I know, I made a mistake in saying that the incident occurred "a few hours ago," not a couple days ago.
But to most Slashdotters, it's irrelevant. Most Slashdotters, like me, found out about the incident on/. -- so, the time to measure is the time between when we learn of the incident to when we see some response to that incident. It's kind of useless to measure the time prior to/.'s response, except as a measure of/.'s slowness in reporting some news...
Can we have the rendering speed of KHTML (Konqueror's rendering engine) and the relatively-small memory footprint of Konqueror with the compatibility of Mozilla?
I mean, switching between rendering engines just to access a particular site sounds annoying. Almost as annoying as having to open an IE window for sites that don't work well w/ Mozilla or a Moz. window for sites that don't work in Konqueror...
What about dating sites for "fringe" political views? i.e., for Libertarians, socialists, greens, marxists, paleocons, etc.?
I would like to see a libertarian dating site, but AFAIK, none exist. I know it doesn't help that as a straight male, like 95% of all libertarians are men, but still...
The profession, as a whole, doesn't have a very accurate track record.
Show me a profession which studies and predicts upcoming naturally-occurring phenomena which does have an accurate track record.
Meteorology? Nope. They couldn't even tell whether Hurricane Charley was going to hit Tampa or not, 3 hours before the hurricane hit (and did not hit Tampa after all, contrary to predictions).
Seisomology? We in IL have been waiting for the "big one" for decades.
Astrology? Oh, wait...
If economists could have a standard population of data against which all theories could be checked, it would do much better. But economics exists solely off the observations of people -- of market data. That's the reason financial reports explicitly state "past performance is no guarantee of future returns," after all, nobody can *really* know what is going to happen in the future.
But these predictors will certainly try, and will improve their predictions as time goes on. Economists do what they can with the data they have, but there is no such thing as a control set of data in economics -- that's what makes it so hard, and makes it look like some big guessing game.
It ain't science, it just random guessing with lots of numbers and computers to make it look fancy.
Economics is no more science than "computer science" is, that is true. They are both pseudosciences based on mathematics; really, they are applied mathematics.
But "random guessing with lots of numbers and computers"? You're welcome to come do my econometrics homework tonight and work through all the statistical calculations for me, if it is indeed so "random"...
Oh, and some economists do put their money where their mouths are about the economy and invest. Those are the corporate economists pulling in 6 figures at financial firms... You don't hear much about them though, because they're too busy creating econometric models to track the various markets to bother coming out into the sun to talk to the masses.
The only "winners" are the CEO and his cronies whose salaries go up, their benefits go up, and laughing is heard in the vicinity of the bank. Note that few if any of these people are US IT workers, or do much work at all.
You're looking at the supply side of the equation. You are ignoring demand.
What happens when CEOs lay people off? Those people have less disposable income.
With less disposable income, those people aren't consuming as many goods/services.
If they aren't consuming as many goods/services, then the businesses in the economy lose revenues, depending on the elasticity of the good/service they sell (gas stations and grocery stores won't lose much revenue, but what about movie theaters and video game makers - things not essential to life?).
Now, do companies care about the economy as a whole? No. Companies are long-sighted about the things that interest the company, but very short-sighted about the externalities of their business (pollution is a classic example). They likely don't know or care how the economy reacts as a result, unless it affects them significantly. For many companies, such mass-layoffs *do* affect them via the broader economic effect -- and so they act accordingly.
As a result, it is the consumers -- the employees of these companies -- who must convince the companies to keep them employed on their own merits, to the benefit of the economy as a whole.
As for as cost of living goes, that depends on inflation. With high gas prices, that will be going up, up, up, and the cost of living will tag along.
Gas prices are only one, fairly-small aspect of the cost of living. Think in terms of ratios: what eats up the biggest portion of your monthly paycheck? How about your rent, or your car payments, or your child's college tuition? All those things count *far* more than gasoline does.
FYI, the historical average inflation rate for the last 90 years (as calculated by me) is about 6%. Inflation hasn't been that high in the U.S. in decades; since the early 1980s in fact (thanks to the monetary policy suggestions of Nobel prizewinning economist Milton Friedman).
So US IT workers will "win" high cost of living, low wages, debt (to make ends meet), savings and credit consumed by the unemployed, and bankruptcy.
Again, take a look at the demand side of the equation. Do you know what the current marginal propensity to consume (MPC, i.e. the percentage of one's income that is spent, rather than saved) is? About 95%, give or take 3% depending on the economist you talk to. That means Americans are saving about 5% of their income.
Historically, it's been lower -- around 75-80%; only in the last 20 years or so has it increased to the level it is at now. In other nations, such as China, this rate is lower. IIRC, China's MPC is around 65% (so, they are saving 35% of their income!). In Japan, the MPC is around 75%.
We in America have forgotten how to save money, and that's why industries like the credit card industry thrive, and it's also why people make calls for increasing Social Security and Medicare payments -- because Americans have willfully become incompetent to save their own damn money.
Do you follow the logic, however? That is, do you understand that conservative != religious, and religious != conservative?
You can be conservative and non-religious (or at least, not wacko-religious). You can be religous and not conservative.
The 2 variables are independent of one another, even though they tend to correlate fairly-well.
By my logic, yes, there *are* conservatives who are open-minded (Libertarians, usually being converts from the Republican Party (in about a 2:1 ratio compared to Democrats, IME), come to mind). No amazing rhetorical skills necessary.
Everybody wants to do the "right thing" for their community.
However, invariably the question is "what is the 'right thing', and how are we going to implement it?"
And Mayor Daley's answer to this question, IMO, is wrong nearly every time.
The typical liberal view is that "things would be better if only we elected the right people." Well, when was the last time "the right person" was elected? FDR as President, way back in 1932?
Sadly, even conservatives have come to believe this naive, idealistic view as well; look at Bush's supporters...
Lemley's distinction also points to the unusual fact that in IP, traditional liberals are often calling for less and less government, while conservatives demand regulation in order to protect their exclusive right to use their intellectual creations.
Doesn't he mean "classical liberals" -- i.e., people of the small-'l' libertarian persuasion? You know, the ones who favor a freer market regardless of whether it pisses off liberals (more commonly) or conservatives (less commonly, but IP is an exception; corporate welfare is another)?
You know, people like Nobel prizewinning economist Milton Friedman, actor/governator/economics major Arnold Schwarzenegger, economist Murray Rothbard, and myself (an armchair economist)? (not all such people are economists, but many are)
I hope/. liberals recognize the difference between (modern) liberals, libertarians (classical liberals), and conservatives here...
Ssssh! Don't tell the Slashdot leftists (read: 70% of Slashdot members) that Democrats are out to take away their freedoms too. Only Republicans are supposed to do that!
I don't know about this new FreeBSD-specific book, but the previous 4.4BSD book (also by McKusick, etc.) was a combination of code and design explanation. I didn't read the whole thing, but I used much of the book for a term paper about FreeBSD's design a year ago, and probably 80% or so of the book was design info, not code.
That makes sense too -- after all, the code is bound to be changed sooner or later, making the book out of date, even though the same design principles may be in-use. This was a good move on McKusick's & Co's part, b/c much of the information they published back in 1996 still applies even today to FreeBSD 5.x (that said, 5.x is definitely a major change, particularly w.r.t. the process scheduler).
Go to a university library if you want to find a copy without buying it. Most normal public libraries won't have a copy (alternatively, you can hang out at Borders or Barnes and Noble and browse through it there).
Speaking from experience though, if you want a "book that explains the guts" without forcing you to read reams of code (and why would you? The source is available online for free to read instead!), then you want McKusick, etc.'s book (I imagine this new FreeBSD-specific book is similar to the 4.4BSD book).
I looked hard (as in, for the better part of a semester) -- there simply is not a more-comprehensive BSD OS-design reference anywhere. And yes, I got an 'A' on my paper (updated from the 4.4BSD's era to include FreeBSD-specific info, including through FBSD-5.1, however).:)
Hmm, so the AG isn't paid by the Governator -- actually, that makes sense as I think about it; of the CA govn't, one is part of the executive branch, one is part of the judiciary. If the public doesn't like either person, they can be voted out in the next term or resign under public pressure, but the Governator can't fire the AG just for not taking cases he likes (which isn't to say Arnie couldn't pressure the AG to take cases Arnie wants, but from a PR perspective, that would look terrible).
Can I be the first to point out the political party affiliation of the governor of California -- namely, a Republican? That same Republican's state govn't pays the salary of the AG.
And the AG is suing Diebold, who are Republican shills.
That should say a lot about:
1) the integrity of that Republican (Schwarzenegger), and
2) the sheer incompetence and shilling performed by Diebold
It's pretty clear that you're not British, and you've never lived there. The BBC is in fact not funded by taxpayers, but rather by the monthly licence fee paid by everyone who owns a TV in the U.K.
Your "licence fee" is enforceable by the police, is it not? That is, when you buy a TV, you don't have a choice of whether to pay the fee or not, do you?
(I ask, because you are correct, I am not British, have never been to Britain, and due to the heavy govn't surveillance of citizens there and lapdog relationship with America, only desire to go to Britain once in my life - and only then for the experience)
If you don't have a choice when buying the TV of whether to pay the fee, then that fee is a sales (or excise) tax by economic definition.
Note that taxes get paid to the government.
And by your own statement, the money from that "licence fee"/sales tax goes to the BBC.
TV buyer --> British govn't --> BBC
Not all British citizens own TVs, true, but I'm venturing a guess that > 95% of them do, which makes the tax, for practical purposes (if not absolute purposes), universal.
The upshot of all this is that the BBC is, structurally anyway, the most independant news source out there: in theory, it's free from both market and government coercion
So long as that "licence fee" -- again, sales tax -- is paid to the BBC on the sale of TVs, the BBC is beholden to the British government for revenue. Think I'm wrong? Try getting that licence fee abolished -- see how long it takes for the BBC to denounce you.
It does a good job of at least *seeming* independent though.
If the BNP says it, it's probably dead wrong: the guys are unapologetic neofascists.
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day." -Malcolm X
They may be racists, fascists, and anything else you can call them, but if they publish something that is factually-untrue, people will be outraged. I haven't seen any such outrage (besides your own) over the BNP's and Telegraph's reporting of the murder, whatever the slant may be; then again, I admit I haven't looked that hard (again, citing the Telegraph article was due to my wanting to verify that this party's claim was, in all probability, at least generally-true, b/c I knew the BNP would - like any political party - have an axe to grind).
The BBC has its flaws and problems, but in no sense is it a subsidiary of the British government
Does it receive government funding? (requires answer to my first question). If it does, then that still doesn't mean it can't be a separate corporation (similar to, but not the same as the relationship we have in America between the defense industry and the military), so the BBC could legally be a separate entity from the government.
That said, if a private corporation is receiving a govn't-enforced licence fee/sales tax from the government -- isn't that sort of public-private cooperation the definition of fascism? It may be relatively very-mild, but if in fact that tax gets paid to the BBC (and if the BBC is a separate corporation), then it is still fascism by definition.
Still, the BBC could have a public/private structure, like the American Federal Reserve banks, which is a weird structure unto itself worthy of semester-long undergrad econ. classes...
Still, I'll end on a positive, creditable note -- if the BBC stands up to the British government like it apparently did concerning the war in Iraq, then that does speak volumes for its relative independence -- which is why I still consider it among the better news sources.:-)
Indeed, that is an excellent question. And the answer varies depending on whom you talk to.
I tend to divide the pro-free-market crowd into about 4-5 categories:
1) Anarcho-capitalists -- Often seen quoting Ayn Rand and Austrian economist Murray Rothbard. these guys are crazy. To these guys, everything -- literally, everything -- should be privatized, even the military and police forces. All disputes should be settled between 2 parties, perhaps w/ govnt's *only* role being that of a contract-disputes resolution system (i.e. govn't = court system and that's it). To these guys, even fraud is OK...
2) Libertarians -- Also quote Rand and Rothbard, but more for the philosophical aspects of her work than the ideological absoluteness. They believe in only such government as is defined *strictly* by the Constitution -- essentially, only enough government to allow for a military and police force; even fire depts. and (to some Libs) roadways are verboten. At one time, I considered myself an out-and-out big-'L' "Libertarian". Now I consider myself a small-'l' "libertarian" (i.e. I agree the big-'L' philosophy, but I'm willing to compromise to see a policy with a libertarian tendency get passed), or even a member of the next group...
To answer your question of the freedom of the market, even the Libertarians believe fraud and deception should be illegal, because to Libs, fraud and deception are moral wrongs (as they are to most people, like murder).
3) libertarian Republicans -- Most-often seen referencing the work of Milton Friedman (as I do incessantly), Friedrich A. Hayek, and Adam Smith. Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to fall generally into this category, and for the most part, so would I. libRepubs are willing to accept a little more govn't where the alternative produces results which are clearly too-great to ignore, but again, only so long as the *general* trend is towards increasing-libertarianism. So perhaps socialized education is OK, as long as it's done via a voucher system. Some environmental laws (against toxic waste dumping in rivers, for instance) are OK, seen as necessary evils. But the emphasis is still very very strongly on cutting taxes and reducing legal paperwork where necessary so that businesses can go to work and employ the citizens.
4) Republicans -- This is a *broad* definition. Includes everyone from the still fiscally very-conservative Wall Street types to the fiscally-moderate John McCain types, to the neocon don't-give-a-fuck-if-we're-socialist-in-practice-a s-long-as-we-carry-the-GOP-label George W. Bush types.
5) conservative Democrats -- Favor capitalism, but only *very* barely; even so, it's mostly out of a hard, grudging realization that "communism" (Soviet socialism) failed. They demand heavy regulation, high taxes, and in effect cause low productivity and economic growth due to their fiscal policies. They favor the mixed economies similar to the economies found in Europe -- socialist, with enough market freedom to allow businesses to be created and allow people to, sometimes, have a choice in goods/services not seen as "harmful to the public good"...
Beyond that, you get the out-and-out lefties who want to abolish capitalism in all its forms, despite the fact that socialism (the only other viable alternative) proved a failure in the USSR (United Soviet Socialist Republics). They are irrational and don't mind using the means of govn't force to steal from people in order to achieve their personal ends... Most are wannabe Marxists; only a few really *are* Marxists...
Where do *I* stand? I believe fraud should be illegal. Bounty hunters should catch their marks within the bounds defined by the police (since Constitutionally, it's the govn'ts job to provide protection from enemies, foreign and domestic). If the police say "dead or alive," then the hunter gets to get the person dead or alive. If the police want him still-breathing, however, then the bounty hunter may not be allowed to kill him...
That, and IMO, there hasn't been very much in the way of technological innovation occurring in the last few years.
That's why the tech job market has been in a slump -- there's no "Internet of the 2000's" to get people all worked-up over technology. WLAN's are neat, and PDA/phones are a convergence in the right direction, but neither really are "killer apps," at least not yet.
So, with less tech stuff for/. to report, people have turned to being interested in other semi-geeky things, like politics...
I admit, my knowledge of British political parties is close to nonexistent, and the BNP's site design doesn't strike me as terribly "professional" (which is why I dug up the Telegraph link)...
My point about the BBC connection is that the BBC is an arm of the British government, funded by taxpayers. That they employed and paid a convicted, violent criminal to infiltrate criminal organizations is no surprise; I'd call that good investigative journalism actually.
That said, such investigations are likely to encourage violent behavior -- which erupted in Raven's killing of Waters, and the BBC was subsidizing Raven's involvement in such criminal behavior. Still, whether Raven actually *committed* crimes on the BBC's dime while doing the investigations isn't clear, but it's pretty obvious that in dealing with organizations doing counterfeiting, etc., you're dealing with fairly-sophisticated criminals. You're likely to have to do *something* to avoid their detection; something to prove you're "one of them," not a narc...
If nothing else, it raises suspicions. I'd have the same suspicions if FOX or CNN had a couple employees who whacked somebody when one of those employees was working with the criminal underground... I highly doubt the BBC's President/CEO (or whatever he/she is called) ordered the hit, but they are still, indirectly, responsible, since it is their organization, and because it is taxpayer-funded, the govn't too, is more-indirectly responsible (just as President Bush is, at least indirectly, responsible for the abuses at Abu Gharaib, using the bad information from the CIA, etc. in going to war in Iraq, etc.)...
In any case, it's nothing the Bush administration wouldn't do....... (that's a scary thought, actually)
It's pricey, at $130/year (and a still-steep $77/year at the rate offered to us college students on campuses by various subscription orgs), but certainly worth reading in the library or subscribing if you can afford it...
I agree the BBC usually seems relatively-impartial, but I have an awfully-hard time trusting a source that (seemingly) uses its power to kill people...
In any case, I'm not sure impartiality is a good thing. IMO, a polarized media -- FOX vs. PBS here in the states, for example -- is a better system. At least that way you know what you're getting; you don't have to watch CNN for hours and hours to determine if they have a "slight liberal streak" or "slight conservative streak"... (personally, I think CNN is slightly left-ish and PBS moreso, while FOX is off-the-charts right-wing, except economically, where it's pretty standard Republican fare. MSNBC seems to pander to whichever way the winds of ratings are blowing...)
Duke University, for example, just gave away free iPods to each of their 1,650 incoming freshman.
Why do people insist on referring to product giveaways as being "free"? Does anybody really think that those iPods were "free" to the incoming freshmen? Or was the cost included in the price of tuition? (or, perhaps, did some wealthy donor give the school a gift to be used for that purpose? At least in *that* case, the iPods would be free insofar as the school and students are concerned, but at a cost to the donor. I'm guessing this is not the case, however.)
Penn State offers subsidized access to Napster 2.0 for all students
Isn't that just another way of saying "part of the students' tuition and fees, along with state taxpayer money [since it is a state school] was spent on access to Napster 2.0"?
Look slashdolts, I've said it before and I'll say it again: there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You cannot get "money for nothin'" (or your chicks for free).
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I made a mistake in saying that the incident occurred "a few hours ago," not a couple days ago.
/. -- so, the time to measure is the time between when we learn of the incident to when we see some response to that incident. It's kind of useless to measure the time prior to /.'s response, except as a measure of /.'s slowness in reporting some news...
But to most Slashdotters, it's irrelevant. Most Slashdotters, like me, found out about the incident on
Only a few hours after a mushroom cloud was seen at the border of China and N. Korea, the people of Slashdot are looking for fallout shelters.
Considering the batshit-crazy Kim Jong Il still runs N. Korea, maybe that's not such a bad idea after all.
Can we have the rendering speed of KHTML (Konqueror's rendering engine) and the relatively-small memory footprint of Konqueror with the compatibility of Mozilla?
I mean, switching between rendering engines just to access a particular site sounds annoying. Almost as annoying as having to open an IE window for sites that don't work well w/ Mozilla or a Moz. window for sites that don't work in Konqueror...
What about dating sites for "fringe" political views? i.e., for Libertarians, socialists, greens, marxists, paleocons, etc.?
I would like to see a libertarian dating site, but AFAIK, none exist. I know it doesn't help that as a straight male, like 95% of all libertarians are men, but still...
That was too funny... :D
The profession, as a whole, doesn't have a very accurate track record.
Show me a profession which studies and predicts upcoming naturally-occurring phenomena which does have an accurate track record.
Meteorology? Nope. They couldn't even tell whether Hurricane Charley was going to hit Tampa or not, 3 hours before the hurricane hit (and did not hit Tampa after all, contrary to predictions).
Seisomology? We in IL have been waiting for the "big one" for decades.
Astrology? Oh, wait...
If economists could have a standard population of data against which all theories could be checked, it would do much better. But economics exists solely off the observations of people -- of market data. That's the reason financial reports explicitly state "past performance is no guarantee of future returns," after all, nobody can *really* know what is going to happen in the future.
But these predictors will certainly try, and will improve their predictions as time goes on. Economists do what they can with the data they have, but there is no such thing as a control set of data in economics -- that's what makes it so hard, and makes it look like some big guessing game.
It ain't science, it just random guessing with lots of numbers and computers to make it look fancy.
Economics is no more science than "computer science" is, that is true. They are both pseudosciences based on mathematics; really, they are applied mathematics.
But "random guessing with lots of numbers and computers"? You're welcome to come do my econometrics homework tonight and work through all the statistical calculations for me, if it is indeed so "random"...
Oh, and some economists do put their money where their mouths are about the economy and invest. Those are the corporate economists pulling in 6 figures at financial firms... You don't hear much about them though, because they're too busy creating econometric models to track the various markets to bother coming out into the sun to talk to the masses.
The only "winners" are the CEO and his cronies whose salaries go up, their benefits go up, and laughing is heard in the vicinity of the bank. Note that few if any of these people are US IT workers, or do much work at all.
You're looking at the supply side of the equation. You are ignoring demand.
What happens when CEOs lay people off? Those people have less disposable income.
With less disposable income, those people aren't consuming as many goods/services.
If they aren't consuming as many goods/services, then the businesses in the economy lose revenues, depending on the elasticity of the good/service they sell (gas stations and grocery stores won't lose much revenue, but what about movie theaters and video game makers - things not essential to life?).
Now, do companies care about the economy as a whole? No. Companies are long-sighted about the things that interest the company, but very short-sighted about the externalities of their business (pollution is a classic example). They likely don't know or care how the economy reacts as a result, unless it affects them significantly. For many companies, such mass-layoffs *do* affect them via the broader economic effect -- and so they act accordingly.
As a result, it is the consumers -- the employees of these companies -- who must convince the companies to keep them employed on their own merits, to the benefit of the economy as a whole.
As for as cost of living goes, that depends on inflation. With high gas prices, that will be going up, up, up, and the cost of living will tag along.
Gas prices are only one, fairly-small aspect of the cost of living. Think in terms of ratios: what eats up the biggest portion of your monthly paycheck? How about your rent, or your car payments, or your child's college tuition? All those things count *far* more than gasoline does.
FYI, the historical average inflation rate for the last 90 years (as calculated by me) is about 6%. Inflation hasn't been that high in the U.S. in decades; since the early 1980s in fact (thanks to the monetary policy suggestions of Nobel prizewinning economist Milton Friedman).
So US IT workers will "win" high cost of living, low wages, debt (to make ends meet), savings and credit consumed by the unemployed, and bankruptcy.
Again, take a look at the demand side of the equation. Do you know what the current marginal propensity to consume (MPC, i.e. the percentage of one's income that is spent, rather than saved) is? About 95%, give or take 3% depending on the economist you talk to. That means Americans are saving about 5% of their income.
Historically, it's been lower -- around 75-80%; only in the last 20 years or so has it increased to the level it is at now. In other nations, such as China, this rate is lower. IIRC, China's MPC is around 65% (so, they are saving 35% of their income!). In Japan, the MPC is around 75%.
We in America have forgotten how to save money, and that's why industries like the credit card industry thrive, and it's also why people make calls for increasing Social Security and Medicare payments -- because Americans have willfully become incompetent to save their own damn money.
Do you follow the logic, however? That is, do you understand that conservative != religious, and religious != conservative?
You can be conservative and non-religious (or at least, not wacko-religious). You can be religous and not conservative.
The 2 variables are independent of one another, even though they tend to correlate fairly-well.
By my logic, yes, there *are* conservatives who are open-minded (Libertarians, usually being converts from the Republican Party (in about a 2:1 ratio compared to Democrats, IME), come to mind). No amazing rhetorical skills necessary.
Everybody wants to do the "right thing" for their community.
However, invariably the question is "what is the 'right thing', and how are we going to implement it?"
And Mayor Daley's answer to this question, IMO, is wrong nearly every time.
The typical liberal view is that "things would be better if only we elected the right people." Well, when was the last time "the right person" was elected? FDR as President, way back in 1932?
Sadly, even conservatives have come to believe this naive, idealistic view as well; look at Bush's supporters...
Some of them -- those who aren't religious wackjobs, generally -- yes.
Lemley's distinction also points to the unusual fact that in IP, traditional liberals are often calling for less and less government, while conservatives demand regulation in order to protect their exclusive right to use their intellectual creations.
/. liberals recognize the difference between (modern) liberals, libertarians (classical liberals), and conservatives here...
Doesn't he mean "classical liberals" -- i.e., people of the small-'l' libertarian persuasion? You know, the ones who favor a freer market regardless of whether it pisses off liberals (more commonly) or conservatives (less commonly, but IP is an exception; corporate welfare is another)?
You know, people like Nobel prizewinning economist Milton Friedman, actor/governator/economics major Arnold Schwarzenegger, economist Murray Rothbard, and myself (an armchair economist)? (not all such people are economists, but many are)
I hope
Ssssh! Don't tell the Slashdot leftists (read: 70% of Slashdot members) that Democrats are out to take away their freedoms too. Only Republicans are supposed to do that!
*snicker*
Mayor Daley is a totalitarian, anti-privacy, anti-liberty communist. "Fuckwad" does not begin to describe my hatred for this pinko asshole.
I'm nitpicking, but there *is* code in "The Design and Implementation of 4.4BSD."
See page 233 which has C source for checking access permissions for a file ("int ufs_access(ap)", etc.).
There's not much code; as you say, the code that is there is mostly C-style P-code to explain the algorithms. But there still exists some code...
I don't know about this new FreeBSD-specific book, but the previous 4.4BSD book (also by McKusick, etc.) was a combination of code and design explanation. I didn't read the whole thing, but I used much of the book for a term paper about FreeBSD's design a year ago, and probably 80% or so of the book was design info, not code.
:)
That makes sense too -- after all, the code is bound to be changed sooner or later, making the book out of date, even though the same design principles may be in-use. This was a good move on McKusick's & Co's part, b/c much of the information they published back in 1996 still applies even today to FreeBSD 5.x (that said, 5.x is definitely a major change, particularly w.r.t. the process scheduler).
Go to a university library if you want to find a copy without buying it. Most normal public libraries won't have a copy (alternatively, you can hang out at Borders or Barnes and Noble and browse through it there).
Speaking from experience though, if you want a "book that explains the guts" without forcing you to read reams of code (and why would you? The source is available online for free to read instead!), then you want McKusick, etc.'s book (I imagine this new FreeBSD-specific book is similar to the 4.4BSD book).
I looked hard (as in, for the better part of a semester) -- there simply is not a more-comprehensive BSD OS-design reference anywhere. And yes, I got an 'A' on my paper (updated from the 4.4BSD's era to include FreeBSD-specific info, including through FBSD-5.1, however).
Hmm, so the AG isn't paid by the Governator -- actually, that makes sense as I think about it; of the CA govn't, one is part of the executive branch, one is part of the judiciary. If the public doesn't like either person, they can be voted out in the next term or resign under public pressure, but the Governator can't fire the AG just for not taking cases he likes (which isn't to say Arnie couldn't pressure the AG to take cases Arnie wants, but from a PR perspective, that would look terrible).
:-)
(in fact, the AG could theoretically wind up prosecuting Arnie should he commit some major crime, as occurred with IL AG Lisa Madigan in suing IL's corrupt governor, George Ryan)
Good point. I'm willing to admit my mistakes.
Agreed Diebold should admit their fault.
Can I be the first to point out the political party affiliation of the governor of California -- namely, a Republican? That same Republican's state govn't pays the salary of the AG.
And the AG is suing Diebold, who are Republican shills.
That should say a lot about:
1) the integrity of that Republican (Schwarzenegger), and
2) the sheer incompetence and shilling performed by Diebold
It's pretty clear that you're not British, and you've never lived there. The BBC is in fact not funded by taxpayers, but rather by the monthly licence fee paid by everyone who owns a TV in the U.K.
:-)
Your "licence fee" is enforceable by the police, is it not? That is, when you buy a TV, you don't have a choice of whether to pay the fee or not, do you?
(I ask, because you are correct, I am not British, have never been to Britain, and due to the heavy govn't surveillance of citizens there and lapdog relationship with America, only desire to go to Britain once in my life - and only then for the experience)
If you don't have a choice when buying the TV of whether to pay the fee, then that fee is a sales (or excise) tax by economic definition.
Note that taxes get paid to the government.
And by your own statement, the money from that "licence fee"/sales tax goes to the BBC.
TV buyer --> British govn't --> BBC
Not all British citizens own TVs, true, but I'm venturing a guess that > 95% of them do, which makes the tax, for practical purposes (if not absolute purposes), universal.
The upshot of all this is that the BBC is, structurally anyway, the most independant news source out there: in theory, it's free from both market and government coercion
So long as that "licence fee" -- again, sales tax -- is paid to the BBC on the sale of TVs, the BBC is beholden to the British government for revenue. Think I'm wrong? Try getting that licence fee abolished -- see how long it takes for the BBC to denounce you.
It does a good job of at least *seeming* independent though.
If the BNP says it, it's probably dead wrong: the guys are unapologetic neofascists.
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day." -Malcolm X
They may be racists, fascists, and anything else you can call them, but if they publish something that is factually-untrue, people will be outraged. I haven't seen any such outrage (besides your own) over the BNP's and Telegraph's reporting of the murder, whatever the slant may be; then again, I admit I haven't looked that hard (again, citing the Telegraph article was due to my wanting to verify that this party's claim was, in all probability, at least generally-true, b/c I knew the BNP would - like any political party - have an axe to grind).
The BBC has its flaws and problems, but in no sense is it a subsidiary of the British government
Does it receive government funding? (requires answer to my first question). If it does, then that still doesn't mean it can't be a separate corporation (similar to, but not the same as the relationship we have in America between the defense industry and the military), so the BBC could legally be a separate entity from the government.
That said, if a private corporation is receiving a govn't-enforced licence fee/sales tax from the government -- isn't that sort of public-private cooperation the definition of fascism? It may be relatively very-mild, but if in fact that tax gets paid to the BBC (and if the BBC is a separate corporation), then it is still fascism by definition.
Still, the BBC could have a public/private structure, like the American Federal Reserve banks, which is a weird structure unto itself worthy of semester-long undergrad econ. classes...
Still, I'll end on a positive, creditable note -- if the BBC stands up to the British government like it apparently did concerning the war in Iraq, then that does speak volumes for its relative independence -- which is why I still consider it among the better news sources.
Indeed, that is an excellent question. And the answer varies depending on whom you talk to.
a s-long-as-we-carry-the-GOP-label George W. Bush types.
I tend to divide the pro-free-market crowd into about 4-5 categories:
1) Anarcho-capitalists -- Often seen quoting Ayn Rand and Austrian economist Murray Rothbard. these guys are crazy. To these guys, everything -- literally, everything -- should be privatized, even the military and police forces. All disputes should be settled between 2 parties, perhaps w/ govnt's *only* role being that of a contract-disputes resolution system (i.e. govn't = court system and that's it). To these guys, even fraud is OK...
2) Libertarians -- Also quote Rand and Rothbard, but more for the philosophical aspects of her work than the ideological absoluteness. They believe in only such government as is defined *strictly* by the Constitution -- essentially, only enough government to allow for a military and police force; even fire depts. and (to some Libs) roadways are verboten. At one time, I considered myself an out-and-out big-'L' "Libertarian". Now I consider myself a small-'l' "libertarian" (i.e. I agree the big-'L' philosophy, but I'm willing to compromise to see a policy with a libertarian tendency get passed), or even a member of the next group...
To answer your question of the freedom of the market, even the Libertarians believe fraud and deception should be illegal, because to Libs, fraud and deception are moral wrongs (as they are to most people, like murder).
3) libertarian Republicans -- Most-often seen referencing the work of Milton Friedman (as I do incessantly), Friedrich A. Hayek, and Adam Smith. Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to fall generally into this category, and for the most part, so would I. libRepubs are willing to accept a little more govn't where the alternative produces results which are clearly too-great to ignore, but again, only so long as the *general* trend is towards increasing-libertarianism. So perhaps socialized education is OK, as long as it's done via a voucher system. Some environmental laws (against toxic waste dumping in rivers, for instance) are OK, seen as necessary evils. But the emphasis is still very very strongly on cutting taxes and reducing legal paperwork where necessary so that businesses can go to work and employ the citizens.
4) Republicans -- This is a *broad* definition. Includes everyone from the still fiscally very-conservative Wall Street types to the fiscally-moderate John McCain types, to the neocon don't-give-a-fuck-if-we're-socialist-in-practice-
5) conservative Democrats -- Favor capitalism, but only *very* barely; even so, it's mostly out of a hard, grudging realization that "communism" (Soviet socialism) failed. They demand heavy regulation, high taxes, and in effect cause low productivity and economic growth due to their fiscal policies. They favor the mixed economies similar to the economies found in Europe -- socialist, with enough market freedom to allow businesses to be created and allow people to, sometimes, have a choice in goods/services not seen as "harmful to the public good"...
Beyond that, you get the out-and-out lefties who want to abolish capitalism in all its forms, despite the fact that socialism (the only other viable alternative) proved a failure in the USSR (United Soviet Socialist Republics). They are irrational and don't mind using the means of govn't force to steal from people in order to achieve their personal ends... Most are wannabe Marxists; only a few really *are* Marxists...
Where do *I* stand? I believe fraud should be illegal. Bounty hunters should catch their marks within the bounds defined by the police (since Constitutionally, it's the govn'ts job to provide protection from enemies, foreign and domestic). If the police say "dead or alive," then the hunter gets to get the person dead or alive. If the police want him still-breathing, however, then the bounty hunter may not be allowed to kill him...
That, and IMO, there hasn't been very much in the way of technological innovation occurring in the last few years.
/. to report, people have turned to being interested in other semi-geeky things, like politics...
That's why the tech job market has been in a slump -- there's no "Internet of the 2000's" to get people all worked-up over technology. WLAN's are neat, and PDA/phones are a convergence in the right direction, but neither really are "killer apps," at least not yet.
So, with less tech stuff for
I admit, my knowledge of British political parties is close to nonexistent, and the BNP's site design doesn't strike me as terribly "professional" (which is why I dug up the Telegraph link)...
My point about the BBC connection is that the BBC is an arm of the British government, funded by taxpayers. That they employed and paid a convicted, violent criminal to infiltrate criminal organizations is no surprise; I'd call that good investigative journalism actually.
That said, such investigations are likely to encourage violent behavior -- which erupted in Raven's killing of Waters, and the BBC was subsidizing Raven's involvement in such criminal behavior. Still, whether Raven actually *committed* crimes on the BBC's dime while doing the investigations isn't clear, but it's pretty obvious that in dealing with organizations doing counterfeiting, etc., you're dealing with fairly-sophisticated criminals. You're likely to have to do *something* to avoid their detection; something to prove you're "one of them," not a narc...
If nothing else, it raises suspicions. I'd have the same suspicions if FOX or CNN had a couple employees who whacked somebody when one of those employees was working with the criminal underground... I highly doubt the BBC's President/CEO (or whatever he/she is called) ordered the hit, but they are still, indirectly, responsible, since it is their organization, and because it is taxpayer-funded, the govn't too, is more-indirectly responsible (just as President Bush is, at least indirectly, responsible for the abuses at Abu Gharaib, using the bad information from the CIA, etc. in going to war in Iraq, etc.)...
In any case, it's nothing the Bush administration wouldn't do....... (that's a scary thought, actually)
I second your recommendation of "The Economist".
It's pricey, at $130/year (and a still-steep $77/year at the rate offered to us college students on campuses by various subscription orgs), but certainly worth reading in the library or subscribing if you can afford it...
Can you trust the BBC knowing that they have people murdered on the taxpayer dime?
See also here...
I agree the BBC usually seems relatively-impartial, but I have an awfully-hard time trusting a source that (seemingly) uses its power to kill people...
In any case, I'm not sure impartiality is a good thing. IMO, a polarized media -- FOX vs. PBS here in the states, for example -- is a better system. At least that way you know what you're getting; you don't have to watch CNN for hours and hours to determine if they have a "slight liberal streak" or "slight conservative streak"... (personally, I think CNN is slightly left-ish and PBS moreso, while FOX is off-the-charts right-wing, except economically, where it's pretty standard Republican fare. MSNBC seems to pander to whichever way the winds of ratings are blowing...)
Duke University, for example, just gave away free iPods to each of their 1,650 incoming freshman.
Why do people insist on referring to product giveaways as being "free"? Does anybody really think that those iPods were "free" to the incoming freshmen? Or was the cost included in the price of tuition? (or, perhaps, did some wealthy donor give the school a gift to be used for that purpose? At least in *that* case, the iPods would be free insofar as the school and students are concerned, but at a cost to the donor. I'm guessing this is not the case, however.)
Penn State offers subsidized access to Napster 2.0 for all students
Isn't that just another way of saying "part of the students' tuition and fees, along with state taxpayer money [since it is a state school] was spent on access to Napster 2.0"?
Look slashdolts, I've said it before and I'll say it again: there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You cannot get "money for nothin'" (or your chicks for free).