We are in agreement but have a misunderstanding over terms. I am saying exactly what you're saying: "bad" behaviour is rewarded over one iteration. Over many, "good" behaviour is rewarded. I'm saying that American corporations are behaving as if they were in a game of only one iteration, whilst their Chinese rivals are behaving as if they were in a game of many iterations. As we are obviously in a game of many iterations (unless the world ends this year), the Chinese strategy is better, long term.
I disagree. I understand and get your point about American corporations not representing "America" (as viewed by the people generally), but regardless of their transnationalism, they are competing with China, because their Chinese equivalents are not similar transnational entities that regard their parent country as nothing more than a placenta to be discarded. Their Chinese rivals are closely tied to the government and people of that country in a way that American corporations are not. Your pointing out that American corporations do not represent the American people is the essence of my argument - the Chinese ones (sort of) do.
Fair enough. I don't know much about planes. I was just clarifying what the earlier poster meant to someone who had misunderstood that point. I did begin with "if the 747 is still viable today..." for that reason. I may have sounded like I was putting that point forward myself, but it doesn't matter as I got an informative response. Thanks,
H.
How do you know that? Maybe many people admire him for building such a towering business as Microsoft. Besides, take a look at the full poll (Gates comes in at position 5). Obama is at the top and I can tell you more about what Bill Gates did to get there than I can Barak Obama. And if you object to that, note that George W. Bush is in at position #2. Should either of these people be held more highly than the scientists and engineers who contribute to the knowledge of the nation, or the entrepreneurs who bring in vast amounts of wealth to it through innovative products?
The GP's point is that if the 747 is still viable today, and it is forty years old (not withstanding minor updates), then even if China can't build on the new technology beyond its current point (which is debatable), then having 2010 technology could keep them a significant player for decades to come.
And then you introduce the issue of competition and the whole thing starts to look like a giant version of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Company X has to agree with China's conditions, else Compay Y will instead. Of course as we all know, the whole thing about prisoner's dillemma is that it falls apart in the long-term. Solidarity brings the best rewards over repeated trials, betrayal in the immediate future. America has done well with it's competitive system of companies, but this fails in the face of a unified outside force that can play them off against each other.
As a senior engagement manager at a consulting firm in the 90's, I once created an animated PowerPoint presentation that showed the customer literally as a cow, and the sales team as lions who came in to feast on its entrails after the technical staff knocked it over with dazzling technology. Money was pouring out of the cow as the sales people tore into it.
Well "jew in 1939 Germany" is an analogy like to inflame a few people for some pretty elementary reasons, you have to admit that one. Try something more modern like being anti-piracy on Slashdot. That can feel as hard work as being a common sense person in San Diego, trust me.;)
Not really, the US military wiped the Iraq military off the map easily, it was the occupation and insurgency that caused problems
The Iraq military used a technique that the US military were completely unprepared for. They took off their uniforms and went home to look after their family and communities, or in some cases, to go undercover and fight an ongoing resistance. The "wiping off the map" of the Iraq military, in large part [b]is[/b] the insurgency that has deviled the US forces.
I'm interested to learn more about this. Can you point me at some information about what Rumsfield did, or at least give me a starting point to Google on. What programs did Rumsfield close down? (Note: Brit here, not US citizen, so may be asking something that's well-known over there)
We can see this also in Wikileaks, where leaders of middle eastern countries wanted the US to take out Iran.
Bear in mind that the leaders in question are often dictators reigning a non-democratic state and can hardly be taken as moral support for action against Iran. In some cases, these "leaders" are actually reigning royal families. In 2011!
The US is not fighting a war in Iraq. The US is fighting an occupation. This is a significantly different task, one that the American Army is not designed for. The US Army is designed to crush, to destroy, to annihilate the enemy - and the US Army is possibly the best army in the world at this
I think it's the US Air Force and Navy that are designed to annihilate (appropriate choice of word) their enemies, by virtue of raining bombs and missiles down upon them. If the US army isn't for controlling territories, then I'm not sure what it's for, because other than infiltration missions (which is not the general bulk of the army), they've got nothing on a plane load of bombs when it comes to pure destruction.
And that's assuming the US doesn't use nukes - if it did, I give it about an hour before it becomes the Islamic Cinder Pile of Iran.
Remind me again why Iran would like to have nuclear missiles?
Hell, I'd take twenty containers of even remotely modern mines against the Fifth Fleet in the Strait of Hormuz. Sure the Fifth fleet can just sit there. Or it can advance incredibly slowly, carefully trying to clear the mines as it goes with varying degrees of success. But for all practical and commercial purposes, the Strait of Hormuz is now closed for business.
For all we know it could be a false-flag attempt at starting something from Iran.
Really unlikely. For one, Iran doesn't want war. For two, Israel and the US would know it wasn't them and both have far too powerful media control over their populations for a false-flag to work either governmentally or with the publics of those countries. Similar reasons mean Iran wouldn't need to pull such stunts against their own people and they'd either be damaging their own infrastructure or faking the virus, and the virus has already been examined. So that would just leave influencing other big actors such as Russia. And if something kicks off, the big actors are going to be choosing sides according to their own interests, not who is in the right.
Well it seemed very likely to be from Israel. They had means and motivation. Furthermore, there were hints to suggest it was from the virus creators and deployers themselves. Israeli motivations would be to let everyone know who did it, but deny proof. Sort of like a kid in a class winking at a teacher who knows they were the one that threw something, but didn't actually see it.
But the question was more whether it was only Israel that did this, or whether there was US involvement. That the article suggests the US were also involved, is a shame. Israel has been wagging to dog for way too long now, and their behaviour has long been more antagonistic than it would be, if everyone didn't view the US as their pet attack dog. I've mixed dog metaphors horribly. You know what I mean.
Heh. I remember that interview. Never entirely been convinced it was a joke.:D
Anyway, bit of a D fan here, just replying. I'm only just starting to use it on a decent sized project. I think it's fine, though obviously you differ. As someone still fairly new to the language, I'd be interested to know what the insane features are. Not so I can argue about them - genuinely just curious / want to learn.
I will say that I don't think the D1/D2 split is an issue. The community is small enough and the code that's out there limited enough, that most people are able to regard the shift to D2 as a joyous thing, not a problem. D1 is still maintained and out there for those that want it.
You know all other things being equal, MS has less motivation to violate my privacy than Google does, as selling my data to advertisers isn't their primary source of revenue. For that reason alone, I look more favourably on Bing than Google search. But that said, both search engines seem to bring me equivalent results most of the time. Certainly they both normally get me the results that I want and you can't really get any better result from a search engine. I also like Bing's image results and page previews and generally nice to look at layout. I swap back to Google when I need to search news groups.
But when you say "the market will decide" you have to ask yourself which market, because Google are able to leverage their online services to boost Google search in a way that MS aren't able to do as well by leveraging their desktop products. In other words, Google has more relevant markets to provide synergy to each other. (A bit like MS once did with browsers and operating systems).
And if that action contravenes EU law, then they are acting according to US law and against EU law. The relevant part as far as the EU is concerned, is the latter part.
Or maybe youth and inexperience never really changes, and you're just old and crotchety and you feel like lashing out at someone for being young.
If youth and experience never changes for you, who are you? Dorian Gray? Silly to argue that longer experience in programming doesn't have an effect on your ability to program and that differences in programming ability don't then inform your attitudes.
And that's not the only thing wrong with the article. Like most/.'ers I saw the headline with a mix of amusement and interest and (I know I'm not supposed to), I clicked on the link and RTFA. I was expecting something that was actually an academic paper. But it's filled with shallow analysis, dubious logic and woeful amounts of inappropriate extrapolation. (I mean do we really need to have the extra-marital affair of two astronauts detailed and discussed to use as support for arguments in the general case). And, though I rarely ever use the word these days except when talking about some foreign cultures, the article even manages to come across as sexist since the majority of it seems to be written from the perspective of whether to include females in space flights with the rationale that females cause sex! (Note to critics, it is the combination of these two things that triggers a response of 'sexist'. In my experience, men also, uh, cause sex).
Slashdot Mirror
So stealing then giving away most of what you stole makes up for it?
I have no idea, but it worked for Robin Hood.
We are in agreement but have a misunderstanding over terms. I am saying exactly what you're saying: "bad" behaviour is rewarded over one iteration. Over many, "good" behaviour is rewarded. I'm saying that American corporations are behaving as if they were in a game of only one iteration, whilst their Chinese rivals are behaving as if they were in a game of many iterations. As we are obviously in a game of many iterations (unless the world ends this year), the Chinese strategy is better, long term.
I disagree. I understand and get your point about American corporations not representing "America" (as viewed by the people generally), but regardless of their transnationalism, they are competing with China, because their Chinese equivalents are not similar transnational entities that regard their parent country as nothing more than a placenta to be discarded. Their Chinese rivals are closely tied to the government and people of that country in a way that American corporations are not. Your pointing out that American corporations do not represent the American people is the essence of my argument - the Chinese ones (sort of) do.
Fair enough. I don't know much about planes. I was just clarifying what the earlier poster meant to someone who had misunderstood that point. I did begin with "if the 747 is still viable today..." for that reason. I may have sounded like I was putting that point forward myself, but it doesn't matter as I got an informative response. Thanks,
H.
How do you know that? Maybe many people admire him for building such a towering business as Microsoft. Besides, take a look at the full poll (Gates comes in at position 5). Obama is at the top and I can tell you more about what Bill Gates did to get there than I can Barak Obama. And if you object to that, note that George W. Bush is in at position #2. Should either of these people be held more highly than the scientists and engineers who contribute to the knowledge of the nation, or the entrepreneurs who bring in vast amounts of wealth to it through innovative products?
The GP's point is that if the 747 is still viable today, and it is forty years old (not withstanding minor updates), then even if China can't build on the new technology beyond its current point (which is debatable), then having 2010 technology could keep them a significant player for decades to come.
And then you introduce the issue of competition and the whole thing starts to look like a giant version of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Company X has to agree with China's conditions, else Compay Y will instead. Of course as we all know, the whole thing about prisoner's dillemma is that it falls apart in the long-term. Solidarity brings the best rewards over repeated trials, betrayal in the immediate future. America has done well with it's competitive system of companies, but this fails in the face of a unified outside force that can play them off against each other.
As a senior engagement manager at a consulting firm in the 90's, I once created an animated PowerPoint presentation that showed the customer literally as a cow, and the sales team as lions who came in to feast on its entrails after the technical staff knocked it over with dazzling technology. Money was pouring out of the cow as the sales people tore into it.
*applauds*
Ahhh, General Pyrrhus, hero of D-Day. We will never forget you.
Well "jew in 1939 Germany" is an analogy like to inflame a few people for some pretty elementary reasons, you have to admit that one. Try something more modern like being anti-piracy on Slashdot. That can feel as hard work as being a common sense person in San Diego, trust me. ;)
Not really, the US military wiped the Iraq military off the map easily, it was the occupation and insurgency that caused problems
The Iraq military used a technique that the US military were completely unprepared for. They took off their uniforms and went home to look after their family and communities, or in some cases, to go undercover and fight an ongoing resistance. The "wiping off the map" of the Iraq military, in large part [b]is[/b] the insurgency that has deviled the US forces.
I'm interested to learn more about this. Can you point me at some information about what Rumsfield did, or at least give me a starting point to Google on. What programs did Rumsfield close down? (Note: Brit here, not US citizen, so may be asking something that's well-known over there)
We can see this also in Wikileaks, where leaders of middle eastern countries wanted the US to take out Iran.
Bear in mind that the leaders in question are often dictators reigning a non-democratic state and can hardly be taken as moral support for action against Iran. In some cases, these "leaders" are actually reigning royal families. In 2011!
The US is not fighting a war in Iraq. The US is fighting an occupation. This is a significantly different task, one that the American Army is not designed for. The US Army is designed to crush, to destroy, to annihilate the enemy - and the US Army is possibly the best army in the world at this
I think it's the US Air Force and Navy that are designed to annihilate (appropriate choice of word) their enemies, by virtue of raining bombs and missiles down upon them. If the US army isn't for controlling territories, then I'm not sure what it's for, because other than infiltration missions (which is not the general bulk of the army), they've got nothing on a plane load of bombs when it comes to pure destruction.
And that's assuming the US doesn't use nukes - if it did, I give it about an hour before it becomes the Islamic Cinder Pile of Iran.
Remind me again why Iran would like to have nuclear missiles?
Hell, I'd take twenty containers of even remotely modern mines against the Fifth Fleet in the Strait of Hormuz. Sure the Fifth fleet can just sit there. Or it can advance incredibly slowly, carefully trying to clear the mines as it goes with varying degrees of success. But for all practical and commercial purposes, the Strait of Hormuz is now closed for business.
Three years is a long time for an unpopular government run by radicals, thieves, and thugs.
True, but I'm less optimistic than you about the American people overthrowing their government in that time scale.
For all we know it could be a false-flag attempt at starting something from Iran.
Really unlikely. For one, Iran doesn't want war. For two, Israel and the US would know it wasn't them and both have far too powerful media control over their populations for a false-flag to work either governmentally or with the publics of those countries. Similar reasons mean Iran wouldn't need to pull such stunts against their own people and they'd either be damaging their own infrastructure or faking the virus, and the virus has already been examined. So that would just leave influencing other big actors such as Russia. And if something kicks off, the big actors are going to be choosing sides according to their own interests, not who is in the right.
Well it seemed very likely to be from Israel. They had means and motivation. Furthermore, there were hints to suggest it was from the virus creators and deployers themselves. Israeli motivations would be to let everyone know who did it, but deny proof. Sort of like a kid in a class winking at a teacher who knows they were the one that threw something, but didn't actually see it.
But the question was more whether it was only Israel that did this, or whether there was US involvement. That the article suggests the US were also involved, is a shame. Israel has been wagging to dog for way too long now, and their behaviour has long been more antagonistic than it would be, if everyone didn't view the US as their pet attack dog. I've mixed dog metaphors horribly. You know what I mean.
Heh. I remember that interview. Never entirely been convinced it was a joke. :D
Anyway, bit of a D fan here, just replying. I'm only just starting to use it on a decent sized project. I think it's fine, though obviously you differ. As someone still fairly new to the language, I'd be interested to know what the insane features are. Not so I can argue about them - genuinely just curious / want to learn.
I will say that I don't think the D1/D2 split is an issue. The community is small enough and the code that's out there limited enough, that most people are able to regard the shift to D2 as a joyous thing, not a problem. D1 is still maintained and out there for those that want it.
You know all other things being equal, MS has less motivation to violate my privacy than Google does, as selling my data to advertisers isn't their primary source of revenue. For that reason alone, I look more favourably on Bing than Google search. But that said, both search engines seem to bring me equivalent results most of the time. Certainly they both normally get me the results that I want and you can't really get any better result from a search engine. I also like Bing's image results and page previews and generally nice to look at layout. I swap back to Google when I need to search news groups.
But when you say "the market will decide" you have to ask yourself which market, because Google are able to leverage their online services to boost Google search in a way that MS aren't able to do as well by leveraging their desktop products. In other words, Google has more relevant markets to provide synergy to each other. (A bit like MS once did with browsers and operating systems).
And if that action contravenes EU law, then they are acting according to US law and against EU law. The relevant part as far as the EU is concerned, is the latter part.
Or maybe youth and inexperience never really changes, and you're just old and crotchety and you feel like lashing out at someone for being young.
If youth and experience never changes for you, who are you? Dorian Gray? Silly to argue that longer experience in programming doesn't have an effect on your ability to program and that differences in programming ability don't then inform your attitudes.
And that's not the only thing wrong with the article. Like most /.'ers I saw the headline with a mix of amusement and interest and (I know I'm not supposed to), I clicked on the link and RTFA. I was expecting something that was actually an academic paper. But it's filled with shallow analysis, dubious logic and woeful amounts of inappropriate extrapolation. (I mean do we really need to have the extra-marital affair of two astronauts detailed and discussed to use as support for arguments in the general case). And, though I rarely ever use the word these days except when talking about some foreign cultures, the article even manages to come across as sexist since the majority of it seems to be written from the perspective of whether to include females in space flights with the rationale that females cause sex! (Note to critics, it is the combination of these two things that triggers a response of 'sexist'. In my experience, men also, uh, cause sex).
What about within the home? Do most routers support IPv6 now or do you have to do something special?
That and the ability to print odd or even pages (unless they've added that since). For that reason alone, I've kept kpdf hanging around.