Greedy people organize a company but call it "political action comity", make adds to say "foo is bad, and you should give money to us to say foo is bad to more people". And of course creating and managing all this is work that should be paid, and since the management has nobody to oversee it can decide to be paid very well indeed.
Now what is the difference between this PAC and any other PAC ? I doubt other GOP (or DEM) PAC give the money back to the elector or something like that. Their stated objective is to "spam (inform) you about issues and convince you to share their opinion... Moreover they are expressively not endorsed by the candidates, since they are supposed to be "outside of his/hers cash stream"...
So I think this guy is just as legit as all the other goons.
The only guilty parties are the idiots and criminals who are giving money to PACs (idiots who are giving blindly, and criminals who discuss first about what they think the "right policy" should be). And of course the people who voted for the con-persons who created this model of electoral law.
Personally I wish I had though about it before, and I hope many many creative Americans will create similar sites, until even the slowest cashcow understand that it is worthless to send money, and the electoral law goes in practice back to something a little bit less anormal.
They have decent music players, are reasonably "pro hacker", they used to have a version of angstroem linux for the Gen7 Archos48 player (with a 500Gb disk and reasonable vibration resistance, obviously to be checked on an helicopter)
Unless you define success as having happy users, in which case Linux is doing quite fine already, having success means getting MacOSX and Windows users to switch. Absolutely nothing that would make Linux "as good as" would work, as if there people would care about freedom, they would have switched already (maybe keeping a guilty "gaming machine"), so they will only switch if they see that Linux users are doing things they care for and cannot do on their own machine.
So what Linux needs is one or maybe two "killer apps" that absolutely blow the competition out of the playground.
It could even only be useful for a specific "niche", visicalc pushed the Apple II, paint kept the mac alive and word+excel sold the "PC". It could be a "presentation tool" that would help you bind together heuristic trees and presentations, and provide an easy way to make "brillant" presentations that are also flexible and interactive, where you can "move" in your presentation in real time depending on your public's feedback.
Or a desktop tool to grock huge amount of data and find some trends in them.
Or a "curl wizard" that enables you to become spam kind on all dating sites without getting found out (ok that would be real evil, but kind of cool).
Or.... you find it.
But in a nutshell, the issue is that about anything you can do with Linux you can do on a Windows platform, and unfortunately unless you care about freedom it's easy to "just not change".... Linux on the desktop will be successful when "though leaders" will tell others, well I use "foo", so if you can't it's your problem. Till then I'll go on happily hacking on my Linux laptop, and tell myself: Of course it's again the year of the Linux Desktop (for smart freedom loving people, wish there where more of them....).
The "study" mostly uses datas relative to 3rd world countries with bad access to clean water, it even explicitely says that large part of the study do not apply to netherland, so unless your part of the US has water quality closer to sub saharan africa than to the netherlands the study loses a large part of it's value.
But obviously the issue is not if it serves any purpose but to make sure that the poorer of the poor slobs would "want" it do not risk to reconsider because of lack of insurance coverage.
I'm sure that the next step is a study that demonstrate that big books are a necessary psychological help for young sorority girls and therefore boob jobs should also be covered by the insurance.
Of course it has, and if you do not cut a piece of your privates they will not be able to bill you for it, and apparently this is 313$, or maybe it cost more but 313$ is the margin they get.
The people who want to remove the "non free" clauses do not understand the difference between Art and Code. (of course a program can also be a piece of art, but mostly it "does something").
Non commercial helps people who want to be "outside of the commercial world" or "agree to share for promotion but still want to live from their art" to offer free culture without loosing something that is important for them.
The Non derivatice clause is about artistic integrity.
The people who want to remove these options think they are "expanding" the discussion of GPL vs BSD and similar licences. But the situation is very different, if I write a piece of code it almost always needs to evolve to stay useful. For instance an analytics package that does not interoperate with new database API becomes useless.... Therefore the GPL maximise the probability that a "more modern" version will still be "free". The Mona Lisa does not need to be "updated", so once free is always free, there is no need to make a "derivative work" to integrate it, so prohibiting this is not really the same kind of issue. (you might want to, but do not need to...)
So the whole discussing is a bad idea, and more liable to turn off artist from GPLed Software than convince them that a "maximaly open licence is the right thing for them".
US citizens would be less prone to believe that the the french are "surrendering" if they would not be so pissed at the fact that the general de gaulle was unwilling to surrenders all french sovereignty to the US after the war.
Well, I think that the Artistic value/characteristic and the fact that the user contributed datas are for the most part really only relevant within the game makes it a "special case"...
But Valve games will be compatible with Linux but probably not with all distributions, and certainly not with all CPU/GPU variations. Moreover it will not be possible for a third party to adapt the games to an XYZ machines.
And it will leverage the current non free market share it enjoys to eclipse free alternatives.
So It will probably be "better" but you should not confuse the short term illusion of "more choices" with the long term trend it might drive (or not).
So in many cases "non free" is better than "not at all" but it always comes with it's load of issues and unexpected consequences...
RMS probably somewhat inadvertently made a very interesting remark. He separates the Game Art from the Game Software... And admits that Game Art could be "non free"...
One of my current activities is designing Gaming Maths, the way the maths are made has a strong impact on the enjoyment (or lack of) any game. I would argue that the "artistic" as opposed to "software" component is just as great as the artistic component of the graphics.
I also think that there is a fundamental difference in Gaming apps versus Infrastructure or Activity Apps. If I provide a text processing system or an OS or an Identity management app, all user data trapped into these applications are naturally "content" owned by the user, and it should be normal for the user to be able to share it just as s/he wants. And it is immoral to force them to be promoter of their software if they want others to be able to read their presentation, or share files, etc... But Gaming datas are for the most part relevant only in the game, and although some elements like "avatar design" might be usefully standardized, most parts should not been seen or manipulated outside of the game, because it would destroy the interest and artistic integrity of the game. Having the "freedom" of adding 10000000 flogotz to my flogotz count is meaning less, and if I really want I could just lie about having found the amulet of yendor... Reading the source code of a game is interesting, but I do believe that the social contract between a game designer and a tool designer is very different, and not just for the game graphics.
Therefore I think RMS can be assurer that at the end Valve opening to Gnu/Linux is not just neutral but a real gain. And I think that instead avoiding to speak about it, it would be better to explain that: There are interesting free games that you can use to play and to learn "how it is done" There are interesting tools like Ogre3D to help you write games. And there are non free games, it is somewhat frustrating because it might need something you do not have (if you processor is a MIPS it will probably not run), but it is very different from a non free Tool, and you are welcome to it.
And hopefully game designer will work with the various communities to make sure that the coverage is as global as possible, and not just as "economically optimal"....
At the risk of falling in the excessive generalisation type of fallacy, think of it this way:
In most countries you are prohibited to sell yourself into slavery, even if you could this way offer for example a "good future" to your children. The reason the law suppress this "freedom" is linked to the frictions in the "free market", basically if enough people would see this as a solution, they would compete for jobs & salaries with people who care about their freedom, and thus restrict the freedom of people who are not "volunteering" to become slaves. In the case of Software, take for instance the case of DVD reading, if you start to support the closed DVD reading solutions you discourage both the development of free solutions and the release of non DRM'd content. You could see this as a "non issue", the DVD reading solutions are quite cheap, and anybody who balk at this is more interested in saving pennies than saving freedom... But since the "closed" solutions has to pay patent royalties, etc... it is definitivelly in the "commercial proprietary market", and therefore will look at the bottom line of each business decision, wich means: a Ubuntu/Debian x86 version, maybe a RH version, but certainly not a MIPS or ARM version. And thus "non free solutions" pushed freedom out...
I suspect that the Ad revenues on iOS are higher not because of the OS, but because marketing droid are lickely to be Apple Fanboys (and girls), (because a long time ago the MacIntosh was "cheap to draw and print") So they think it is smart to "invest" in iPhone Ads, and "confusing" to invest in a phone they are not using (yet).
The GPL gives lots of freedom to the peole using it, it only remove the "freedom" to remove somebody else's freedom. There are many reasons that can justify BSD type licences over GPL, but they all boil down to: "I would like to use this software in something proprietary..." And it would be much better to state this clearly rather than vaguely allude to the GPL "being not what I think others should want.."
For the local police it is a hassle and a insuficiently documented event, it would be the same in about any country. The only way to progress (unfortunatelly) is to contact a local lawyer, or the local Bar association http://www.avocatparis.org/ And come back with the lawyer, explain that you want to sue for : - damage - discrimination (a latter to the HALDE) (the anti discrimination authority in France) - moral pain Seek cost of trial + damage + punitive damage, let's say (since it's not quite as expensive in France) 100 000 € And the answer will be quite different.
And it has nothing to do with France as such but everything with the mindset an international Franchise breeds in the loosers who have to work for them. The "Garçons" in a local Brasserie might be haughty and unhelpful, they might speak no or little english, but they couldn't care less if you have a gizmo on your head or not, they are not afraid you will "copy" the "secrets" on the price list, or maybe focus on dirt and make a film "exposé" for the media.
Moreover going to a mac donald in France is really not a very good idea, but the one on the champs élysé is one of the worst (he could also go to the one on "rue de flandre" chances are that the level of inteligence is similar, at least it had a similar reputation a couple of years back).
NoSql Data bases encourages/forces you to think harder about the structure of you data, and the way you'll be using them. So although you can solve about any DB related problem with either type of database, you will probably end up with a cleaner and easier to understand structure with a NoSql. Typically Sql developpers tend to throw everything into the data base, then create marvelously large queries, and finally pout when you complain about performance, that "if they had had the time they would have some stored procedures, and the server is too slow anyway...."
On the minus side It is somewhat easier to build complex transactions with most Sql platforms, and somewhat easier to maintain consistency,
But NoSql bases are also in most case very easy to understand for any programmer, not only experienced DBA, and very easy to adapt to situations where you basically want a persistent store.
well, you might want to get some help, being hostile to half of humanity is a bad idea. And you correctly assessed the value of your position, it is exactly as valid as the one of the few men eating dragons, that is not at all.
The fact that some of your enemies might be stupid does not make you smart...
The fact that one woman produce a brain dead article does not permit to generalise to all women.
Or i'd be annoyed, since you are probably male and either a chauvinistic idiot, or lousy at trying humour, since i'm male also, it would make me... hem... nope still does not want an operation....
And if you look around you'll find lots of marketing people ready to "advise" companies/organisations like craigslist, wikipedia, sourceforge,... on "how to be more efficient" (usually at the detriment of the users (but with more flash(tm) and lights)) and you'll also find out that it is quite gender neutral...
Of course you can creep back into some hole and say that they are all not true scotsmen...
like it needs advertisement and a a CSR program....
The kind of people who might want a more "wysiwig & feel good" content entry interface are exactly the kind of people who do not contribute to knowledge.
There could certainly be improvement in some elements, for instance I'm sure a plugin to render some biological representation would find some friends.
But ajax driven emoticon entries ? and maybe "like buttons".... get lots, or even better go to craigslist and try to criticise them, the CEO reaction would probably be fun to see:-)
You might want to stick your head out of your own. ANY organisation wich manage critical infrastructure, and it does not matter if it's critical for "them" or for the "public" should really think of it's policies when it comes to the cloud.
The real issue is that some bunch of idiots said "hyeaa we are all going to the cloud because it is sooo cheeappp", and so "hype" and all this "doublgoodness"... And someone surprisingly enought wrote: well if you want to put critical infrastructure in the "public cloud" you'd better think twice,and see how much it really cost when you start asking hard question, like: if suddently we need 10x the processing capacity because of a large scale disaster, how will you prioritize ?
And BTW: if any private organization runs a critical service (security, fire protection, health care, etc...) and is not asking for similar level of services for what ever they put in the cloud, then they are either incompetent or thieving scums who are privatizing public services for private gains and giving sloppy services. A competent and honest private organization with this kind of public mandate would make sure that it complies with what the public expect (and with what should be written in its mandate)
The anarchist do not really care if everybody is equal or not, but they want to do as they please unless there is a very good reason not to.
Basically the key tenet is that everybody should have all freedoms who do not block somebody else to have an equivalent freedom. So I cannot kill somebody whom I do not like, because I would "rob all his (or her) freedoms" in one quick round.
And laws should not so much be the expression of the will of the majority, but tools to maximize everybody's opportunities.
Most anarchist see an totally free society as a probably unattainable ideal, but also think that the fact that it cannot be attained does not mean that you should not try to find ways to come as close as possible. So they typically combine a "small government" with a "big social net", which is not popular because most modern government strive to be "big government" (with much gravy to share among the leaders) and "the smallest possible social net" (because it's not useful to waste money on the plebs when you can give it to some friends).
So anarchists might be strongly against the use of nuclear energy, mostly because it implies a level of protection of the radioactive component which is very far from "small government" it does not mean that they dislike physics research. (nb: some anarchist even prefer nuclear energy to coal, fraking, etc... although they are probably a minority).
Anarchists are also somewhat wary of Democracy because in many case the majority does not want freedom for anybody who does not fit. For instance: Democracy means that Gay people in most case cannot marry because the majority finds this scary for some reason. It is particularly visible in most emerging countries. Anarchist feel that marriage is mostly a dubious tax organisation scheme of dubious value to the individual, but if it exist there is really no reason to prohibit homosexuals to do it, unless of course you are a prominent right wing politician and are afraid to loose the excuse you gave to you secret friend...
Nb: the Occupy movement is most probably not Anarchist at all: compare: "We are the 99%"(Occupy) to "There is not one in 100, but they do exist, the anarchists" (Léo Ferré).
Foo are Idiots, My proof? they would not be Foos if they weren't mentally challenged... - hum ambiguous Creative Geniuses are Idiots, My proof ? they would not be creative geniuses if they weren't mentally challenged... - yeah that makes sense, must be a real scientific proof!
The full name of the Nazi party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. So if you imply that because a group claims to be an Anarchist cell attacks one specific person who is NOT a scientist should taint all people who present themselves as anarchist of with anarchist sympathies you can just as well hang the shoah on: - All nationalist (called patriots in the US) - All socialist (from "new labour" to "North Korea") - All German (even the one born 50 years after the period and whose parents where opponents of the regime) - All Workers (much better not to work anyway....)
First item of interest: the victim most probably did have a scientific training and maybe did research at some point in his career, but currently he is the CEO of a component provider in the nuclear industry, nor doing nuclear physics research. So if somebody shoots a gun shop owner should the headline be "irate client hate physicians/mathematicians specialized in ballistics" ?
So what is really remarkable is the lack of depth of the article. i think I'll go to night to pee on an official building, and will send tomorrow a letter saying "europe sucks, signed patriot", and hopefully the NewScientist will publish an "in depth" study asking "why does All US hates All Europe and want to dissolve it in urine"...
Slashdot Mirror
That's impossible
Greedy people organize a company but call it "political action comity", make adds to say "foo is bad, and you should give money to us to say foo is bad to more people".
And of course creating and managing all this is work that should be paid, and since the management has nobody to oversee it can decide to be paid very well indeed.
Now what is the difference between this PAC and any other PAC ? I doubt other GOP (or DEM) PAC give the money back to the elector or something like that.
Their stated objective is to "spam (inform) you about issues and convince you to share their opinion...
Moreover they are expressively not endorsed by the candidates, since they are supposed to be "outside of his/hers cash stream"...
So I think this guy is just as legit as all the other goons.
The only guilty parties are the idiots and criminals who are giving money to PACs (idiots who are giving blindly, and criminals who discuss first about what they think the "right policy" should be).
And of course the people who voted for the con-persons who created this model of electoral law.
Personally I wish I had though about it before, and I hope many many creative Americans will create similar sites, until even the slowest cashcow understand that it is worthless to send money, and the electoral law goes in practice back to something a little bit less anormal.
They have decent music players, are reasonably "pro hacker", they used to have a version of angstroem linux for the Gen7 Archos48 player
(with a 500Gb disk and reasonable vibration resistance, obviously to be checked on an helicopter)
the current models run Android ICS.
Unless you define success as having happy users, in which case Linux is doing quite fine already, having success means getting MacOSX and Windows users to switch.
Absolutely nothing that would make Linux "as good as" would work, as if there people would care about freedom, they would have switched already (maybe keeping a guilty "gaming machine"), so they will only switch if they see that Linux users are doing things they care for and cannot do on their own machine.
So what Linux needs is one or maybe two "killer apps" that absolutely blow the competition out of the playground.
It could even only be useful for a specific "niche", visicalc pushed the Apple II, paint kept the mac alive and word+excel sold the "PC".
It could be a "presentation tool" that would help you bind together heuristic trees and presentations, and provide an easy way to make "brillant" presentations that are also flexible and interactive, where you can "move" in your presentation in real time depending on your public's feedback.
Or a desktop tool to grock huge amount of data and find some trends in them.
Or a "curl wizard" that enables you to become spam kind on all dating sites without getting found out (ok that would be real evil, but kind of cool).
Or .... you find it.
But in a nutshell, the issue is that about anything you can do with Linux you can do on a Windows platform, and unfortunately unless you care about freedom it's easy to "just not change"....
Linux on the desktop will be successful when "though leaders" will tell others, well I use "foo", so if you can't it's your problem.
Till then I'll go on happily hacking on my Linux laptop, and tell myself: Of course it's again the year of the Linux Desktop (for smart freedom loving people, wish there where more of them....).
Now get of my lawn :-)
The "study" mostly uses datas relative to 3rd world countries with bad access to clean water, it even explicitely says that large part of the study do not apply to netherland, so unless your part of the US has water quality closer to sub saharan africa than to the netherlands the study loses a large part of it's value.
But obviously the issue is not if it serves any purpose but to make sure that the poorer of the poor slobs would "want" it do not risk to reconsider because of lack of insurance coverage.
I'm sure that the next step is a study that demonstrate that big books are a necessary psychological help for young sorority girls and therefore boob jobs should also be covered by the insurance.
Of course it has, and if you do not cut a piece of your privates they will not be able to bill you for it, and apparently this is 313$, or maybe it cost more
but 313$ is the margin they get.
The people who want to remove the "non free" clauses do not understand the difference between Art and Code.
(of course a program can also be a piece of art, but mostly it "does something").
Non commercial helps people who want to be "outside of the commercial world" or "agree to share for promotion but still want to live from their art" to offer free culture without loosing something that is important for them.
The Non derivatice clause is about artistic integrity.
The people who want to remove these options think they are "expanding" the discussion of GPL vs BSD and similar licences.
But the situation is very different, if I write a piece of code it almost always needs to evolve to stay useful.
For instance an analytics package that does not interoperate with new database API becomes useless....
Therefore the GPL maximise the probability that a "more modern" version will still be "free".
The Mona Lisa does not need to be "updated", so once free is always free, there is no need to make a "derivative work" to integrate it, so prohibiting this is not really the same kind of issue. (you might want to, but do not need to...)
So the whole discussing is a bad idea, and more liable to turn off artist from GPLed Software than convince them that a "maximaly open licence is the right thing for them".
See you did it again, you are not supposed to tell anybody the first rule!!! it's secret gdmit!
US citizens would be less prone to believe that the the french are "surrendering" if they would not be so pissed at the fact that the general de gaulle was unwilling to surrenders all french sovereignty to the US after the war.
So : remember Cambronne...
Too obvious, try the Spanish Foreign Legion, nobody expects the spanish foreign legion, and they still use "identidad declaradas"
http://www.legion-recrute.com/es/faq.php
Of course they might be the ones out to get you ...
Well, I think that the Artistic value/characteristic and the fact that the user contributed datas are for the most part really only relevant within the game makes it a "special case"...
But Valve games will be compatible with Linux but probably not with all distributions, and certainly not with all CPU/GPU variations.
Moreover it will not be possible for a third party to adapt the games to an XYZ machines.
And it will leverage the current non free market share it enjoys to eclipse free alternatives.
So It will probably be "better" but you should not confuse the short term illusion of "more choices" with the long term trend it might drive (or not).
So in many cases "non free" is better than "not at all" but it always comes with it's load of issues and unexpected consequences...
RMS probably somewhat inadvertently made a very interesting remark.
He separates the Game Art from the Game Software...
And admits that Game Art could be "non free"...
One of my current activities is designing Gaming Maths, the way the maths are made has a strong impact on the enjoyment (or lack of) any game.
I would argue that the "artistic" as opposed to "software" component is just as great as the artistic component of the graphics.
I also think that there is a fundamental difference in Gaming apps versus Infrastructure or Activity Apps.
If I provide a text processing system or an OS or an Identity management app, all user data trapped into these applications are naturally "content" owned by the user, and it should be normal for the user to be able to share it just as s/he wants.
And it is immoral to force them to be promoter of their software if they want others to be able to read their presentation, or share files, etc...
But Gaming datas are for the most part relevant only in the game, and although some elements like "avatar design" might be usefully standardized, most parts should not been seen or manipulated outside of the game, because it would destroy the interest and artistic integrity of the game.
Having the "freedom" of adding 10000000 flogotz to my flogotz count is meaning less, and if I really want I could just lie about having found the amulet of yendor...
Reading the source code of a game is interesting, but I do believe that the social contract between a game designer and a tool designer is very different, and not just for the game graphics.
Therefore I think RMS can be assurer that at the end Valve opening to Gnu/Linux is not just neutral but a real gain.
And I think that instead avoiding to speak about it, it would be better to explain that:
There are interesting free games that you can use to play and to learn "how it is done"
There are interesting tools like Ogre3D to help you write games.
And there are non free games, it is somewhat frustrating because it might need something you do not have (if you processor is a MIPS it will probably not run), but it is very different from a non free Tool, and you are welcome to it.
And hopefully game designer will work with the various communities to make sure that the coverage is as global as possible, and not just as "economically optimal"....
At the risk of falling in the excessive generalisation type of fallacy, think of it this way:
In most countries you are prohibited to sell yourself into slavery, even if you could this way offer for example a "good future" to your children. ...
The reason the law suppress this "freedom" is linked to the frictions in the "free market", basically if enough people would see this as a solution, they would compete for jobs & salaries with people who care about their freedom, and thus restrict the freedom of people who are not "volunteering" to become slaves.
In the case of Software, take for instance the case of DVD reading, if you start to support the closed DVD reading solutions you discourage both the development of free solutions and the release of non DRM'd content.
You could see this as a "non issue", the DVD reading solutions are quite cheap, and anybody who balk at this is more interested in saving pennies than saving freedom...
But since the "closed" solutions has to pay patent royalties, etc... it is definitivelly in the "commercial proprietary market", and therefore will look at the bottom line of each business decision, wich means: a Ubuntu/Debian x86 version, maybe a RH version, but certainly not a MIPS or ARM version.
And thus "non free solutions" pushed freedom out
I suspect that the Ad revenues on iOS are higher not because of the OS, but because marketing droid are lickely to be Apple Fanboys (and girls), (because a long time ago the MacIntosh was "cheap to draw and print")
So they think it is smart to "invest" in iPhone Ads, and "confusing" to invest in a phone they are not using (yet).
The GPL gives lots of freedom to the peole using it, it only remove the "freedom" to remove somebody else's freedom.
There are many reasons that can justify BSD type licences over GPL, but they all boil down to:
"I would like to use this software in something proprietary..."
And it would be much better to state this clearly rather than vaguely allude to the GPL "being not what I think others should want.."
For the local police it is a hassle and a insuficiently documented event, it would be the same in about any country.
The only way to progress (unfortunatelly) is to contact a local lawyer, or the local Bar association http://www.avocatparis.org/
And come back with the lawyer, explain that you want to sue for :
- damage
- discrimination (a latter to the HALDE) (the anti discrimination authority in France)
- moral pain
Seek cost of trial + damage + punitive damage, let's say (since it's not quite as expensive in France) 100 000 €
And the answer will be quite different.
And it has nothing to do with France as such but everything with the mindset an international Franchise breeds in the loosers who have to work for them.
The "Garçons" in a local Brasserie might be haughty and unhelpful, they might speak no or little english, but they couldn't care less if you have a gizmo on your head or not, they are not afraid you will "copy" the "secrets" on the price list, or maybe focus on dirt and make a film "exposé" for the media.
Moreover going to a mac donald in France is really not a very good idea, but the one on the champs élysé is one of the worst (he could also go to the one on "rue de flandre" chances are that the level of inteligence is similar, at least it had a similar reputation a couple of years back).
NoSql Data bases encourages/forces you to think harder about the structure of you data, and the way you'll be using them.
So although you can solve about any DB related problem with either type of database, you will probably end up with a cleaner and easier to understand structure with a NoSql.
Typically Sql developpers tend to throw everything into the data base, then create marvelously large queries, and finally pout when you complain about performance, that "if they had had the time they would have some stored procedures, and the server is too slow anyway...."
On the minus side It is somewhat easier to build complex transactions with most Sql platforms, and somewhat easier to maintain consistency,
But NoSql bases are also in most case very easy to understand for any programmer, not only experienced DBA, and very easy to adapt to situations where you basically want a persistent store.
well, you might want to get some help, being hostile to half of humanity is a bad idea.
And you correctly assessed the value of your position, it is exactly as valid as the one of the few men eating dragons, that is not at all.
The fact that some of your enemies might be stupid does not make you smart...
The fact that one woman produce a brain dead article does not permit to generalise to all women.
Or i'd be annoyed, since you are probably male and either a chauvinistic idiot, or lousy at trying humour, since i'm male also, it would make me ... hem ... nope still does not want an operation....
And if you look around you'll find lots of marketing people ready to "advise" companies/organisations like craigslist, wikipedia, sourceforge, ... on "how to be more efficient" (usually at the detriment of the users (but with more flash(tm) and lights)) and you'll also find out that it is quite gender neutral...
Of course you can creep back into some hole and say that they are all not true scotsmen...
like it needs advertisement and a a CSR program....
The kind of people who might want a more "wysiwig & feel good" content entry interface are exactly the kind of people who do not contribute to knowledge.
There could certainly be improvement in some elements, for instance I'm sure a plugin to render some biological representation would find some friends.
But ajax driven emoticon entries ? and maybe "like buttons" .... get lots, or even better go to craigslist and try to criticise them, the CEO reaction would probably be fun to see :-)
You might want to stick your head out of your own.
ANY organisation wich manage critical infrastructure, and it does not matter if it's critical for "them" or for the "public" should really think of it's policies when it comes to the cloud.
The real issue is that some bunch of idiots said "hyeaa we are all going to the cloud because it is sooo cheeappp", and so "hype" and all this "doublgoodness"...
And someone surprisingly enought wrote: well if you want to put critical infrastructure in the "public cloud" you'd better think twice,and see how much it really cost when you start asking hard question, like: if suddently we need 10x the processing capacity because of a large scale disaster, how will you prioritize ?
And BTW: if any private organization runs a critical service (security, fire protection, health care, etc...) and is not asking for similar level of services for what ever they put in the cloud, then they are either incompetent or thieving scums who are privatizing public services for private gains and giving sloppy services.
A competent and honest private organization with this kind of public mandate would make sure that it complies with what the public expect (and with what should be written in its mandate)
The anarchist do not really care if everybody is equal or not, but they want to do as they please unless there is a very good reason not to.
Basically the key tenet is that everybody should have all freedoms who do not block somebody else to have an equivalent freedom.
So I cannot kill somebody whom I do not like, because I would "rob all his (or her) freedoms" in one quick round.
And laws should not so much be the expression of the will of the majority, but tools to maximize everybody's opportunities.
Most anarchist see an totally free society as a probably unattainable ideal, but also think that the fact that it cannot be attained does not mean that you should not try to find ways to come as close as possible.
So they typically combine a "small government" with a "big social net", which is not popular because most modern government strive to be "big government" (with much gravy to share among the leaders) and "the smallest possible social net" (because it's not useful to waste money on the plebs when you can give it to some friends).
So anarchists might be strongly against the use of nuclear energy, mostly because it implies a level of protection of the radioactive component which is very far from "small government" it does not mean that they dislike physics research.
(nb: some anarchist even prefer nuclear energy to coal, fraking, etc... although they are probably a minority).
Anarchists are also somewhat wary of Democracy because in many case the majority does not want freedom for anybody who does not fit.
For instance: Democracy means that Gay people in most case cannot marry because the majority finds this scary for some reason.
It is particularly visible in most emerging countries.
Anarchist feel that marriage is mostly a dubious tax organisation scheme of dubious value to the individual, but if it exist there is really no reason to prohibit homosexuals to do it, unless of course you are a prominent right wing politician and are afraid to loose the excuse you gave to you secret friend...
Nb: the Occupy movement is most probably not Anarchist at all: compare:
"We are the 99%"(Occupy) to "There is not one in 100, but they do exist, the anarchists" (Léo Ferré).
Foo are Idiots, My proof? they would not be Foos if they weren't mentally challenged...
- hum ambiguous
Creative Geniuses are Idiots, My proof ? they would not be creative geniuses if they weren't mentally challenged...
- yeah that makes sense, must be a real scientific proof!
The full name of the Nazi party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
So if you imply that because a group claims to be an Anarchist cell attacks one specific person who is NOT a scientist should taint all people who present themselves as anarchist of with anarchist sympathies you can just as well hang the shoah on:
- All nationalist (called patriots in the US)
- All socialist (from "new labour" to "North Korea")
- All German (even the one born 50 years after the period and whose parents where opponents of the regime)
- All Workers (much better not to work anyway....)
First item of interest: the victim most probably did have a scientific training and maybe did research at some point in his career, but currently he is the CEO of a component provider in the nuclear industry, nor doing nuclear physics research.
So if somebody shoots a gun shop owner should the headline be "irate client hate physicians/mathematicians specialized in ballistics" ?
So what is really remarkable is the lack of depth of the article.
i think I'll go to night to pee on an official building, and will send tomorrow a letter saying "europe sucks, signed patriot", and hopefully the NewScientist will publish an "in depth" study asking "why does All US hates All Europe and want to dissolve it in urine"...