are blinded by partisanship. The President will over-reach, Congress will express holy indignation, the President will retreat to a lesser, but still greater than before, position, and the Supremes will eventually mediate it all when it reaches them in due course, after the furor and passion has died down.
Its the way our system works. People shouldn't get their panties all in a bunch. As there always are, there will be elections, and the people will have their say. Bush will be out of office. He won't become a dictator calling for a referendum on whether "Bush should be president" until 2031. He's no Caesar. The American legal system will keep moving along, constantly evolving and changing shape in fits and starts.
You know, IT comprises a huge spectrum. To lump everyone together in the category of IT as is often done is roughly akin to a category called 'making stuff' that comprises everyone from the engineers to the guys mixing concrete on the job site. Myself, I am CS from Purdue. I was in the AAE (Aero/Astronautical Engineering) program for 2.5 years before transferring. Nearly all of the engineering prereqs were also prereqs for the CS program. My friends in EE joined the IEEE -- I joined the ACM. I've been a member since 90 or so. I think we already have a professional society. We may not be state certified like PEs, or architects, or, eh, hairdressers, but I think we're no less professional for that.
Larry
Re:slightly different paradigm
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 1
And what about being in command mode and (accidently) trying to enter text? Suddenly you've just executed some set of commands (which can presumably be undone), but you don't necessarily realize it right away.
Once you've used vi a few times, that simply doesn't happen. Your mind easily keeps track of what you're doing. I've used vi for nearly 20 years now, and I cannot recall the last time I did that, if ever. Probably 19 years ago.
Larry
Re:slightly different paradigm
on
Vim 7 Released
·
· Score: 1
The teacher's editor seemed to read his mind. The class was hard to follow sometimes because he would frequently say something like, "Move those 3 lines to the end of the other function," and it would be done before he was finished saying it. And he was slowing down for the benefit of the class.
I once found somebody who described the motto of vi as "The moving finger writes and having writ moves on." It's a line from an ancient Persian poem (apparently mis-translated), but it aptly evokes vi -- vi is fluid, writing and editing flow into one constant and, eventually, natural motion of the fingers. I've used vi for nearly twenty years now, and it's amusing how often people watching me edit text are amazed at the speed which which I do it.
That depends. Embedding a spell-checker into the editor is not the Unix way. I've used spell/aspell/ispell for years, and haven't ever lamented the lack of a spell-checker in vi. Hell, given that I didn't learn to write with the crutch of an integrated real-time spell-checker as commonly and annoyingly found today, I rarely need one as I rarely make a spelling mistake that I don't immediately recognize. I'm sure people who typed on actual typewriters without correction ribbons were even better spellers.
Anyway, I think a reasonable person would expect an editor to use an external spell-checker, whether provided as an OS/library API service, or an external application. I don't know how the latest vim (honestly, I still use vi and clones pretty much as I did in 1987 unfortunately) does it, but I hope it does it that way rather than developing a new wheel.
A while ago, a script-kiddie broke into an old Linux box. He left behind his history files and such. He made many typos at the shell, and used pico. We didn't lock him out immediately -- instead, I removed pico and made it a link to vi. The kid would get back in, start 'pico' and then disconnect his shell connection. He had no clue how to exit the program. It was hilarious.
The problem here is expectations. I am a car guy, among other hobbies. Fun for me means there are three pedals. I expect my fun car to have a real clutch, and gears that I choose with a mechanical linkage -- not a pretend manual automatic. I take my car on the racetrack a couple times a year for lapping. I like the fact, on some strange level, that I can blow a shift coming out of a turn, even catastrophically (e.g. grab first at 45mph) -- it means that there is still some skill involved, other than just pushing the go pedal. Our family car has the slushbox and the Britax car seat in back. My fun car has a lightweight aluminum flywheel with a touchy clutch.
I also expect to be able to wrench on my car, change oil, fix problems, build a nice engine and swap it -- because I enjoy it, not simply to save money. I'm not so fond of new cars because they are getting harder and harder to play with, and that only would get worse with an electric or hybrid car. Ultimately, I have no interest in a transportation appliance as my fun car, even if it is fast, sexy, and handles perfectly. I think that you'll find the same attitude in many car and driving enthusiasts.
People switched to IE because, at the time, it was BETTER than Netscape. Simple as that.
Not quite. The IE v. Netscape battle occurred before DSL. People largely didn't switch via downloading a different browser. It took a long time. I remember, since as a user of Unix workstations and early desktop Linux, I downloaded Netscape often. People got IE bundled with new computers, on free media from MS, and with their ISP's Internet Access Kit. Corporations installed it company-wide. For the typical user, it wasn't a matter of merely clicking on a link and trying out a different browser and seeing that it was better.
Microsoft won for several reasons. One, they didn't charge for the browser. Netscape did for anything but personal usage. The Netscape browser cost money if ISPs wanted to give it to customers, if PC sellers wanted to install it, or if businesses wanted it. Two, they began integrating browser technology with MS-specific extensions into their development environment and providing easy ways for corporate application developers to create IE-only applications. Three, they made a better browser after their initial standard MS alpha-as-released software. Four, they "cut off the oxygen" of Netscape by beginning to give away IIS with the server OS -- Netscape tried to compete with a completely free browser and gain revenue through server sales.
ALL of those tactics were intimately tied to the Windows monopoly, as it provided the cash cow to fund it, provided the dominant platform with which to lure corporate developers to build strongly coupled applications, and provided the vehicle for distributing the free IIS to attack Netscape's revenue source. Bundling IE into the initial OS installation came later, but it was surely "bundled" together with the big picture MS Windows monopoly far earlier than that.
And, ALL of those tactics are what Microsoft will use to attempt to kill Google. Google is already free. But MS desperately wants to "cut off the oxygen" to kill Google. Google's oxygen is advertising revenue. So MS tried to get AOL to drop Google. Not because it would make MS any money -- simply because it would damage Google quite a bit. Look for MS to try to get everybody else allied with Google to switch, perhaps even paying Windows monopoly funded bounties. MS will tie their own search engine as deeply into Windows as they can get away with. They will claim that the "user experience" is best when the user doesn't have any choice in the matter, except via some complex means that most users will never attempt. MS will surely provide desktop search integrated with web search into the OS, and provide APIs to developers to tie it into applications, and make the APIs such that rival products will not be available. And what provides the vehicle for all of this -- the Windows monopoly. Browser wars redux.
I fail to see where I wrote that non-Americans did not value their liberties, nor understand concepts of republican governance, nor possess a healthy distrust of government. That inference is in your own mind. My point, to make it clearer, is that Americans (and that term does not translate to "Americans but no other humans on the planet") will resist a national ID card program, just as they (in this case solely meaning Americans in order to maintain the structural integrity of this sentence -- non-American humans should excuse being excluded) have often resisted other attempts to centralize power in the name of efficiency.
I suggest you try to get over your insecurity. It's ok to be a non-American. We who are American are not slighting you every time we write and do not mention your nationality. It's ok. Myself, while I have been to our border nations, several countries in Europe (heading over there in three weeks actually), and spent a month in Australia (great sailing waters), I'm a citizen of the United States of America. The question posed in his article is regarding NATIONAL ID cards. Not a Global ID card. I therefore addressed your notion of resisting "nazi-like" governments rather than a centralized identification scheme with a comment from my viewpoint as an American citizen who has studied our history and applied that to the concept of a NATIONAL ID card here in the United States. Sorry, I don't know much about Australian history, other than some basics, not to mention that any legal or constitutional features of your, I am sure, fine history, would likely be inapplicable here -- excepting probably our shared common-law basis dating from the pre-American-Colonial period, assuming that Australia even uses common-law. If you are indeed an Aussie, I expect the same is true of you regarding the United States and your knowledge of our political and legal history. Therefore, I wouldn't be offended were you to argue against a national ID card in Australia using, shock, an Australian viewpoint. Your failure to mention America wouldn't make me think you were mean.
Finally -- you should also understand that I wasn't writing a personal note to Mr. TapeCutter -- I don't know Mr. TapeCutter. My article was rhetorical, using your nazi comment as a convenient basis from which to proceed. Whatever else you wrote in your prior comment was irrelevant to me and my subsequent comment.
What we need to gaurd against is not "nazi like" tools but "nazi like" governments.
Ever hear the phrase "power corrupts." By and large, men are not saints. Power WILL be abused. Just as a single massive central government (certainly more efficient) has been strongly resisted by Americans, so too most of us are opposed to a central, uniform, national identity program that can be used by all segments of government to identify and track us. Like the income tax and numerous other initially seemingly benign proposals, any identity card will soon break the bonds of any limitations imposed on it to win public approval, and be abused, for only the best of reasons. Better to abort them before birth. Most Americans instictively, if not conciously, cling to the notions of separation of powers, geographic separation of powers (state v. federal), trial by juries of average citizens, and the aversion to letting the government know too much about you (even if they already do). Raw state power exposed sometimes elicits quite the response, most recently such as that to the Supreme Court decision on the taking of private property for redistribution. Likewise, a publicly promoted national ID card program in the United States has, essentially, a snowball's chance in hell. Instead, we'll just continue to have our many governments linking their databases, and Congress attempting to pass some uniform driver's license law to "protect" us, against which enlightened people will do battle in courts and Congress and state legislatures.
I don't belive governments to be a necessary evil: governments ought to be there to provide services to people that people need.
An entity empowered to kill us if we misbehave, to arrest or kill us if we don't surrender our wealth to fund it and its programs whether we agree with them or not (ranging from food for the starving to paying farmers to not farm to funding support of evil foreign regimes) -- if that's not a form of evil, what is? In utopia, there would be no need for laws, taxes and audits, meter maids, prisons, police, judges, courts, zoning violation inspectors and such. People would help each other, there would be no murders, rapes, thefts, and everybody would dance arm in arm like Barney. Nobody would hunger, nobody would want. Meanwhile, here in the real world, we have men with guns who can legally kill us -- necessary perhaps, but also certainly a form of evil by virtue of merely being necessary.
I assume that you aren't contracting as an employee of your own corporation. If so, you should be able to deduct education costs as a business expense, up to $5250 under an educational assistance plan. IRS publications 525 and 15B cover that.
I also wonder whether you could take it as a deduction on your personal taxes. Have you spoken with an accountant? Pub 15B under Working Condition Benefits discusses deducting education expenses if they would be deductible by the employee as a business expense, and mentions specifically a test of whether "[t]he education maintains or improves skills needed in the job."
Set it up the way you want, and when ActiveX rips a hole in Windows...
He isn't talking about running Windows. He is talking about implementing the Windows Win32 API natively in OS X. There would be no Windows code. There would be no Windows desktop, no Windows FAT/NTFS filesystem, no Windows drivers, no Windows anything. Nothing to rip a hole in.
Not the Libertarians with whom I have associated, which has been a "lot." I am a big L Libertarian -- dues paying and card carrying.
Being Libertarian is about being principled, primarily against the use of coercion. Being a Republican or Democrat is about being pragmatic to win elections and gain/retain the power to coerce your fellow citizens in order to enforce your agenda. There is a huge difference. And that is why Libertarians cannot be elected, because most people are not principled. The Libertarian principles are classical liberalism -- the promotion of liberty. I may not be 100% Libertarian, but I'm far more Libertarian than not.
Certainly, there are people who are more motivated by particular aspects of political Libertarianism than others, just as with any political philosophy. But does that make them something other than Libertarian, in comparison to a person who is registered and votes Democrat because she has absolute support for abortion, yet personally opposes, say, a progressive income tax? Is she not a Democrat? Moreover, why must you see the political world through the blinders of two possible poles -- conservative or liberal?
If a person sees that a principled opposition to coercion will give them what they seek, and is willing to accept ("go along with") giving up coercion in other aspects of political life, how does that make them less than Libertarian? Perhaps you need to better understand the concept that people may have personal opinions and preferences that they strongly express and promote, yet those same people are capable of opposing the use of the power of the state to coerce others into behaving/doing as they wish.
For example, the fact that one does not believe that people should die in the gutter of starvation does in no way automatically mean that they support the collection of involuntary taxes, payable upon the threat of prison or death even, in order to fund the feeding of the poor and hungry. Is it morally correct to coerce one man to give to another? Is charity enforced with guns moral?
Lessons: PostgreSQL (or rather psql I am sure) defaults to wrapping to lower case. It preserves case with quotes. And its namespace is case sensitive, hence the two tables existing simultaneously. No hideous ALL_UPPER_CASE identifiers, and no terrifying hoops unless one fears quotes.
As for your second point, well put. I don't know if Democracy is the be-all-end-all, though. I mean, I certainly enjoy the benefits of it, but I hesitate to believe it should be spread around the world just because it provides our flavor of freedom. This is, in fact, one of many places where I and my president differ - I don't think we have a right to go spreading Democracy just because we think it works well.
The problem with that ambivalence is: what defines a legitimate government? We (in the west) have developed the theory that for a government to be legitimate, it must have the consent of the governed, and that such legitimate governance is a fundamental human right. The question then becomes, how do the governed give that consent? For a couple thousand years in the west (ok, save the dark period between Octavian and the birth of western democracies) that has been via voting from time to time. Unfortunately, as we have seen in our nation recently, just because 50.01% of the public vote for one side doesn't mean the other 49.99% will happily accept the result. Fortunately, those in the west have learned to direct their unhappiness at waging future electoral combat, not civil war.
The point being: how can we accept that it is our fundamental human right, yet not the fundamental human right of Ahmed? Do we really believe that the government in power in Egypt is legitimate? The Taliban? Saddam? Assad? Or, Hu? How do we in the West deal with governments that are, given our fundamental beliefs, inherently illegitimate? Personally, I agree 100% with Bush that it should be our diplomatic goal to spread democracy, meaning government by the consent of the governed, around the world to every nation and every human. Not through war, but through pressure, through strings on our foreign aid, through the funding of education and opposition, and so on. Deal with the current, illegitimate government when we need to, but don't be shy that our goal is to eventually, sooner rather than later, deal with a legitimate one.
Critics today will point to Hamas. Look! Democracy is a failure in the Middle East! We should be careful what we wish for! There are even those who argue that we MUST treat the Hamas government equal to the government of, say, Sweden, because both are legitimate. Ridiculous. The election in the territories was wonderful thing, in that it was peaceful and legitimate. Yet the electoral victory of Hamas is an object lesson for the people of the Middle East that while they should be free to choose their leaders, and that we WILL accept those choices as legitimate if they are actually made legitimately, there are consequences to their choices. If they don't like the consequences inherent in selecting a government with which their former Western supporters cannot deal and that results in diplomatic isolation, they will (hopefully) be able to learn from that experience and vote differently next time in a free and open election.
As for Jack: "the past is foreign country, they do things differently there." And foreign countries are also foreign. While I think we in the west have an entirely just point in promoting democracy, meaning government by the consent of the people, should that preclude those people having a right to intermingle religion into their government? Although having a government chosen by the people should be considered a fundamental human right, I don't know that the separation of church and state should be as well. However, tolerance of varying/differing religious belief and minorities should be. The paradox. Recall though, the Ottoman Empire, while officially Islamic did tolerate Christians and Jews and such. Much as the Roman state, while officially promoting its pagan state religion, tolerated and even defended the Jews and early Christians. Even today, there is the Church of England.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does a true democracy need to brainwash its kids from an early age with the declaration of independence?
What on earth is this supposed to mean? Teaching kids about a very important foundational document is brainwashing? What, are you a latent Royalist?
Larry
OH MY GOD! This is jawdroppingly funny and yet sad. It just defies correction, akin to countering a belief in UFO abductions and bovine anal probing -- fruitless.
Larry
I am -personally- allowed to hate black people, or women, or those with red hair, and refuse entirely to associate with or speak to them. (Note: I don't -support- this behavior in any way, I'm just noting it is allowed!)
OMG! Because, like, for a second there, I was thinking you were, like, some KKK guy or something. Whew!
And the Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich; and the disco bombing in Italy (was it?); and the Achille Lauro hijacking; and the Lockerbie bombing; and ...
Speaking of those events, while cleaning up I just recently found my copy of Time from the bombing of Tripoli (and our "accidental" bombing of the French embassy).
Larry
You know, I have taken a lot of flights inside the US, north, south, east and west, and I have never once had anybody strike up a conversation about religion. You must just be lucky -- or maybe you dress like a priest. The strangest conversation I ever had was on my flight back from Sydney, with some freak who flew all the way to Australia to meet some guy she'd "met" online, who turned out to, surprise, be a freak too. Hour after hour after hour after hour...
As for Poland, I was recently there for a couple weeks, and I never experienced anyone discuss religion. The closest we got to anything religious was visiting the graveyard containing some of my wife's relatives, plus some ancient churches/cathedrals. Religion there was no more overt than here in Chicago, and infinitely less than in many southern states.
Larry
Um, double major here, history, focus on American Constitutional Legal Development and Roman history. So I do admit that I see our legal history through a lens influenced by the Roman Republic and some by the later Empire.
The President in our system of government has inherent powers that he can exercise without any authorization from Congress. Those powers are inherent in his office, and they are inherent in the power to execute law. The question is, has always been, and always will be the extent. The Constitution is hailed as a flexible document -- that flexibility provides for these arguments. We have had these arguments for a long time. See Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison. So long as our Constitution remains a flexible, minimal document, we will continue to do so, and this will continue to be a natural part of our legal system and its constant evolution. It's a lot more complex than what your grade school teacher taught you.
Larry
I have heard this 'above the law' bit a lot. However, it seems rather shrill.
At one time, Congress declared that the Supreme Court could not strike down acts of Congress. Yet the Supreme Court seized that power. Marbury. At one time, Congress was unable to do a great deal of what it does today, yet its power has expanded through seizure and through jurisprudence, not amendment. Our legal history is rife with seminal moments, recognized by name, when once branch of government accumulated additional authority it wasn't previously considered to have.
What the President is doing is promoting a view of Presidential authority that has waxed and waned throughout our history. I am sympathetic to some of the view. The President is not a Prime Minister. The Presidency is a co-equal branch of government, with inherent powers that were not created by the Congress, and that cannot be constrained by the Congress. The extent of those powers is the question. The President, obviously, wants to maximize his inherent powers to act decisively and rapidly without legislative action. Congress wants to maximize its power to define what is and is not legal. The Supremes want to maximize their power of review, and the further we get from 1937 the more comfortable they are reclaiming it.
People should realize that the Presidency has given up a lot of its powers in the latter 20th century, and its going to start reclaiming them. The Supremes gave up a lot throughout the 20th century, and they too are reclaiming them. Those accustomed to the Congress being the more-equal among equals won't like it.
The current "negotiation" among the branches of government over power seems ominous and terrible and unprecedented to many today because they didn't live through the numerous prior precedents, or, less nobly, because they are blinded by partisanship. The President will over-reach, Congress will express holy indignation, the President will retreat to a lesser, but still greater than before, position, and the Supremes will eventually mediate it all when it reaches them in due course, after the furor and passion has died down.
Its the way our system works. People shouldn't get their panties all in a bunch. As there always are, there will be elections, and the people will have their say. Bush will be out of office. He won't become a dictator calling for a referendum on whether "Bush should be president" until 2031. He's no Caesar. The American legal system will keep moving along, constantly evolving and changing shape in fits and starts.
Larry
You know, IT comprises a huge spectrum. To lump everyone together in the category of IT as is often done is roughly akin to a category called 'making stuff' that comprises everyone from the engineers to the guys mixing concrete on the job site. Myself, I am CS from Purdue. I was in the AAE (Aero/Astronautical Engineering) program for 2.5 years before transferring. Nearly all of the engineering prereqs were also prereqs for the CS program. My friends in EE joined the IEEE -- I joined the ACM. I've been a member since 90 or so. I think we already have a professional society. We may not be state certified like PEs, or architects, or, eh, hairdressers, but I think we're no less professional for that.
Larry
And what about being in command mode and (accidently) trying to enter text? Suddenly you've just executed some set of commands (which can presumably be undone), but you don't necessarily realize it right away.
Once you've used vi a few times, that simply doesn't happen. Your mind easily keeps track of what you're doing. I've used vi for nearly 20 years now, and I cannot recall the last time I did that, if ever. Probably 19 years ago.
Larry
The teacher's editor seemed to read his mind. The class was hard to follow sometimes because he would frequently say something like, "Move those 3 lines to the end of the other function," and it would be done before he was finished saying it. And he was slowing down for the benefit of the class.
I once found somebody who described the motto of vi as "The moving finger writes and having writ moves on." It's a line from an ancient Persian poem (apparently mis-translated), but it aptly evokes vi -- vi is fluid, writing and editing flow into one constant and, eventually, natural motion of the fingers. I've used vi for nearly twenty years now, and it's amusing how often people watching me edit text are amazed at the speed which which I do it.
Larry
That depends. Embedding a spell-checker into the editor is not the Unix way. I've used spell/aspell/ispell for years, and haven't ever lamented the lack of a spell-checker in vi. Hell, given that I didn't learn to write with the crutch of an integrated real-time spell-checker as commonly and annoyingly found today, I rarely need one as I rarely make a spelling mistake that I don't immediately recognize. I'm sure people who typed on actual typewriters without correction ribbons were even better spellers.
Anyway, I think a reasonable person would expect an editor to use an external spell-checker, whether provided as an OS/library API service, or an external application. I don't know how the latest vim (honestly, I still use vi and clones pretty much as I did in 1987 unfortunately) does it, but I hope it does it that way rather than developing a new wheel.
Larry
As I recall it:
Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping
Back in the day, EMACS was a *huge* program to be using casually, in particular on the Unices that didn't implement re-entrant executables.
Larry
A while ago, a script-kiddie broke into an old Linux box. He left behind his history files and such. He made many typos at the shell, and used pico. We didn't lock him out immediately -- instead, I removed pico and made it a link to vi. The kid would get back in, start 'pico' and then disconnect his shell connection. He had no clue how to exit the program. It was hilarious.
Larry
Build cars for people who LOVE to drive.
The problem here is expectations. I am a car guy, among other hobbies. Fun for me means there are three pedals. I expect my fun car to have a real clutch, and gears that I choose with a mechanical linkage -- not a pretend manual automatic. I take my car on the racetrack a couple times a year for lapping. I like the fact, on some strange level, that I can blow a shift coming out of a turn, even catastrophically (e.g. grab first at 45mph) -- it means that there is still some skill involved, other than just pushing the go pedal. Our family car has the slushbox and the Britax car seat in back. My fun car has a lightweight aluminum flywheel with a touchy clutch.
I also expect to be able to wrench on my car, change oil, fix problems, build a nice engine and swap it -- because I enjoy it, not simply to save money. I'm not so fond of new cars because they are getting harder and harder to play with, and that only would get worse with an electric or hybrid car. Ultimately, I have no interest in a transportation appliance as my fun car, even if it is fast, sexy, and handles perfectly. I think that you'll find the same attitude in many car and driving enthusiasts.
Larry
People switched to IE because, at the time, it was BETTER than Netscape. Simple as that.
Not quite. The IE v. Netscape battle occurred before DSL. People largely didn't switch via downloading a different browser. It took a long time. I remember, since as a user of Unix workstations and early desktop Linux, I downloaded Netscape often. People got IE bundled with new computers, on free media from MS, and with their ISP's Internet Access Kit. Corporations installed it company-wide. For the typical user, it wasn't a matter of merely clicking on a link and trying out a different browser and seeing that it was better.
Microsoft won for several reasons. One, they didn't charge for the browser. Netscape did for anything but personal usage. The Netscape browser cost money if ISPs wanted to give it to customers, if PC sellers wanted to install it, or if businesses wanted it. Two, they began integrating browser technology with MS-specific extensions into their development environment and providing easy ways for corporate application developers to create IE-only applications. Three, they made a better browser after their initial standard MS alpha-as-released software. Four, they "cut off the oxygen" of Netscape by beginning to give away IIS with the server OS -- Netscape tried to compete with a completely free browser and gain revenue through server sales.
ALL of those tactics were intimately tied to the Windows monopoly, as it provided the cash cow to fund it, provided the dominant platform with which to lure corporate developers to build strongly coupled applications, and provided the vehicle for distributing the free IIS to attack Netscape's revenue source. Bundling IE into the initial OS installation came later, but it was surely "bundled" together with the big picture MS Windows monopoly far earlier than that.
And, ALL of those tactics are what Microsoft will use to attempt to kill Google. Google is already free. But MS desperately wants to "cut off the oxygen" to kill Google. Google's oxygen is advertising revenue. So MS tried to get AOL to drop Google. Not because it would make MS any money -- simply because it would damage Google quite a bit. Look for MS to try to get everybody else allied with Google to switch, perhaps even paying Windows monopoly funded bounties. MS will tie their own search engine as deeply into Windows as they can get away with. They will claim that the "user experience" is best when the user doesn't have any choice in the matter, except via some complex means that most users will never attempt. MS will surely provide desktop search integrated with web search into the OS, and provide APIs to developers to tie it into applications, and make the APIs such that rival products will not be available. And what provides the vehicle for all of this -- the Windows monopoly. Browser wars redux.
Larry
I fail to see where I wrote that non-Americans did not value their liberties, nor understand concepts of republican governance, nor possess a healthy distrust of government. That inference is in your own mind. My point, to make it clearer, is that Americans (and that term does not translate to "Americans but no other humans on the planet") will resist a national ID card program, just as they (in this case solely meaning Americans in order to maintain the structural integrity of this sentence -- non-American humans should excuse being excluded) have often resisted other attempts to centralize power in the name of efficiency.
I suggest you try to get over your insecurity. It's ok to be a non-American. We who are American are not slighting you every time we write and do not mention your nationality. It's ok. Myself, while I have been to our border nations, several countries in Europe (heading over there in three weeks actually), and spent a month in Australia (great sailing waters), I'm a citizen of the United States of America. The question posed in his article is regarding NATIONAL ID cards. Not a Global ID card. I therefore addressed your notion of resisting "nazi-like" governments rather than a centralized identification scheme with a comment from my viewpoint as an American citizen who has studied our history and applied that to the concept of a NATIONAL ID card here in the United States. Sorry, I don't know much about Australian history, other than some basics, not to mention that any legal or constitutional features of your, I am sure, fine history, would likely be inapplicable here -- excepting probably our shared common-law basis dating from the pre-American-Colonial period, assuming that Australia even uses common-law. If you are indeed an Aussie, I expect the same is true of you regarding the United States and your knowledge of our political and legal history. Therefore, I wouldn't be offended were you to argue against a national ID card in Australia using, shock, an Australian viewpoint. Your failure to mention America wouldn't make me think you were mean.
Finally -- you should also understand that I wasn't writing a personal note to Mr. TapeCutter -- I don't know Mr. TapeCutter. My article was rhetorical, using your nazi comment as a convenient basis from which to proceed. Whatever else you wrote in your prior comment was irrelevant to me and my subsequent comment.
Larry
What we need to gaurd against is not "nazi like" tools but "nazi like" governments.
Ever hear the phrase "power corrupts." By and large, men are not saints. Power WILL be abused. Just as a single massive central government (certainly more efficient) has been strongly resisted by Americans, so too most of us are opposed to a central, uniform, national identity program that can be used by all segments of government to identify and track us. Like the income tax and numerous other initially seemingly benign proposals, any identity card will soon break the bonds of any limitations imposed on it to win public approval, and be abused, for only the best of reasons. Better to abort them before birth. Most Americans instictively, if not conciously, cling to the notions of separation of powers, geographic separation of powers (state v. federal), trial by juries of average citizens, and the aversion to letting the government know too much about you (even if they already do). Raw state power exposed sometimes elicits quite the response, most recently such as that to the Supreme Court decision on the taking of private property for redistribution. Likewise, a publicly promoted national ID card program in the United States has, essentially, a snowball's chance in hell. Instead, we'll just continue to have our many governments linking their databases, and Congress attempting to pass some uniform driver's license law to "protect" us, against which enlightened people will do battle in courts and Congress and state legislatures.
Larry
I don't belive governments to be a necessary evil: governments ought to be there to provide services to people that people need.
An entity empowered to kill us if we misbehave, to arrest or kill us if we don't surrender our wealth to fund it and its programs whether we agree with them or not (ranging from food for the starving to paying farmers to not farm to funding support of evil foreign regimes) -- if that's not a form of evil, what is? In utopia, there would be no need for laws, taxes and audits, meter maids, prisons, police, judges, courts, zoning violation inspectors and such. People would help each other, there would be no murders, rapes, thefts, and everybody would dance arm in arm like Barney. Nobody would hunger, nobody would want. Meanwhile, here in the real world, we have men with guns who can legally kill us -- necessary perhaps, but also certainly a form of evil by virtue of merely being necessary.
Larry
I assume that you aren't contracting as an employee of your own corporation. If so, you should be able to deduct education costs as a business expense, up to $5250 under an educational assistance plan. IRS publications 525 and 15B cover that.
I also wonder whether you could take it as a deduction on your personal taxes. Have you spoken with an accountant? Pub 15B under Working Condition Benefits discusses deducting education expenses if they would be deductible by the employee as a business expense, and mentions specifically a test of whether "[t]he education maintains or improves skills needed in the job."
Larry
Set it up the way you want, and when ActiveX rips a hole in Windows...
He isn't talking about running Windows. He is talking about implementing the Windows Win32 API natively in OS X. There would be no Windows code. There would be no Windows desktop, no Windows FAT/NTFS filesystem, no Windows drivers, no Windows anything. Nothing to rip a hole in.
Larry
Not the Libertarians with whom I have associated, which has been a "lot." I am a big L Libertarian -- dues paying and card carrying.
Being Libertarian is about being principled, primarily against the use of coercion. Being a Republican or Democrat is about being pragmatic to win elections and gain/retain the power to coerce your fellow citizens in order to enforce your agenda. There is a huge difference. And that is why Libertarians cannot be elected, because most people are not principled. The Libertarian principles are classical liberalism -- the promotion of liberty. I may not be 100% Libertarian, but I'm far more Libertarian than not.
Certainly, there are people who are more motivated by particular aspects of political Libertarianism than others, just as with any political philosophy. But does that make them something other than Libertarian, in comparison to a person who is registered and votes Democrat because she has absolute support for abortion, yet personally opposes, say, a progressive income tax? Is she not a Democrat? Moreover, why must you see the political world through the blinders of two possible poles -- conservative or liberal?
If a person sees that a principled opposition to coercion will give them what they seek, and is willing to accept ("go along with") giving up coercion in other aspects of political life, how does that make them less than Libertarian? Perhaps you need to better understand the concept that people may have personal opinions and preferences that they strongly express and promote, yet those same people are capable of opposing the use of the power of the state to coerce others into behaving/doing as they wish.
For example, the fact that one does not believe that people should die in the gutter of starvation does in no way automatically mean that they support the collection of involuntary taxes, payable upon the threat of prison or death even, in order to fund the feeding of the poor and hungry. Is it morally correct to coerce one man to give to another? Is charity enforced with guns moral?
Larry
Have you ever used it? Ever? The following (edited) transcript is from an old 7.4 installation.
foo=# create table JoelPtIsAnIdiot ( idiot varchar );
foo=# \dt
public | joelptisanidiot | table | foo
foo=# create table "JoelPtIsAnIdiot" ( idiot varchar );
foo=# \dt
public | JoelPtIsAnIdiot | table | foo
public | joelptisanidiot | table | foo
Lessons: PostgreSQL (or rather psql I am sure) defaults to wrapping to lower case. It preserves case with quotes. And its namespace is case sensitive, hence the two tables existing simultaneously. No hideous ALL_UPPER_CASE identifiers, and no terrifying hoops unless one fears quotes.
Larry
Don't forget how the Irish saved civilization!
As for your second point, well put. I don't know if Democracy is the be-all-end-all, though. I mean, I certainly enjoy the benefits of it, but I hesitate to believe it should be spread around the world just because it provides our flavor of freedom. This is, in fact, one of many places where I and my president differ - I don't think we have a right to go spreading Democracy just because we think it works well.
The problem with that ambivalence is: what defines a legitimate government? We (in the west) have developed the theory that for a government to be legitimate, it must have the consent of the governed, and that such legitimate governance is a fundamental human right. The question then becomes, how do the governed give that consent? For a couple thousand years in the west (ok, save the dark period between Octavian and the birth of western democracies) that has been via voting from time to time. Unfortunately, as we have seen in our nation recently, just because 50.01% of the public vote for one side doesn't mean the other 49.99% will happily accept the result. Fortunately, those in the west have learned to direct their unhappiness at waging future electoral combat, not civil war.
The point being: how can we accept that it is our fundamental human right, yet not the fundamental human right of Ahmed? Do we really believe that the government in power in Egypt is legitimate? The Taliban? Saddam? Assad? Or, Hu? How do we in the West deal with governments that are, given our fundamental beliefs, inherently illegitimate? Personally, I agree 100% with Bush that it should be our diplomatic goal to spread democracy, meaning government by the consent of the governed, around the world to every nation and every human. Not through war, but through pressure, through strings on our foreign aid, through the funding of education and opposition, and so on. Deal with the current, illegitimate government when we need to, but don't be shy that our goal is to eventually, sooner rather than later, deal with a legitimate one.
Critics today will point to Hamas. Look! Democracy is a failure in the Middle East! We should be careful what we wish for! There are even those who argue that we MUST treat the Hamas government equal to the government of, say, Sweden, because both are legitimate. Ridiculous. The election in the territories was wonderful thing, in that it was peaceful and legitimate. Yet the electoral victory of Hamas is an object lesson for the people of the Middle East that while they should be free to choose their leaders, and that we WILL accept those choices as legitimate if they are actually made legitimately, there are consequences to their choices. If they don't like the consequences inherent in selecting a government with which their former Western supporters cannot deal and that results in diplomatic isolation, they will (hopefully) be able to learn from that experience and vote differently next time in a free and open election.
As for Jack: "the past is foreign country, they do things differently there." And foreign countries are also foreign. While I think we in the west have an entirely just point in promoting democracy, meaning government by the consent of the people, should that preclude those people having a right to intermingle religion into their government? Although having a government chosen by the people should be considered a fundamental human right, I don't know that the separation of church and state should be as well. However, tolerance of varying/differing religious belief and minorities should be. The paradox. Recall though, the Ottoman Empire, while officially Islamic did tolerate Christians and Jews and such. Much as the Roman state, while officially promoting its pagan state religion, tolerated and even defended the Jews and early Christians. Even today, there is the Church of England.
Larry
Good Lord -- you even italicized your own spelling error. How prescient!
Larry