I'm not a pro-union guy. They just seem to corrupt themselves, and start to operate only for their own benefit.
Unions have a bad reputation, but as you pointed out they do serve a purpose. The trick is to find a balance. In the mid 80s in Australia, the government did just that, with what was known as the accord.
Basically it meant that unions could only ask for a pay increase if they could show an increase in worker productivity. The workers had to work harder and smarter, and the employers had to pass some of the increased wealth on.
This worked very well, and Australia had the lowest number of hours lost due to industrial action. Store clerks also earnt $AUD15 per hour (about $US11), and a Big Mac value meal went for $AUD4.95 in those days. Win-win.
When the conservatives got into power in the late 90s, they took the guts out of the accord with what was euphamistically called "enterprise barginning". This would allow Australian corporations to achieve the same level of exploitation as overseas. It was very contraverisal, but Howard did it anyway, just like sending Australians to Iraq against the will of the people.
The point is that unions have a bad reputation, but if both unions and employers are forced (by law) to work with each other, the results are worth it.
My advice: if you don't agree with EA practices, dont buy any of their products. Hit them where it hurts, and if they lay people off, you're doing those workers a favor anyhow.
That's practical advise, in a sense, because if their "brand" turns sour (like Gator), then EA shareholders are in trouble.
The impracticallity is that most of the market are too young to care or be informed about labour practices.
If EA is really breaking the law, then a lawyer should approach any EA employees for the purporses of a class action suit. That would get their attention, and maybe there'd be some real change.
Seriously. OK, so a few species will go extinct. But who's to say that some species won't flourish as a result. The ecosystem will be different, but it won't necessarily be worse. The ecosystem will adapt.
The real danger to bio-diversity is when the climate changes quickly. That leads to mass extinction, and at times like that, the top of the food chain, and the specialist species are most at risk.
because of sentencing practices harsher than any other industrialized country
Maybe the incarceration rate has more to do with the USA having more criminals than anywhere else in the developed world. Their murder rate is about 10x higher, don't know about the rest.
Maybe that high crime rate has little to do with harsh sentencing, and more to do with poverty, and poor education standards. Maybe the US has serious domestic problems... and the politicians are busy saying "look at that shiny oil covered object in the Middle East", helping the elite reap in trillions, while serious issues of education and poverty are overlooked.
Fact: the un-educated are senteced to a life of poverty, bad health and crime.
And this is different from when my parents told me the same thing 15 years ago how? Adults never like the popular stuff of the time, but then they're not the target market.
His point was that his kids enjoy classic rock more consitently than modern music...
Music is a huge part of my life and there's plenty of good stuff around...you just have to look beyond your local "all hits, all the time" radio station.
There IS lots of good music around these days... if you look past most of what the RIAA if pushing. But the original poster was implying that his kids prefer the hits of the 60s and 70s to the hits of the aughties.
I had a very similar experience myself as a teenager. There was about 1 year (when I was 14) when I followed the latest thing... until I realized that I got a real buzz out of Pink Floyd, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath.
If only I could have tapped myself on the shoulder and said "you're being hoodwinked by marketers", then I would have been able to enjoy music when I was 14 as well.
Secretary of State spokeswoman Jenny Nash said all counties using this system had been told that such problems would occur if a precinct is set up in a way that would allow votes to get above 32,000
Somebody PLEASE tell me that that has nothing to do with 32,000 being close to the maximum value of a signed 16-bit number.
On the face of it, worshipping the economy is not entirely stupid... money drives everything... and that good old invisible hand will just make everything turn out dandy.
But you must look at the reality of it. Corporations are more powerful than governments; corruption is rife; the environment get screwed along with everything else that has an orifice that's not surgically closed.
But the "right-wing" feels that the invisible hand meant to take care of the environment as well. It doesn't, and they are fooling themselves. In the effort to make more money for shareholders, who bare no responsiblity, corporations cut costs by pushing them onto what are euphemistically called "externalities". They are real world costs that never hit the books, usually for the simple reason that people don't measure them.
There is a good reason why people in high places don't want damage to the environment measured in $$$ terms... it cut's into their millions... despite the fact that they already control an enormous amount of wealth.
For example, take fishing in the North Atlantic. Marine biologists were warning about fishing trawlers since the 70s, but the "damage to economy" argument stopped any regulation of the trawlers until the 90s. The reality was that only a few people made a lot of money (the fishermen made the same as always). The amount of waste was amazing, the warning and studies were always there, and people ignored the scientists (and still do) as they scream devastation. Finally, when one of the most abundant species on Earth was near extinction, a moratorium was put on fishing. Now people still fish, and the North Atlantic Cod isn't making any miraculous rebound, and in some places are still depleting further.
The damage to the economy was severe and chronic. Millions of livelihoods were affected by the moratorium. The investors from the 70s walked away with their millions, and left the rest in poverty. That is an externality. That is what worship of the economy leads to.
Also, I'm curious, how can you claim to speak for the rest of the world? Treating "everyone else" as a monolithic block with a mass opinion is the hallmark of stereotyping and short-sightedness.
Pal, Bush is so unpopular overseas that it's just statistics. Hide behind big words like "stereotyping" and "short-sightedness" if you want, but if you're a non-US supporter of Bush, then you're likely to be:
racist - sad but true
believe the world is about 6000 years old, or some other non-evidenced based Christian belief
believe that killing people solves problems
It's the truth... that's the make-up of non-US Bush supports. You might be embarressed by that... suck it up.
So, you admit that, at least for some years, they did sit on this "burning issue"?
That's obvious by the state of M$ code... they tried to find cheaper PR solutions to their problems. They didn't see the issue as burning.
You can bet your bottom dollar that they do now... don't dismiss the point because you might find it "uncool". If you're unsure, find a M$ developer, and ask them specifically what they have changed to make their products more secure...
Some recent changes that I've heard about are:
Having all code reviewed by different departments
Running random data into all program inputs... if it crashes then you've discovered (by brute force) a potential buffer-overflow. A similar approach is used on the linux kernal
There's some formal secure code theory that the code monkey's must now apply
It seems like they think that if they say Windows is more secure enough times it will become a reality
This really works... for a recent example look no further than WMD... everyone suspected that it was bogus, but found the media campaign somehow compelling. Sad to say, marketting is very powerful
They should put more focus on developing secure software, than simply paying lip service to secure software.
It would be very naive to believe that a company (whose loyality is to shareholders), will sit still on such a burning issue. They have finally realized that they most do this, but it will take years. In the mean time, lip-service it all they can offer.
Re:Americans talk about freedom
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I never cringe when I hear "... land of the free..."
Give it a rest, most of the developed world has exactly those freedoms, and they find that type of talk self-serving and counter-productive to real freedom.
If the level of civilization is measured by how will it treats the old, sick and poor, then the USA if full of a lot of hot air.
You made some good points, with regards to pushing the envelope and people dying...
The US army has a history of being somewhat ruthless, bold and daring... at least in modern history. Their strategies are kinda fearless in the best possible way, and that's a very important part of effective warfare.
During WWII, the famous Operation Overlord, the British, Canadian and US forces fought against the Germans in Northern France. Each of these four forces were a match for each other in technology, organization, training and discipline. Furthermore, the commanders on each side were very capable.
The interesting thing is how the Germans reacted to the different styles of the US and Commonwealth armies. The British were starting to feel the pressure of people shortages, and the US army, while not flippant, could rely on a steady supply of reinforcements.
This led the British into more methodical tactics, that minimised the risk to British soldiers. This eased the burden on the defenders, who were able to redeploy as required. I'm not saying the the British forces were lame... far from it, they just weren't as daring and tricky as the US forces.
My point is that the British could have _saved_ lives by being _more_ daring. It should be obvious, but the question of just _how_ daring is a tricky one.
Remember, when you push the envelope, bad things happen. In combat, that means people die. I don't think the US should rely on "cutting edge" tech but tech that is advanced and reliable. Because unreliable tech on the battlefield makes for a very poor club....
Bad this DO happen, but it's really a question of risk/reward management. The US army was very daring, but they also mitigated their risks with the use of heavy armour and traditional techniques. If their opponent was more robust, it would have shown up early in the campaign, and the style of warfare would have changed...
Again, 99% of all fights are decided before the first blow, which is why it's _vital_ to have good intelligence. At the time of the particular battle featured in the article, the highest level commanders would have realized that the superior equipement, moral and support of the smaller US battle groups would make them very resistant to any major Iraqi counter-attack... and they were right... yes their new intelligence efforts were ineffective, but that didn't mean that the US army was running around completely out of control.
Thus, with the benefit of hind-sight, you could say that the deployment of the technology was a very positive thing because it highlighted major problems with the new doctrine. Don't forget that the US has always treated war as a big R&D exercise... just another way to stay ahead in the game.
It's this type of daring shift in doctrine that has led to decisive victories through history, such as the Battle of Trafalgar, and the armour blitz of WWII.
My point is that being daring, and staying ahead in the game are extremely important in minimizing the risk to your soldiers (other than not going to war but that's another story =)
I don't know if it ALWAYS has been decisive
Almost always =) Not to say that if you have good intelligence you will win (although it helps a lot), but to say that if you have good intelligence you will know _if_ you can win, and _how_ you can win. Even Sun Tzu talks about it why back when... it's fundamental.
But in the end, when you're talking killing somebody or destroying a vehicle in a straight fight, the guy with the bigger gun, the thicker armor and the better training is the guy who's going to win
It's not about hitting your opponent, and it's not about not being hit. It's about having sufficient force in the right place at the right time, with the right orders.
Almost all fights are decided before the first blow. That's why intelligence is so important, and good military commanders live be this... they always have.
Intelligence is the greatest weapon in warfare - it has always been decisive. The US army is just trying to push the envelope.
I know a little about art and independent artists, and I've seen how and who the industry picks up by following those independents as they struggle for recognition.
If you want to form a band to make money, the easiest thing to do is to play covers. That's the effect of all that marketing energy on the music scene.
Just think of the process of making music. If the artist plays covers, then they should bring something new (otherwise they're just a recording). If artists write songs, they should be creating something new. The artist is successful if they realize their intention, in that, the audience appreciates the artists intention.
In general, musicians are interested in that process of making music. If they identify with the artist on that level, then they usually consider it music.
None of that has anything to do with making money out of the music business - which focuses on marketing. Marketing is where the real return on investment is, so it makes perfect business sense, but is also makes absolutely zero music sense. Image sells, and there's a practical formula being applied.
Own a monopoly on an artists work
Make that artist a celebrity
Sell that celebrity
Watch the teens wet themselves as they dish out their pocket money
I saw a top marketer smugly declare that you can sell anything to anybody... "it's a game". All they have to do is push product, and if they can control the product, then even better.
The marketers have found the perfect formula if you're interested in $$$, but the "hit parade" or "top 40" is nigh on a complete failure when it comes to real music. The truth is that while must musicians appreciate the skill and achievement of hit bands, they find a (loose) correlation between their success and the blandness of their music.
It's not the same as saying the average person doesn't have any taste in music. People (particularly children and teens) are putty in the hands of marketers. Everyone likes money, but musicians are also interested in real music!
If there are privacy issues, it is because someone decides to abuse the technology, RFID or not
Identity theft is already a serious problem, and RFID tags just make people more vulnerable. Imagine if someone copied your tag and then commited a crime.
There's also abuse of the information by public officials. Throughout history there are instances of people abusing so-called private information. For example, a police officer accessing information on the cute girl who lives next door.
The more centralized the information, the more potential for abuse and again, the more vulnerable people are.
Is there a transparant public procedure of how the information is used and accessed? Or do we have a security through obsurity situation that allows wide ranging and hidden abuse of the system.
Yay! I'm glad that atleast there are _some_ companies out there who feel this way.
Yes, if you upset the consumers enough, we'll all become pirates -- and what do you do when every one out there is a pirate by the **AA's definition?
That hits the nail on the head, but why isn't it obvious to everybody? We live in a _democracy_, and can make any rules we want. That is the theory of how the system is meant to work...
Thus, if the majority of people feel a certain way, about any issue, then the rules should reflect that.
The real question is _why_ most people break the law. If, in the long run, their breaking of the that law isn't harmful to society, then the law is broken. If you determine that that law is required for the long-term sustainability of something valuable, then the legal framework and technologies should be designed so that the average person isn't in the dysfunctional position of supporting a law that makes them a criminal. Anything else indicates a break in the system.
Are rich people gaming the system for their own benefit... and forming a legal framework to support their interests, or do people feel that copyright laws and systems are fair and that they are compulsive infringers.
When you put it that way, it seems that the former is happening and the (democratic) system is broken, and some people are more equal than others. I don't think anybody disputes that (in general), but I'd like to see someone acknowledge that fact, and _then_ frame laws to protect IP content producers. That would give the system credability.
I feel that we can continue to expect the IP cartels to extend their assets and rights - they have the only incentive they need: money.
I welcome our new IP overlords. Please give me a job, I am also chasing money, it's very instinctive.
Is there any requirement for date? How do you know if it's public domain? Are you surpossed to assume that it's copyrighted _unless_ otherwise specified? That doesn't seam to be in the spirit of the law!
If there's no author listed, does the author need to register the copyright, so that it's still possible to work out who owns what?
Do you know the reason for why they got rid of the name/date requirements?
They've got no money to pay for people who know what's going on... copying and pasting a companies press release is cheap.
Also, they are too afraid of pissing off any advertisers to publish anything "controversial". The more (and larger) advertisers a news organization has, the more chance that a particular story will upset one of the real sources of income. That's why the news on the major cable networks is less than hard hitting.
Never ascribe to malice what could easily be attributed to incompetence
The GPL works because of copyright, which in turn requires a name and date. So how can you claim its your work? You'd have to remove/change the copyright names, and that's a breach of copyright.
While the GPL might not say something about SAYING that it's his... that makes no difference because the authors of the code MUST still appear in the code listings. I'm sure he'd be breaking a whole bunch of different laws by lying anyway.
it's only leftists and liberals that talk about 'rights' in geopolitics anyway
Those leftists and liberals sound sooo naive. Maybe they want to change the culture of countries like the US (to be fair every super-power and minor power) so that they don't simultaneously talk about how righteous they are, and piss on sovereignty.
On the face of it, it DOES sound very naive, doesn't it. But it's only naive _if_ it doesn't work. That's a scary concept to grapple with... those liberals getting their way!
Well it takes about 20 years for a liberal to turn into a conservative without changing a single viewpoint. Once they are a conservative, they get their way. IMHO, that's a good approximation of "progress". You might want some proof...
Well, once upon a time, it was legal to own people, pretty much everywhere in the world. Then a bunch of liberals got in the road. At first they were heckled, then beaten, but eventually they became conservatives (by default) and got their way.
So what stops slavery now? Well it does occur in some "backward" countries. We think of those countries as backward because we find their acceptance of slavery as abhorrent. But WE were the slavers of THEM once upon a time. Call it a cultural change brought on by leftists of the time. Crazy eh?
We're seeing the same thing happen with the drive for equality for women, gays and ethnic minorities. Hell, it wasn't until 1984 that women were allowed to run the marathon in the Olympic games, because it was considered "bad" for them. It's amazing how quickly those liberals get their way!
In a geo-political sense, things have changed as well. Look at all the world condemnation of the US in Iraq. China would have invaded Taiwan decades ago if it wouldn't have made them look so bad. In the court of world opinion, they would have given the US (and others) a mandate to kick their ass.
Just read about how the US appropriated it's current territory. Do you think they'd be able to do it today, a mere few hundred and a bit years hence? Genocide is really uncool these days, and so is conquering other people. Think I'm exaggerating? Go peruse some of the Sioux-Congress treaties that the US made and broke with gunpowder. Dispicable by today's standards, but back in the day... well... they were only Indians.
It's only the PERCEPTION of the evilness of genocide and conquest that makes the Nazi's so uncool. They didn't do anything that hadn't been done before, by Europeans and others. When the Mongol Khan conquered Samakand, he cut off the head of the cities muslim priest, and held it up and told the people that he was "God's punishment for their sins". Thank god those liberals DID get their way in the end, maybe they were onto something.
It's the court of world opinion that exercises the power of the liberals of the pervious generation, that forces the high and mighty to change their ways.
My wife can't stand the words SCO, DRM, IP rights (and yes, she does own IP) and anything else I talk about. You might think that's because I'm a geek, and she's cool, and you may be right.
I guess slashdotter's would be better served by packaging themselves as "cool" to get their message across. Maybe we could write little ditties, or learn to play a guitar and join a rock band, and tatoo anti-FUD slogans around our private parts. Got FUD?
I replaced the memory and hard disk on my eMac. Don't know about replacing the CPU, but I'm sure it can be done (so long as you stay in the G4 line). I'm sure you _can't_ touch the motherboard, but how often to you replace the motherboard on your computer and keep the case?
You can find instructions on the internet on how to mess with it, it's not that hard.
Notice how the National party polls 5% and is represented by 12 members of parliment, however, the Green party polls 7% and gets no members.
That's because the electorates are geographical, and the National party has a geographical constituency (the country).
But I think it's unfair that 7% of voters aren't represented at all! This is not something that Condorcet voting would fix, because it has to do with the granularity of the electorates.
Australian Senate (voting) uses a different system which ensures that each party is represented by approx. the % of votes they get. They can only do this by breaking every criterion on the page you linked... but it's fairer IMHO
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a pro-union guy. They just seem to corrupt themselves, and start to operate only for their own benefit.
Unions have a bad reputation, but as you pointed out they do serve a purpose. The trick is to find a balance. In the mid 80s in Australia, the government did just that, with what was known as the accord.
Basically it meant that unions could only ask for a pay increase if they could show an increase in worker productivity. The workers had to work harder and smarter, and the employers had to pass some of the increased wealth on.
This worked very well, and Australia had the lowest number of hours lost due to industrial action. Store clerks also earnt $AUD15 per hour (about $US11), and a Big Mac value meal went for $AUD4.95 in those days. Win-win.
When the conservatives got into power in the late 90s, they took the guts out of the accord with what was euphamistically called "enterprise barginning". This would allow Australian corporations to achieve the same level of exploitation as overseas. It was very contraverisal, but Howard did it anyway, just like sending Australians to Iraq against the will of the people.
The point is that unions have a bad reputation, but if both unions and employers are forced (by law) to work with each other, the results are worth it.
My advice: if you don't agree with EA practices, dont buy any of their products. Hit them where it hurts, and if they lay people off, you're doing those workers a favor anyhow.
That's practical advise, in a sense, because if their "brand" turns sour (like Gator), then EA shareholders are in trouble.
The impracticallity is that most of the market are too young to care or be informed about labour practices.
If EA is really breaking the law, then a lawyer should approach any EA employees for the purporses of a class action suit. That would get their attention, and maybe there'd be some real change.
Seriously. OK, so a few species will go extinct. But who's to say that some species won't flourish as a result. The ecosystem will be different, but it won't necessarily be worse. The ecosystem will adapt.
The real danger to bio-diversity is when the climate changes quickly. That leads to mass extinction, and at times like that, the top of the food chain, and the specialist species are most at risk.
because of sentencing practices harsher than any other industrialized country
Maybe the incarceration rate has more to do with the USA having more criminals than anywhere else in the developed world. Their murder rate is about 10x higher, don't know about the rest.
Maybe that high crime rate has little to do with harsh sentencing, and more to do with poverty, and poor education standards. Maybe the US has serious domestic problems... and the politicians are busy saying "look at that shiny oil covered object in the Middle East", helping the elite reap in trillions, while serious issues of education and poverty are overlooked.
Fact: the un-educated are senteced to a life of poverty, bad health and crime.
And this is different from when my parents told me the same thing 15 years ago how? Adults never like the popular stuff of the time, but then they're not the target market.
His point was that his kids enjoy classic rock more consitently than modern music...
Music is a huge part of my life and there's plenty of good stuff around...you just have to look beyond your local "all hits, all the time" radio station.
There IS lots of good music around these days... if you look past most of what the RIAA if pushing. But the original poster was implying that his kids prefer the hits of the 60s and 70s to the hits of the aughties.
I had a very similar experience myself as a teenager. There was about 1 year (when I was 14) when I followed the latest thing... until I realized that I got a real buzz out of Pink Floyd, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath.
If only I could have tapped myself on the shoulder and said "you're being hoodwinked by marketers", then I would have been able to enjoy music when I was 14 as well.
Secretary of State spokeswoman Jenny Nash said all counties using this system had been told that such problems would occur if a precinct is set up in a way that would allow votes to get above 32,000
Somebody PLEASE tell me that that has nothing to do with 32,000 being close to the maximum value of a signed 16-bit number.
Who writes this software?
Not if "something" hurts our economy
On the face of it, worshipping the economy is not entirely stupid... money drives everything... and that good old invisible hand will just make everything turn out dandy.
But you must look at the reality of it. Corporations are more powerful than governments; corruption is rife; the environment get screwed along with everything else that has an orifice that's not surgically closed.
But the "right-wing" feels that the invisible hand meant to take care of the environment as well. It doesn't, and they are fooling themselves. In the effort to make more money for shareholders, who bare no responsiblity, corporations cut costs by pushing them onto what are euphemistically called "externalities". They are real world costs that never hit the books, usually for the simple reason that people don't measure them.
There is a good reason why people in high places don't want damage to the environment measured in $$$ terms... it cut's into their millions... despite the fact that they already control an enormous amount of wealth.
For example, take fishing in the North Atlantic. Marine biologists were warning about fishing trawlers since the 70s, but the "damage to economy" argument stopped any regulation of the trawlers until the 90s. The reality was that only a few people made a lot of money (the fishermen made the same as always). The amount of waste was amazing, the warning and studies were always there, and people ignored the scientists (and still do) as they scream devastation. Finally, when one of the most abundant species on Earth was near extinction, a moratorium was put on fishing. Now people still fish, and the North Atlantic Cod isn't making any miraculous rebound, and in some places are still depleting further.
The damage to the economy was severe and chronic. Millions of livelihoods were affected by the moratorium. The investors from the 70s walked away with their millions, and left the rest in poverty. That is an externality. That is what worship of the economy leads to.
Pal, Bush is so unpopular overseas that it's just statistics. Hide behind big words like "stereotyping" and "short-sightedness" if you want, but if you're a non-US supporter of Bush, then you're likely to be:
- racist - sad but true
- believe the world is about 6000 years old, or some other non-evidenced based Christian belief
- believe that killing people solves problems
It's the truth... that's the make-up of non-US Bush supports. You might be embarressed by that... suck it up.That's obvious by the state of M$ code... they tried to find cheaper PR solutions to their problems. They didn't see the issue as burning.
You can bet your bottom dollar that they do now... don't dismiss the point because you might find it "uncool". If you're unsure, find a M$ developer, and ask them specifically what they have changed to make their products more secure...
Some recent changes that I've heard about are:
It seems like they think that if they say Windows is more secure enough times it will become a reality
This really works... for a recent example look no further than WMD... everyone suspected that it was bogus, but found the media campaign somehow compelling. Sad to say, marketting is very powerful
They should put more focus on developing secure software, than simply paying lip service to secure software.
It would be very naive to believe that a company (whose loyality is to shareholders), will sit still on such a burning issue. They have finally realized that they most do this, but it will take years. In the mean time, lip-service it all they can offer.
I never cringe when I hear "... land of the free ..."
Give it a rest, most of the developed world has exactly those freedoms, and they find that type of talk self-serving and counter-productive to real freedom.
If the level of civilization is measured by how will it treats the old, sick and poor, then the USA if full of a lot of hot air.
You made some good points, with regards to pushing the envelope and people dying...
The US army has a history of being somewhat ruthless, bold and daring... at least in modern history. Their strategies are kinda fearless in the best possible way, and that's a very important part of effective warfare.
During WWII, the famous Operation Overlord, the British, Canadian and US forces fought against the Germans in Northern France. Each of these four forces were a match for each other in technology, organization, training and discipline. Furthermore, the commanders on each side were very capable.
The interesting thing is how the Germans reacted to the different styles of the US and Commonwealth armies. The British were starting to feel the pressure of people shortages, and the US army, while not flippant, could rely on a steady supply of reinforcements.
This led the British into more methodical tactics, that minimised the risk to British soldiers. This eased the burden on the defenders, who were able to redeploy as required. I'm not saying the the British forces were lame... far from it, they just weren't as daring and tricky as the US forces.
My point is that the British could have _saved_ lives by being _more_ daring. It should be obvious, but the question of just _how_ daring is a tricky one.
Remember, when you push the envelope, bad things happen. In combat, that means people die. I don't think the US should rely on "cutting edge" tech but tech that is advanced and reliable. Because unreliable tech on the battlefield makes for a very poor club....
Bad this DO happen, but it's really a question of risk/reward management. The US army was very daring, but they also mitigated their risks with the use of heavy armour and traditional techniques. If their opponent was more robust, it would have shown up early in the campaign, and the style of warfare would have changed...
Again, 99% of all fights are decided before the first blow, which is why it's _vital_ to have good intelligence. At the time of the particular battle featured in the article, the highest level commanders would have realized that the superior equipement, moral and support of the smaller US battle groups would make them very resistant to any major Iraqi counter-attack... and they were right... yes their new intelligence efforts were ineffective, but that didn't mean that the US army was running around completely out of control.
Thus, with the benefit of hind-sight, you could say that the deployment of the technology was a very positive thing because it highlighted major problems with the new doctrine. Don't forget that the US has always treated war as a big R&D exercise... just another way to stay ahead in the game.
It's this type of daring shift in doctrine that has led to decisive victories through history, such as the Battle of Trafalgar, and the armour blitz of WWII.
My point is that being daring, and staying ahead in the game are extremely important in minimizing the risk to your soldiers (other than not going to war but that's another story =)
I don't know if it ALWAYS has been decisive
Almost always =) Not to say that if you have good intelligence you will win (although it helps a lot), but to say that if you have good intelligence you will know _if_ you can win, and _how_ you can win. Even Sun Tzu talks about it why back when... it's fundamental.
- They discovered that the code was missing
- They made up a story as to why it's crucial
- They ask for it, jumping up and down about how deceptive IBM is
Just a thought =)But in the end, when you're talking killing somebody or destroying a vehicle in a straight fight, the guy with the bigger gun, the thicker armor and the better training is the guy who's going to win
It's not about hitting your opponent, and it's not about not being hit. It's about having sufficient force in the right place at the right time, with the right orders.
Almost all fights are decided before the first blow. That's why intelligence is so important, and good military commanders live be this... they always have.
Intelligence is the greatest weapon in warfare - it has always been decisive. The US army is just trying to push the envelope.
If you want to form a band to make money, the easiest thing to do is to play covers. That's the effect of all that marketing energy on the music scene.
Just think of the process of making music. If the artist plays covers, then they should bring something new (otherwise they're just a recording). If artists write songs, they should be creating something new. The artist is successful if they realize their intention, in that, the audience appreciates the artists intention.
In general, musicians are interested in that process of making music. If they identify with the artist on that level, then they usually consider it music.
None of that has anything to do with making money out of the music business - which focuses on marketing. Marketing is where the real return on investment is, so it makes perfect business sense, but is also makes absolutely zero music sense. Image sells, and there's a practical formula being applied.
- Own a monopoly on an artists work
- Make that artist a celebrity
- Sell that celebrity
- Watch the teens wet themselves as they dish out their pocket money
I saw a top marketer smugly declare that you can sell anything to anybody... "it's a game". All they have to do is push product, and if they can control the product, then even better.The marketers have found the perfect formula if you're interested in $$$, but the "hit parade" or "top 40" is nigh on a complete failure when it comes to real music. The truth is that while must musicians appreciate the skill and achievement of hit bands, they find a (loose) correlation between their success and the blandness of their music.
It's not the same as saying the average person doesn't have any taste in music. People (particularly children and teens) are putty in the hands of marketers. Everyone likes money, but musicians are also interested in real music!
If there are privacy issues, it is because someone decides to abuse the technology, RFID or not
Identity theft is already a serious problem, and RFID tags just make people more vulnerable. Imagine if someone copied your tag and then commited a crime.
There's also abuse of the information by public officials. Throughout history there are instances of people abusing so-called private information. For example, a police officer accessing information on the cute girl who lives next door.
The more centralized the information, the more potential for abuse and again, the more vulnerable people are.
Is there a transparant public procedure of how the information is used and accessed? Or do we have a security through obsurity situation that allows wide ranging and hidden abuse of the system.
One way to stem piracy is to offer consumers in emerging countries a low-cost PC
So what sickness is it? Is he lying? Is he delusional? Is he patronizing (thinks we're stupid)?
Maybe he's trying a little too hard to keep those hugh profit margins.
Yay! I'm glad that atleast there are _some_ companies out there who feel this way.
Yes, if you upset the consumers enough, we'll all become pirates -- and what do you do when every one out there is a pirate by the **AA's definition?
That hits the nail on the head, but why isn't it obvious to everybody? We live in a _democracy_, and can make any rules we want. That is the theory of how the system is meant to work...
Thus, if the majority of people feel a certain way, about any issue, then the rules should reflect that.
The real question is _why_ most people break the law. If, in the long run, their breaking of the that law isn't harmful to society, then the law is broken. If you determine that that law is required for the long-term sustainability of something valuable, then the legal framework and technologies should be designed so that the average person isn't in the dysfunctional position of supporting a law that makes them a criminal. Anything else indicates a break in the system.
Are rich people gaming the system for their own benefit... and forming a legal framework to support their interests, or do people feel that copyright laws and systems are fair and that they are compulsive infringers.
When you put it that way, it seems that the former is happening and the (democratic) system is broken, and some people are more equal than others. I don't think anybody disputes that (in general), but I'd like to see someone acknowledge that fact, and _then_ frame laws to protect IP content producers. That would give the system credability.
I feel that we can continue to expect the IP cartels to extend their assets and rights - they have the only incentive they need: money.
I welcome our new IP overlords. Please give me a job, I am also chasing money, it's very instinctive.
Is there any requirement for date? How do you know if it's public domain? Are you surpossed to assume that it's copyrighted _unless_ otherwise specified? That doesn't seam to be in the spirit of the law!
If there's no author listed, does the author need to register the copyright, so that it's still possible to work out who owns what?
Do you know the reason for why they got rid of the name/date requirements?
They've got no money to pay for people who know what's going on... copying and pasting a companies press release is cheap.
Also, they are too afraid of pissing off any advertisers to publish anything "controversial". The more (and larger) advertisers a news organization has, the more chance that a particular story will upset one of the real sources of income. That's why the news on the major cable networks is less than hard hitting.
Never ascribe to malice what could easily be attributed to incompetence
The GPL works because of copyright, which in turn requires a name and date. So how can you claim its your work? You'd have to remove/change the copyright names, and that's a breach of copyright.
While the GPL might not say something about SAYING that it's his... that makes no difference because the authors of the code MUST still appear in the code listings. I'm sure he'd be breaking a whole bunch of different laws by lying anyway.
IANAL or course!
it's only leftists and liberals that talk about 'rights' in geopolitics anyway
Those leftists and liberals sound sooo naive. Maybe they want to change the culture of countries like the US (to be fair every super-power and minor power) so that they don't simultaneously talk about how righteous they are, and piss on sovereignty.
On the face of it, it DOES sound very naive, doesn't it. But it's only naive _if_ it doesn't work. That's a scary concept to grapple with... those liberals getting their way!
Well it takes about 20 years for a liberal to turn into a conservative without changing a single viewpoint. Once they are a conservative, they get their way. IMHO, that's a good approximation of "progress". You might want some proof...
Well, once upon a time, it was legal to own people, pretty much everywhere in the world. Then a bunch of liberals got in the road. At first they were heckled, then beaten, but eventually they became conservatives (by default) and got their way.
So what stops slavery now? Well it does occur in some "backward" countries. We think of those countries as backward because we find their acceptance of slavery as abhorrent. But WE were the slavers of THEM once upon a time. Call it a cultural change brought on by leftists of the time. Crazy eh?
We're seeing the same thing happen with the drive for equality for women, gays and ethnic minorities. Hell, it wasn't until 1984 that women were allowed to run the marathon in the Olympic games, because it was considered "bad" for them. It's amazing how quickly those liberals get their way!
In a geo-political sense, things have changed as well. Look at all the world condemnation of the US in Iraq. China would have invaded Taiwan decades ago if it wouldn't have made them look so bad. In the court of world opinion, they would have given the US (and others) a mandate to kick their ass.
Just read about how the US appropriated it's current territory. Do you think they'd be able to do it today, a mere few hundred and a bit years hence? Genocide is really uncool these days, and so is conquering other people. Think I'm exaggerating? Go peruse some of the Sioux-Congress treaties that the US made and broke with gunpowder. Dispicable by today's standards, but back in the day... well... they were only Indians.
It's only the PERCEPTION of the evilness of genocide and conquest that makes the Nazi's so uncool. They didn't do anything that hadn't been done before, by Europeans and others. When the Mongol Khan conquered Samakand, he cut off the head of the cities muslim priest, and held it up and told the people that he was "God's punishment for their sins". Thank god those liberals DID get their way in the end, maybe they were onto something.
It's the court of world opinion that exercises the power of the liberals of the pervious generation, that forces the high and mighty to change their ways.
My wife can't stand the words SCO, DRM, IP rights (and yes, she does own IP) and anything else I talk about. You might think that's because I'm a geek, and she's cool, and you may be right.
I guess slashdotter's would be better served by packaging themselves as "cool" to get their message across. Maybe we could write little ditties, or learn to play a guitar and join a rock band, and tatoo anti-FUD slogans around our private parts. Got FUD?
Just a thought.
I replaced the memory and hard disk on my eMac. Don't know about replacing the CPU, but I'm sure it can be done (so long as you stay in the G4 line). I'm sure you _can't_ touch the motherboard, but how often to you replace the motherboard on your computer and keep the case?
You can find instructions on the internet on how to mess with it, it's not that hard.
Australia just had an election, and, whilst counting is still ongoing, here are the resultss:
election results
Notice how the National party polls 5% and is represented by 12 members of parliment, however, the Green party polls 7% and gets no members.
That's because the electorates are geographical, and the National party has a geographical constituency (the country).
But I think it's unfair that 7% of voters aren't represented at all! This is not something that Condorcet voting would fix, because it has to do with the granularity of the electorates.
Australian Senate (voting) uses a different system which ensures that each party is represented by approx. the % of votes they get. They can only do this by breaking every criterion on the page you linked... but it's fairer IMHO