Realizing that the truck in the junction ahead hasn't made eye contact and is about to pull out in front of you is harder.. and you can't automate that.
Sure it can. How do you, as the driver, realize that the truck might pull out in front of you? By seeing it move towards the lane you're in.
But if there's visibly-detectable motion, then the motion is detectable by the vision algorithm -- provided the tolerances in the algorithm are sufficiently-precise to detect movements of perhaps as little as 3-6 inches (or whatever the detection limit is for a human mind at X distance).
It's not like you're communicating with the truck driver telepathically...:-)
Visual Studio 200x makes writing GUI apps in C# and.NET dirt-simple. Literally, click-and-drag your forms (windows) and their controls into place. The form/window design is as easy as VB, and the C# language is as sane and well-structured as Java.
(Whether Java is better/worse than C# is a different argument I'll avoid altogether, because I have no strongly-held opinion yet (except that I prefer C#/.NET GUIs to Java GUIs on the basis of runtime speed alone), although, I do worry sometimes about the viral effect of C# + Mono...)
Average annual income of an employee in the USA is $26,000. - Entrepreneur Magazine
Average annual income of a successful home-based business in the USA is $50,250. - Entrepreneur Magazine
I can't believe they actually have the balls to compare the income of an *individual person* in a business, to the income of an entire business itself.
get paid double what every other 9-5 Joe is getting.
...at the expense of having to pay directly for one's own medical/dental/vision, no 401k available (though if you're still young, the next best thing is probably a Roth IRA), having to pay for your own unemployment compensation, etc.. Not to mention the relative uncertainty of incoming work requests.
High-paying and flexible, sure, but that reward carries its risks. (That said, I actually kind of like the idea of consulting. Never done it though...)
Can it do authorization of group access to a given application? How about publishing network resources (printers, workstations, etc.)? Can Samba 4 replicate its data between multiple sites? Is Samba 4's AD functionality even built off any sort of LDAP technology to begin with (probably OpenLDAP, if anything)?
For all MSFT's faults (and there are many, as/. routinely points out), AD *is* a decent NOS directory...
On one hand, you can never be too secure, however on the other hand, have we become so secure that we're stifling our own ability to get things done?
Yes, you *can* be too-secure. "Too much security" occurs when you can't get work done -- as is your case. The only *real* question facing corporate IT is "what amount of liberty is necessary to perform the duties of the employee requesting that access?" In true totalitarian style, the old computer security saying "that which is not expressly-permitted is forbidden" is the basic principle of current corporate IT security.
We have this same problem where I work. Thank shitty MSFT security for the current mess...
On a related, more-general note, security and liberty are *always* at odds. They logically must be: if you are restricted from performing action A, then you are not at liberty to perform action A. Simple as that.
For a real-world example: if you are locked-out of somebody's home, then you are not free to open the door to that home. The home is secure against your entry (at least from this particular vector).
Frankly, he who wants to be both safe and free will never have what cannot be.
Interesting... I'll have to look into the debate some more I suppose (as I noted before, the claim regarding Nash's disproval of Smith came as something of a surprise to me).
I wonder if there is a correlation between progress towards an MBA (in the USA) and an inability to find an optimal solution requiring cooperation? I wouldn't be surprised.
If I ever go back to school and progress from my mere Econ. minor to a master's degree or (unlikely) even a PhD, I think this will be one of the possible topics for my master's thesis. It sounds like a fun one.;-)
Now I'm seeing similar "libertarian" pushes at various newspapers and even noted on my local TV morning news (Chicago's WGN9 news team, hilarious people) a more freedom-loving perspective on some of their opinion pieces.
You've noticed an upswing in libertarian thought in the Chicago area? I'm from that frosty socialist hell-hole myself, and I can't say as I've noticed... Something about rising cigarette taxes (although I do generally prefer sales taxes to income taxes, and besides a land-value tax, a tax on things with clear negative externalities (like cigarettes or automobile exhaust) are probably among the least-bad taxes I can think of) and a smoking ban that passed to apply to all of Chicago's restaurants just don't strike me as "libertarian"...
This isn't to say it's impossible though. I admittedly don't follow Chicago politics (or IL state politics) much, except to bitch about the latest corruption story coming out of Mayor Daley's office. I guess I'm just curious what other examples you might have, e.g. articles from the Chicago Tribune or something...:-/
On an unrelated note, as a club owner (IIRC from your prior posts), you wouldn't happen to be the owner of the E2 club, in which 21 people were killed or know the owner, would you?
Summary: Dudley Hiibel's daughter was stopped by the police while Dudley was riding passenger. Police asked Dudley for identification; Dudley refused. Police arrested Dudley. Dudley sued and lost. Dudley appealed and lost. Dudley went to the United States Supreme Court -- and lost.
With regards to freedom from government in terms of identification, we are now, in legal terms, no different from the totalitarian commie pinkos of Soviet-era nations that we once fought so vehemently-against for privacy and individual freedom.
The internet has worked far-better at generating new and fascinating content, new technologies, etc. as the anarchy it is than it would with any sort of regulation (on top of what already exists, at least).
* communism as ideology is NOT brutal because quite frankly, communism never took it's place
In a truly-pure, *absolute* form envisaged by Karl Marx, you're correct: communism has never existed.
But Chairman Mao came closer to implementing it than anybody else I know of during his "Great Leap Forward", in which he forced people in rural villages to have their own ovens and steel-mills and produce food and other goods/services for themselves in a collectively-owned, collectively-controlled way. For Mao, it was an economic experiment, to see if "stateless socialism" (communism) could succeed.
The result? Millions of people died of starvation. It was a complete disaster; one which the leftists of the United States are loathe to admit even occurred...
But, in absolute terms, you're right: communism has never existed. And the fact that Mao, as a state leader, had to force communism upon people, means by definition that the problem was not communism (strictly-speaking), but *socialism*. Socialism -- i.e. government-controlled economy -- ultimately murdered those millions of Chinese, not communism.
Ordinarily, I make this distinction between communism and socialism, because frankly, I see socialism as a worse economic disease than communism. Socialism kills, almost every time, but it's communism that gets demonized for it... But the distinction is pretty moot, seeing as most people don't know the difference between the two economic systems...
I'm also a huge proponent of the individual rights and liberties. And this news makes me sad.
Frankly, I think the student *should* not only be permitted to read Mao's book, but it should be encouraged, and the DHS should fuck off. Only by understanding where we are coming from, and the sort of horrors for which Mao is responsible -- and doing this can centrally include reading Mao's views that helped catalyze the policies leading to them -- will we be able to avoid such brutal ideologies like communism and totalitarianism.
"Those who do not learn from their past are doomed to repeat it", after all. A free, non-totalitarian society allows its people to read books written by rulers of non-free, totalitarian societies; this is not true in reverse.
Ironically, the DHS is enforcing the sort of totalitarianism the student intended to read about. Apparently the DHS has yet to learn history too...
And, of course you do not read gnu.emacs.devel on a regular basis.
Of course not. I have so many better things to do with my time it's not even funny. Chief among those is making money by working for a non-zero price, unlike the GNU hippies.
It's silly to expect people to read any given mailing list. Nobody can read every single mailing list relating to OSS development (Kerneltrap, the FreeBSD lists, OpenBSD lists, etc.), security (do you read all the SecurityFocus lists, Full Disclosure, etc.?), commercial development (all the commercial vendors), all the Microsoft developer newsgroups, etc.? Not to mention keeping up with Slashdot's articles? And personal development and/or admin. projects? (And then there's *real* life -- showering, eating, washing clothes, car repairs, bill-paying, personal finances, doctor visits, school, etc.)
If not, then let's do away with this truly-idiotic expectation of having read every last goddamn mailing list in existence. It is an impossibility, even for the college student with far too-much free time on their hands...
I still like the idea libertarians getting together and building a floating island city in the ocean. Maybe a few ocean-going oil supertankers lashed-together would do the trick?:-)
But it's NOT my fault if politicians are stupid. Fix it with politics. It was Bush and all those ultra-right-wing politicians who started all this crap, not "communications". I don't understand why they're limiting my freedom just because all those stupid people made lots of errors.
EU elected officials passes an anti-privacy law, and it's somehow George W. Bush's fault?
I hate Bush with a passion, being about as anti-libertarian a President as can be. But on which planet do its citizens blame somebody for something he/she had no control over?
The EU law is the fault of EU politicians. Whatever the outside influences might be -- and I think you greatly over-state Bush's influence here, given the tepid-and-cooling opinion among Europeans of the U.S. -- the buck nevertheless stops with the EU's elected officials, not with American officials... The "stupid people" you seek to blame are the ones who have the power to decide things on your behalf, whom (presumably) you and other Europeans elected -- just like we Americans have stupid people (Bush, most of our Congress) to blame for our political failures.
Lesson learned: governments are stupid because the politicians who form them are stupid, and even when such politicians are supposed to be non-stupid, they tend to make stupid decisions. There's a larger lesson here about the role and size of government...
What's wrong with "* * Beatles Beatles" getting 2, 3, or a dozen articles posted in a row? As long as their articles are interesting and the headlines and article descriptions are better-written than other, similar headlines and descriptions, isn't that the point? Isn't the *content* of the post more important than the person who wrote it?
Slashdot Mirror
After reading that, I'm glad my job (sometimes) involves writing Perl! :-) (no really, I'm serious though...)
Sure it can. How do you, as the driver, realize that the truck might pull out in front of you? By seeing it move towards the lane you're in.
But if there's visibly-detectable motion, then the motion is detectable by the vision algorithm -- provided the tolerances in the algorithm are sufficiently-precise to detect movements of perhaps as little as 3-6 inches (or whatever the detection limit is for a human mind at X distance).
It's not like you're communicating with the truck driver telepathically...
Visual Studio 200x makes writing GUI apps in C# and .NET dirt-simple. Literally, click-and-drag your forms (windows) and their controls into place. The form/window design is as easy as VB, and the C# language is as sane and well-structured as Java.
(Whether Java is better/worse than C# is a different argument I'll avoid altogether, because I have no strongly-held opinion yet (except that I prefer C#/.NET GUIs to Java GUIs on the basis of runtime speed alone), although, I do worry sometimes about the viral effect of C# + Mono...)
Quite!
I wonder how old those figures are. I could easily see those being 15 years old or more...
I can't believe they actually have the balls to compare the income of an *individual person* in a business, to the income of an entire business itself.
High-paying and flexible, sure, but that reward carries its risks. (That said, I actually kind of like the idea of consulting. Never done it though...)
I second your comments. That claim reeks of bullshit.
Can it do authorization of group access to a given application? How about publishing network resources (printers, workstations, etc.)? Can Samba 4 replicate its data between multiple sites? Is Samba 4's AD functionality even built off any sort of LDAP technology to begin with (probably OpenLDAP, if anything)?
/. routinely points out), AD *is* a decent NOS directory...
For all MSFT's faults (and there are many, as
Yes, you *can* be too-secure. "Too much security" occurs when you can't get work done -- as is your case. The only *real* question facing corporate IT is "what amount of liberty is necessary to perform the duties of the employee requesting that access?" In true totalitarian style, the old computer security saying "that which is not expressly-permitted is forbidden" is the basic principle of current corporate IT security.
We have this same problem where I work. Thank shitty MSFT security for the current mess...
On a related, more-general note, security and liberty are *always* at odds. They logically must be: if you are restricted from performing action A, then you are not at liberty to perform action A. Simple as that.
For a real-world example: if you are locked-out of somebody's home, then you are not free to open the door to that home. The home is secure against your entry (at least from this particular vector).
Frankly, he who wants to be both safe and free will never have what cannot be.
Any civil liberty except for that pesky "right to keep and bear arms"... (Hence, fund the ACLU *and* the NRA and GOA!)
...then why can't most male geeks get dates?
*watches iron-clad karma melt into hot slag*
I'll have a MacBook with supersize fries and a liter of cola to go please!
*ducks*
If I ever go back to school and progress from my mere Econ. minor to a master's degree or (unlikely) even a PhD, I think this will be one of the possible topics for my master's thesis. It sounds like a fun one.
Oh? I would be *very* curious to see *any* sources you can find to back up the claim that John Nash somehow debunked Adam Smith.
If Nash disproved Smith, it certainly wasn't covered within the 100-300 level econ. courses I took.
You've noticed an upswing in libertarian thought in the Chicago area? I'm from that frosty socialist hell-hole myself, and I can't say as I've noticed... Something about rising cigarette taxes (although I do generally prefer sales taxes to income taxes, and besides a land-value tax, a tax on things with clear negative externalities (like cigarettes or automobile exhaust) are probably among the least-bad taxes I can think of) and a smoking ban that passed to apply to all of Chicago's restaurants just don't strike me as "libertarian"...
This isn't to say it's impossible though. I admittedly don't follow Chicago politics (or IL state politics) much, except to bitch about the latest corruption story coming out of Mayor Daley's office. I guess I'm just curious what other examples you might have, e.g. articles from the Chicago Tribune or something...
On an unrelated note, as a club owner (IIRC from your prior posts), you wouldn't happen to be the owner of the E2 club, in which 21 people were killed or know the owner, would you?
Wrong. See HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA, HUMBOLDT COUNTY, et al. .
Summary: Dudley Hiibel's daughter was stopped by the police while Dudley was riding passenger. Police asked Dudley for identification; Dudley refused. Police arrested Dudley. Dudley sued and lost. Dudley appealed and lost. Dudley went to the United States Supreme Court -- and lost.
This case stands as the case which now defines the "papers please" legal environment under which all Americans now live.
With regards to freedom from government in terms of identification, we are now, in legal terms, no different from the totalitarian commie pinkos of Soviet-era nations that we once fought so vehemently-against for privacy and individual freedom.
(Disclaimer: IANAL.)
The internet has worked far-better at generating new and fascinating content, new technologies, etc. as the anarchy it is than it would with any sort of regulation (on top of what already exists, at least).
In a truly-pure, *absolute* form envisaged by Karl Marx, you're correct: communism has never existed.
But Chairman Mao came closer to implementing it than anybody else I know of during his "Great Leap Forward", in which he forced people in rural villages to have their own ovens and steel-mills and produce food and other goods/services for themselves in a collectively-owned, collectively-controlled way. For Mao, it was an economic experiment, to see if "stateless socialism" (communism) could succeed.
The result? Millions of people died of starvation. It was a complete disaster; one which the leftists of the United States are loathe to admit even occurred...
But, in absolute terms, you're right: communism has never existed. And the fact that Mao, as a state leader, had to force communism upon people, means by definition that the problem was not communism (strictly-speaking), but *socialism*. Socialism -- i.e. government-controlled economy -- ultimately murdered those millions of Chinese, not communism.
Ordinarily, I make this distinction between communism and socialism, because frankly, I see socialism as a worse economic disease than communism. Socialism kills, almost every time, but it's communism that gets demonized for it... But the distinction is pretty moot, seeing as most people don't know the difference between the two economic systems...
I'm also a huge proponent of the individual rights and liberties. And this news makes me sad.
Frankly, I think the student *should* not only be permitted to read Mao's book, but it should be encouraged, and the DHS should fuck off. Only by understanding where we are coming from, and the sort of horrors for which Mao is responsible -- and doing this can centrally include reading Mao's views that helped catalyze the policies leading to them -- will we be able to avoid such brutal ideologies like communism and totalitarianism.
"Those who do not learn from their past are doomed to repeat it", after all. A free, non-totalitarian society allows its people to read books written by rulers of non-free, totalitarian societies; this is not true in reverse.
Ironically, the DHS is enforcing the sort of totalitarianism the student intended to read about. Apparently the DHS has yet to learn history too...
(His professor is unbelieveable though, saying at the end of the article "Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless." Given that Mao was responsible for the mass-murder of as many as 70 million people, nothing could be further from the truth.)
Fair enough...
Of course not. I have so many better things to do with my time it's not even funny. Chief among those is making money by working for a non-zero price, unlike the GNU hippies.
It's silly to expect people to read any given mailing list. Nobody can read every single mailing list relating to OSS development (Kerneltrap, the FreeBSD lists, OpenBSD lists, etc.), security (do you read all the SecurityFocus lists, Full Disclosure, etc.?), commercial development (all the commercial vendors), all the Microsoft developer newsgroups, etc.? Not to mention keeping up with Slashdot's articles? And personal development and/or admin. projects? (And then there's *real* life -- showering, eating, washing clothes, car repairs, bill-paying, personal finances, doctor visits, school, etc.)
If not, then let's do away with this truly-idiotic expectation of having read every last goddamn mailing list in existence. It is an impossibility, even for the college student with far too-much free time on their hands...
I still like the idea libertarians getting together and building a floating island city in the ocean. Maybe a few ocean-going oil supertankers lashed-together would do the trick? :-)
EU elected officials passes an anti-privacy law, and it's somehow George W. Bush's fault?
I hate Bush with a passion, being about as anti-libertarian a President as can be. But on which planet do its citizens blame somebody for something he/she had no control over?
The EU law is the fault of EU politicians. Whatever the outside influences might be -- and I think you greatly over-state Bush's influence here, given the tepid-and-cooling opinion among Europeans of the U.S. -- the buck nevertheless stops with the EU's elected officials, not with American officials... The "stupid people" you seek to blame are the ones who have the power to decide things on your behalf, whom (presumably) you and other Europeans elected -- just like we Americans have stupid people (Bush, most of our Congress) to blame for our political failures.
Lesson learned: governments are stupid because the politicians who form them are stupid, and even when such politicians are supposed to be non-stupid, they tend to make stupid decisions. There's a larger lesson here about the role and size of government...
...He can damn well roll up his sleeves and hammer out some code himself.
Otherwise, like any other critic of OSS developers who doesn't actually do any of the development, he can damn well STFU.
What's wrong with "* * Beatles Beatles" getting 2, 3, or a dozen articles posted in a row? As long as their articles are interesting and the headlines and article descriptions are better-written than other, similar headlines and descriptions, isn't that the point? Isn't the *content* of the post more important than the person who wrote it?