I agree completely. Having weapons in space is going to freak out the whole planet, especially considering the USA's casual attitude about going to war. If the rest of the world sees the USA as the greatest threat to humanity since Hitler, I may not agree, but I can't say I blame them.
If I were "the rest of the world", I'd be pretty nervous if someone else had weapons perched a few miles above my head. It would affect everything, from ordinary business to peace treaties. Those imported T-shirts a little too expensive? Remind your trading partner that there's weapons above his head RIGHT NOW.
I am not vegetarian, but I do find myself usually eating a low meat diet. Sometimes I go months without any meat at all. That's not for any consciously thought-out reason - it's simply because it's cheaper, and I like non-meat things most of the time (I love eggs and cheese though).
I am also an atheist, which means I do not believe the bible when it tells us that the animals of the earth were put here for us to use. I'm sure a hungry lion would feel the same about me in certain situations.
I also believe that since there is no God, we can fill a god-like role as much as we dare and as much as we are capable, when we are ready to take the responsibility it entails. To need to kill simply for food seems ridiculous if you think of humanity as a possibly god-like species. This is probably what makes me most like your third vegetarian friend (but once again, I'm not vegetarian).
I agree that not all life has the same value. I think most animal life is the kind of life that isn't even aware of what's happening around it - in much the same way that plants are completely unconcerned when someone walks by with a scythe. Shrimp, clams, fish, and squid, along with things like chickens, turkeys, and other foul are low enough that I don't feel uncomfortable with (quickly, suprisingly, and painlessly) killing and eating them. I agree with PETA's stance on meat "production" though. They're living things, not cogs and gears. They should not die painfully, and they shouldn't suffer while alive either.
I suppose I need to clarify. I don't place a value on an animal's life before I consider killing and eating it. I empathize with the animal's own sense of value instead. Specifically, I empathize with the animal's fear of dying, and the pain it will feel when it dies. This seems like a better way to place some kind of basic value on a living thing. We, as fully-aware beings, should not cause fear, anxiety, and suffering - the same feelings we avoid the most. Perhaps I could argue that a living thing's "value" goes up, the more we become aware that it is suffering. I cite the many dramatic and public rescue efforts for trapped and slowly dying house pets as examples.
OK, maybe the reasons for my ideas about value are not entirely clear. Let me explain: For me, when I empathize with the suffering of someone or something else, I FEEL what I think it is feeling, and I don't like it. Despite this modern age of push-button warfare and conveniently canned meat, I suspect most people are like me, but that they usually prefer to ignore or repress the sensations they feel. I cannot. Incidentally, I see this as a defining difference between humans and animals.
If you see someone get seriously injured, especially someone you care about, I'm sure you will understand exactly what I'm talking about. You can either look away, or try to ease the person's suffering. What you do, in my opinion, says a lot about what you are.
Read about some of the research done on monkeys and how they react to seeing their reflections in mirrors. It ought to make you think. They react differently depending on how self-aware they are, and how empathetic they are to others of their kind. If I remember correctly, the results of the experiments correspond well with their intelligence! Who would have thought that the people who assist humanitarian charities might be smarter than those who don't? I think if you did a study on it, you'd find exactly those results.
OK, so, to sum up, I don't have a problem with hunters hunting for food, or even for sport, though the latter sometimes bothers me, and may bother me more in the future. I do not fault hunters for being what they are, right now, when it frequently makes sense to be a hunter. Killing for sport will someday seem barbaric to me, and by then I hope it will be something that will not appeal to a god-like civilization with more important things to do.
That's a ways-out for the time being though. We're still going to kill animals for food, and we're still go
Hunting isn't just about taking out your high-powered rifle and wasting an animal. You have to be out in the environment. You have to be where the animal is in order to kill it. While the technology for finding and killing animals has become more advanced, there is a connection between the hunter and the prey.
I'm not anti-hunting, but I have noticed that most people (not just hunters) aren't very empathetic to the plight of their "prey". I doubt very much that the prey feels any sort of "connection" the way the hunter does. In fact, I think it would mostly be sensations of horror, mind-numbing fear, and infinite pain unto death.
The hunter probably feels his "connection" because, in a somewhat fair contest, he needs to understand the environment, the habits of his prey, and even the individual personality of the unique animal he's trying to kill. The disconnection from reality occurs when you consider the fact that it's not really fair, since the hunter's life isn't at stake, and the prey would rather that you had no "connection" or understanding of it's personality.
Now, if the hunter were only hunting for a photograph, and the prey received royalties from the deal, then I suspect the prey would feel a lot better about the hunter's deep understanding and "connection".
Of course, that's ridiculous, most animals just want to be left alone, or at least not frightened, injured, or killed.
Hmm, I've said everything I wanted to say, but one more thought needs to be recorded here. All this talk about "connections" with victims I've heard in other places too: from assassins, murderers, spies, thieves, snipers, and rapists.
Don't take that too harshly, since I don't think hunting is quite the same as those things are, but please, whenever a hunter talks about some kind of compassionate "connection" with his prey, please ground him into reality for me, and explain that his prey is going to die, and the hunter is the one going to do the killing. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Q: Why are there no indemnification clauses, or limitations of warranty in this license? How come this license doesn't require credits to be given? Why are basic features of other licenses completely left out?
This license is intended only to serve the purposes enumerated in paragraph one, it's not designed to do anything else. Not everyone needs or wants all the features of other licenses - For example, there may be a fine company someday that offers warranties for it's software.
Q: What if I really need the extra features included in those other licenses? Is there some way to add those features to the Zesiger License?
Yes, you may add whatever clauses you feel is necessary to supplement this license, even if you were not the original producer of the work. However, you may not change the license itself, and you will have to accept the fact that subsequent licensees may want to add their own clauses.
Q: Being able to add clauses to this license will make it really easy for me to customize it, but what if some of my customizations are incompatible with the customizations other people make to the license?
If a conflict arises, hopefully the parties involved will resolve it themselves. If not, Zesiger Inc. will arbitrate the disagreement and deliver a verdict that best preserves the intent of the license. This license can handle any negative situation that arises, while still giving the users of the license as much freedom as they need to make it work in the wide variety of circumstances that could exist in a commercial or non-profit enterprise.
BSD licenses are great, but they don't work for everyone. There's a good comparison of the different licences at the zesiger license page: Zesiger License
Here's the quick version, copied from the website:
The Zesiger License aims to fill the gap between the GPL and the BSDL, by combining the best features of both, which are briefly listed below:
The GPL is by far the most popular, and one of the most debilitatingly restrictive of the open source licenses. It's occasionally used for open source versions of commercial software, since it allows companies to release source code to their customers, without allowing them to use the code in competing products.
Does not permit incorporating into proprietary products
Stifles innovation by making improving products unprofitable
Ensures derivative works will also be open source
Prevents commercial competitors from using your sources
The BSDL is an excellent license for hobby-type projects that hope to attract the attention of a business that might want to commercialize it. It's less popular than the GPL, but it's the least restrictive of the ones compared here. It's almost entirely unsuitable for commercial software though, since it relinquishes nearly all rights - It does nothing to protect commercial interests.
Permits incorporating into proprietary products
Encourages innovation by making improving products potentially profitable
Does not ensure that derivative works will also be open source
Does not prevent commercial competitors from using your sources
The Zesiger License
This license has the best features of the BSD and GPL licenses rolled into one. Open source projects released under this license will remain open source, while still providing ample time for innovators to keep their improvements proprietary until they are rewarded for their work.
Permits incorporating into proprietary products
Encourages innovation by making improving products potentially profitable
Ensures derivative works will also be open source
Prevents commercial competitors from using your sources
The intent statements are interesting too:
Intent of Paragraph One:
To give enough rights to innovators that they may profit from improvements that they make to open source products, while ensuring that their work eventually becomes available to other innovators, so they are able to do the same, for the benefit of the end-users.
Intent of Paragraph Two:
To ensure that no court or other politically influenced body shall ever have any authority over the products released under this license.
Intent of Paragraph Three:
To prevent the rapid changes in laws from having any meaning to the innovators and end-users of products released under this license.
Hopefully this new Indian license will try to protect the nature of open source while freeing people to do as they please with it the way the Zesiger License tries to.
Here's the MSDS - http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m7700.htm - It's not particularly harmful stuff, but it's not something that just "goes away" either. It's insoluble in water, and would probably be easy to remove at a sewage treatment facility, but one way or another, it has to be removed and disposed of properly - if not by you, then by someone more responsible. Fish can't breathe it, ducks can't eat it. It won't go away. Please don't dump it down the drain. I'm not an environmentalist per se, but the thought of people dumping inorganic oils down the sink willy-nilly just sets off my "Are you insane" alarms.
mineral oil is a byproduct of the oil industry. In other words, dumping 2 gallons of it down the sink is more-or-less your own Exxon Valdez environmental disaster.
How do you dispose of the oil? You can't just pour it down the sink...What are the consequences of everyone having a few dozen gallons of oil for home electronics that become obsolete in an average of 2 years?
I have a Motorola A630 with a full QWERTY keyboard. Your telling me he can type faster then I can with my keyboard over SMS? I don't think so...
You better believe it - A good morse code operator can do 30 words a minute literally blindfolded. That's competitive with most people's typing skills. Many jobs only require 25 words per minute in typing skills.
I put that question to my friend Marshall Emm, N1FN,
who runs the world's best key and keyer shop (www.MorseX.com).
Marshall provided, from memory, some tidbits from the Theodore McElroy legend:
"Ted McElroy started manufacturing keys in 1934. McElroy was a master of both American and International Morse code and he promoted telegraphy most of his life, first as a telegrapher and later as a manufacturer of keys, bugs, and related equipment.
"By age 15, McElroy was a leading telegrapher (Wirechief) for Western Union. In 1922, he won the world championship in Asheville, NC by copying code at 56.5 WPM. That record was beaten in 1934. So, he went back the following year (1935) and beat the world record again. On July 2, 1939, McElroy broke the world record code speed at 75.2 WPM, which remains unsurpassed today. For the record, there is an individual ham radio operator who claims to have beaten it, on the basis that 75.2 wpm in 1939 currency is only worth about 65 wpm today.
"Anyone considering the nature of the record should recognize that the 1939 contest was a PROGRESSIVE test, with around a dozen candidates, but only two surviving to the final round. Each round consisted of a 15 minute transmission of text from a newspaper. Speed calculation was about as scientific as you could get-- they cranked up the speed a couple notches, and at the end of the 15 minutes they counted how many words had been sent.
"Hams struggle with 5 minute tests (in which they only have to have solid copy for ONE minute!), and the two finalists in the 1939 test had to survive multiple, consecutive 15 wpm tests at ever increasing speeds.
"The legend is that Mac astounded the audience by not doing anything when the sending started-- except to take a drink of water, and light a cigarette. He didn't start typing until a full 15 seconds of code had gone by. When the tape finished, he kept typing for that same 15 seconds. And it's no coincidence that he also won touch typing contests! Ever the showman, Ted "Mac" McElroy put his name and "World's Champion Radio Telegrapher" on his keys and bugs, which are highly prized today by discriminating operators and collectors."
Actually, it's not pure fantasy. I know what the laws SAY, but do you know how they're APPLIED? I'd like to show you a few cases, but you won't be able to judge for yourself because, you're not allowed to see the details of these cases. Unlike the evidence in any other kind of crime, this kind of evidence is closed to public scrutiny. I suspect this is why child porn is such a popular accusation - it's almost impossible to defend against. For one court case I was involved in, the defense didn't get to see the evidence the prosecution was claiming was child-porn until after a full 4 YEARS of legal wrangling. The government's reasons for not giving the defense access to the evidence was that they "didn't want to distribute child pornography". The poor defendant in that case had to deal with regular news articles trumpeting the "thousands of images" of child porn without anyone ever actually being allowed to see the evidence.
What one person considers to be kids playing on a beach naked, another person will consider to be child pornography. Some states have a "sexual gratification" clause that's used to imprison people for ANY picture that someone could possibly get aroused over. Some states don't limit those clauses to nudity either, they use phrases like "dress inappropriate for the subject's age".
What REALLY muddies the waters is the fact that the courts have ruled that a prosecutor doesn't have to prove that a person depicted in a pornographic image is actually underage, they only need to LOOK underage. For this, the prosecutors hire pediatricians to decide what subjects LOOK underage and which ones don't. Prosecutors are never required to produce a birth certificate and a photograph date, which would be definitive proof that a subject is actually underage. In fact, the prosecution doesn't even have to prove that it's a person that really exists! It's the defendant's job to prove that the image is fake, the court's presume guilt until the defendant proves otherwise.
I have seen cases where a person gets prosecuted over a commercially produced piece of pornography where the female is in her 20's, but only about 4 and half feet tall, and maybe 70 pounds, and the male subject might be over seven feet. Those images would pass anyone's "child porn" detector, they're unbelievably similar to actual child porn. I must tell you, it's absolutely not possible to REALLY know if a photograph is of a child just by looking at the image. Once you start mixing in computer generated images, you must have a birth certificate just to prove that the person depicted EVEN EXISTS.
The laws are all very vague (legally speaking, remember, legalese is another language) and are interpreted pretty much any way you can imagine in actual court cases. On top of this, the standards for proof are unbelievably low for such serious charges. Imagine a young nudist girl sitting cross-legged on the ground. Is it just a benign picture of a girl sitting there, or is it a pornographic image exhibiting her genitals? The law allows a judge to rule any way he pleases, and a bad ruling could mean an innocent person will spend the rest of his life in prison, until he dies in an "accident" or "suicide", as so commonly happens to American prisoners, especially ones convicted of crimes against children, whether a real person, or just their pictures.
People accused of possessing child porn usually face more than 1000 years in prison, far more than a typical serial killer or child molester. The plea agreements offered usually reduce the penalty to a few months of jail plus community service. When the defendant is required to find a way to prove that the images are not children, not porn, or not even human, it becomes incredibly attractive to just plead guilty, which most people wisely do, especially considering that an effective legal defense will cost at least $20,000 and that money must be on hand within a few weeks of the defendant's arrest.
I've seen what happens to people who don't plead guilty, and let me tell you,
you would think that limiting it to crimes against children 11 and younger would limit this law to only genuine, dangerous criminals. Unfortunatly, people get locked up in the USA for taking pictures of their babies splashing around in the bathtub - It's clearly child pornography according to the law in many states. I'm not joking, people really go to prison for taking pictures of their kids playing in the tub or similar benign activities. I've seen so many decent people get cruelly mistreated by the USA government, it makes me feel sick. Thank god slashdotters recognize what's going on and don't just pretend the only people in jail are bad people.
One thing I've noticed is that #1, normal and healthy people reach biological adulthood well before they reach legal adulthood, and #2, if people are idiots in their teens, they're idiots in their 20's and 30's too. The fixation with the age of 18 is rediculous, nothing magic happens at 18 that doesn't happen at 13, 14, 20, or 50. Some people are pemanently children, others seem to grow up in a reasonable amount of time.
People in jail are, by and large, fucking criminals. They are not "oppressed" or any other politically correct term.
It's not as simple as that, and in most cases, it's not true at all. Here's some interesting info that might change your assumptions about how the USA works:
Approximately 1 out of 6 Americans have been imprisoned at some point in their lives
Approximately 1 out of 12 American black men have been imprisoned at some point in their lives
Approximately 13 million Americans have been convicted of a felony, and can't get jobs or apartments. That's nearly 5% of the USA population!
The government's definition of "criminal" (through laws) encompasses the entire population. There are probably no Americans who have never been in violation of any laws.
When facing several years in prison, years of legal battles, plus a lifetime of debt to fund a legal defense, most people will wisely choose a plea bargain, even if they are innocent.
The government has comparatively unlimited funds to prosecute a defendent. The defendent must pay for his own defense, out of his own pocket. A typical retainer for an attorney is $20,000.
Prosecutors frequently pay witnesses more than $10,000 to testify against a defendent, and defendents usually can't afford to hire witnesses (Surprise! It's true, witnesses can be legally "bought". As in professional sports, whoever pays the most for the players on their team, usually wins the games)
Juries will usually convict even if little or no evidence is presented by the prosecution.
Police and prosecutors regularly break the law with little or no consequences, in order to prosecute and imprison a defendent. The defendent must play by the rules, however.
For Americans, imprisonment is a normal part of life. Probably every American family has several members who have been imprisoned. How many people in the population are criminally insane, versus how many people have been in a cage?
What we're dealing with isn't sudden genetic mutation that causes vast swaths of the population to be born criminally insane, we're dealing with wholesale oppression.
You give these people gum and they'll short a circuit with the wraper. You give them a floppy disk and they'll open a master lock (that's not a joke, the metalic part can very easily be made to open locks).
That makes sense, I imagine most people would do anything for freedom.
In my country (USA), all it takes to be incarcerated is losing your job before a parking ticket comes due, and not being able to pay. The government here will imprison you for that, and sometimes much less. It's true, I've seen it happen. Most people don't care about prisoners, and just assume they're evil. That's why prisoners are sometimes responsible for revolutions - They're desperate, and no one will let them have hope for a normal life. Please see my comment The American Bastille for more on why it's bad to pretend prisoners are irrelevant. The short version: #1 Governments have proven repeatedly they'll imprison anyone, not just rapists and murderers. #2 It's not wise to instill a sense of hopeless desperation in ex-criminals, because desperate people might behave dangerously in their quest for freedom.
...a shot of the Washington Monument from 1999 -- included something no one had expected: two presidential helicopters just north of the obelisk.
Who cares? Helicopters? I hear at least two of those every day, and I never bother to go outside to look at it. When I read the headliner for this post, I expected something like a satellite photo of someone famous picking their nose. Now THAT's interesting!
On earth keeping enough pressure to make the structure rigid is a whole different beast, involving airlocks to keep pressure in
Actually, that's not true. I've been inside inflatable structures 100 meters long and 30 meters high (I'm guessing) that didn't have enough pressure in them to be all that noticeable. My ears didn't even pop. As far as air locks go, that's totally unnecessary. Either double doors, regular doors, or one of those turnstile-type doors work fine. Now, they'll require fans to keep them inflated, but that's no biggy, it's just a big fan, not really even a "pump". Once again, if it's the WALLS that are inflated, no fan is necessary, just fill to the appropriate pressure (say, 5-10 PSI above atmospheric), and it'll stay inflated and relatively rigid, even in a hurricane. You can inflate it with chemical cannisters, much like airbags in cars are inflated, so still, no pumps needed.
Actually, being inflatable doesn't imply it needs lots of pressure. Also, the inventors of the concrete version obviously intended it to be a glorified medical tent. Tents, hospitals, and clean rooms all utilize positive internal pressure to keep microbes and dust out. On top of that, the inflatable structure I would envision, would have inflatable WALLS, not necessarily an inflatable interior, though, for medical purposes, positive pressure is a plus.
Why not dispense with the concrete and just make it inflatable? I doubt the concrete will make it all that much more permanent of a shelter than it would otherwise be. Besides, if it's good enough for space, it's good enough as a temporary shelter. Check out the inflatable space habitats
As many of the people who read slashdot know, the software industry in the USA (and I'm guessing Europe too) has suffered from ousourcing. I've read the US Department of Labor's Occupational outlook handbook for it, and one thing I've noticed is that it's always written in a dry, politically neutral style, which leaves the MEANING of the information up for interpretation by the (hopefully skeptical) reader. If you don't read between the lines, you'll not get an accurate picture of a career field from the handbook. I recommend actually talking to both happy people and disgruntled people in a career field before deciding whether it's what you want. That said, read on for info on software engineering from the handbook:
Computer software engineers are projected to be one of the fastest growing occupations over the 2002-12 period.
Computer software engineers held about 675,000 jobs in 2002. About 394,000 were computer applications software engineers, and about 281,000 were computer systems software engineers.
What they don't say is how many of those jobs are held by Americans, in the USA. IIRC, those figures come from employers, and so if an American company hires 500 software engineers, but they're all from India, the USA government will still proudly announce the addition of 500 new jobs to the US economy, when in fact, those jobs are actually overseas, and they're actually hurting the USA economy by removing money from it. Welcome to the world of political spin, and half-truths.
An increasing number of computer software engineers are employed on a temporary or contract basis, with many being self-employed, working independently as consultants.
What they don't say is how many of those jobs will remain in the country that created them.
As many of the people reading this will probably already know, in the software industry, "consultant" or "self-employed" typically means "unemployed" or "underemployed". Companies iin the USA aren't willing to hire permanent employees, so the easiest way to get at least SOME work, is to be an independent contractor or consultant that can be easily dumped when you've worked yourself out of a job. Of course, it's not always like that, but it's like that often enough to make people think "unemployed" when someone says "I'm a consultant" at social gatherings.
Also note that those who the government considers self-employed are counted as employed, even if they haven't earned a check in a year, and unemployed people who NEVER find a job in their field are counted as employed as soon as they're no longer eligible for unemployment benefits.
Job growth will not be as rapid as during the previous decade however, as the software industry begins to mature and as routine software engineering work is increasingly outsourced overseas.
As with other information technology jobs, employment growth of computer software engineers may be tempered somewhat by an increase in contracting out of software development abroad. Firms may look to cut costs by shifting operations to foreign countries with highly educated workers who have strong technical skills.
The truth comes out, at least a little. Remember, these are bureacrats and politicians writing this, so when they use words like "tempered", what they mean is "holy crap, this is important, read this section twice!". You should probably also take a look at Tomorrow's Jobs to get an overview of the entire USA economy. Notice that even though the USA has been in it's worst economic condition since the 1980's, everything is rosy in nearly every sector, according to the goverment.
I'm not a software engineer, and I could be biased in some ways, so here's a little about me. I work in manufacturing, which has been suffering longer than any other sector from outsourcing. The only sector that's decli
Harvard might have to take responsibility for leaving these students' personal information unsecured on the internet...So, how many of those 119 denied students want to sign up for a class action lawsuit? If Harvard feels it needs to deal so harshly with these students, then surely the students can find it in their hearts to deal harshly with Harvard.
May not be practical, but it's something to think about, especially if Harvard feels it needs to play hardball every chance it gets, then perhaps it is due for some humble-pie.
(For non-native english speakers, "hardball" means "tough", and "humble pie", in this context, means feeling the pain you've caused others)
Also known as FunDev, this is a popular, commercial Windows IDE for Dylan that has just recently been made free to the public. There is talk that it could be open-sourced soon (18 June 2004). It is still being actively developed by the same people who are working on the Gwydion Dylan compiler.
Looks like the blurb is a bit outdated since it's already been open sourced...but anyways, did you know about FunDev when you made a call for a "really high-quality" IDE from the Dylan community?
Of course, besides FunDev, there's Gwydion Dylan, a nice commandline compiler for unix/linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they're going to have a hard time coming up with something more contagious than the dirty guy.
I agree completely. Having weapons in space is going to freak out the whole planet, especially considering the USA's casual attitude about going to war. If the rest of the world sees the USA as the greatest threat to humanity since Hitler, I may not agree, but I can't say I blame them.
If I were "the rest of the world", I'd be pretty nervous if someone else had weapons perched a few miles above my head. It would affect everything, from ordinary business to peace treaties. Those imported T-shirts a little too expensive? Remind your trading partner that there's weapons above his head RIGHT NOW.
Sheesh, that is NOT the way to make friends.
I am not vegetarian, but I do find myself usually eating a low meat diet. Sometimes I go months without any meat at all. That's not for any consciously thought-out reason - it's simply because it's cheaper, and I like non-meat things most of the time (I love eggs and cheese though).
I am also an atheist, which means I do not believe the bible when it tells us that the animals of the earth were put here for us to use. I'm sure a hungry lion would feel the same about me in certain situations.
I also believe that since there is no God, we can fill a god-like role as much as we dare and as much as we are capable, when we are ready to take the responsibility it entails. To need to kill simply for food seems ridiculous if you think of humanity as a possibly god-like species. This is probably what makes me most like your third vegetarian friend (but once again, I'm not vegetarian).
I agree that not all life has the same value. I think most animal life is the kind of life that isn't even aware of what's happening around it - in much the same way that plants are completely unconcerned when someone walks by with a scythe. Shrimp, clams, fish, and squid, along with things like chickens, turkeys, and other foul are low enough that I don't feel uncomfortable with (quickly, suprisingly, and painlessly) killing and eating them. I agree with PETA's stance on meat "production" though. They're living things, not cogs and gears. They should not die painfully, and they shouldn't suffer while alive either.
I suppose I need to clarify. I don't place a value on an animal's life before I consider killing and eating it. I empathize with the animal's own sense of value instead. Specifically, I empathize with the animal's fear of dying, and the pain it will feel when it dies. This seems like a better way to place some kind of basic value on a living thing. We, as fully-aware beings, should not cause fear, anxiety, and suffering - the same feelings we avoid the most. Perhaps I could argue that a living thing's "value" goes up, the more we become aware that it is suffering. I cite the many dramatic and public rescue efforts for trapped and slowly dying house pets as examples.
OK, maybe the reasons for my ideas about value are not entirely clear. Let me explain: For me, when I empathize with the suffering of someone or something else, I FEEL what I think it is feeling, and I don't like it. Despite this modern age of push-button warfare and conveniently canned meat, I suspect most people are like me, but that they usually prefer to ignore or repress the sensations they feel. I cannot. Incidentally, I see this as a defining difference between humans and animals.
If you see someone get seriously injured, especially someone you care about, I'm sure you will understand exactly what I'm talking about. You can either look away, or try to ease the person's suffering. What you do, in my opinion, says a lot about what you are.
Read about some of the research done on monkeys and how they react to seeing their reflections in mirrors. It ought to make you think. They react differently depending on how self-aware they are, and how empathetic they are to others of their kind. If I remember correctly, the results of the experiments correspond well with their intelligence! Who would have thought that the people who assist humanitarian charities might be smarter than those who don't? I think if you did a study on it, you'd find exactly those results.
OK, so, to sum up, I don't have a problem with hunters hunting for food, or even for sport, though the latter sometimes bothers me, and may bother me more in the future. I do not fault hunters for being what they are, right now, when it frequently makes sense to be a hunter. Killing for sport will someday seem barbaric to me, and by then I hope it will be something that will not appeal to a god-like civilization with more important things to do.
That's a ways-out for the time being though. We're still going to kill animals for food, and we're still go
Hunting isn't just about taking out your high-powered rifle and wasting an animal. You have to be out in the environment. You have to be where the animal is in order to kill it. While the technology for finding and killing animals has become more advanced, there is a connection between the hunter and the prey .
I'm not anti-hunting, but I have noticed that most people (not just hunters) aren't very empathetic to the plight of their "prey". I doubt very much that the prey feels any sort of "connection" the way the hunter does. In fact, I think it would mostly be sensations of horror, mind-numbing fear, and infinite pain unto death.
The hunter probably feels his "connection" because, in a somewhat fair contest, he needs to understand the environment, the habits of his prey, and even the individual personality of the unique animal he's trying to kill. The disconnection from reality occurs when you consider the fact that it's not really fair, since the hunter's life isn't at stake, and the prey would rather that you had no "connection" or understanding of it's personality.
Now, if the hunter were only hunting for a photograph, and the prey received royalties from the deal, then I suspect the prey would feel a lot better about the hunter's deep understanding and "connection".
Of course, that's ridiculous, most animals just want to be left alone, or at least not frightened, injured, or killed.
Hmm, I've said everything I wanted to say, but one more thought needs to be recorded here. All this talk about "connections" with victims I've heard in other places too: from assassins, murderers, spies, thieves, snipers, and rapists.
Don't take that too harshly, since I don't think hunting is quite the same as those things are, but please, whenever a hunter talks about some kind of compassionate "connection" with his prey, please ground him into reality for me, and explain that his prey is going to die, and the hunter is the one going to do the killing. Nothing more, and nothing less.
The Zesiger License already does this. From the FAQ:
Q: Why are there no indemnification clauses, or limitations of warranty in this license? How come this license doesn't require credits to be given? Why are basic features of other licenses completely left out?This license is intended only to serve the purposes enumerated in paragraph one, it's not designed to do anything else. Not everyone needs or wants all the features of other licenses - For example, there may be a fine company someday that offers warranties for it's software.
Q: What if I really need the extra features included in those other licenses? Is there some way to add those features to the Zesiger License?Yes, you may add whatever clauses you feel is necessary to supplement this license, even if you were not the original producer of the work. However, you may not change the license itself, and you will have to accept the fact that subsequent licensees may want to add their own clauses.
Q: Being able to add clauses to this license will make it really easy for me to customize it, but what if some of my customizations are incompatible with the customizations other people make to the license?If a conflict arises, hopefully the parties involved will resolve it themselves. If not, Zesiger Inc. will arbitrate the disagreement and deliver a verdict that best preserves the intent of the license. This license can handle any negative situation that arises, while still giving the users of the license as much freedom as they need to make it work in the wide variety of circumstances that could exist in a commercial or non-profit enterprise.
BSD licenses are great, but they don't work for everyone. There's a good comparison of the different licences at the zesiger license page: Zesiger License
Here's the quick version, copied from the website:
The Zesiger License aims to fill the gap between the GPL and the BSDL, by combining the best features of both, which are briefly listed below:
The GNU General Public License (GPL)The GPL is by far the most popular, and one of the most debilitatingly restrictive of the open source licenses. It's occasionally used for open source versions of commercial software, since it allows companies to release source code to their customers, without allowing them to use the code in competing products.
- Does not permit incorporating into proprietary products
- Stifles innovation by making improving products unprofitable
- Ensures derivative works will also be open source
- Prevents commercial competitors from using your sources
The BSD LicenseThe BSDL is an excellent license for hobby-type projects that hope to attract the attention of a business that might want to commercialize it. It's less popular than the GPL, but it's the least restrictive of the ones compared here. It's almost entirely unsuitable for commercial software though, since it relinquishes nearly all rights - It does nothing to protect commercial interests.
- Permits incorporating into proprietary products
- Encourages innovation by making improving products potentially profitable
- Does not ensure that derivative works will also be open source
- Does not prevent commercial competitors from using your sources
The Zesiger LicenseThis license has the best features of the BSD and GPL licenses rolled into one. Open source projects released under this license will remain open source, while still providing ample time for innovators to keep their improvements proprietary until they are rewarded for their work.
The intent statements are interesting too:
Intent of Paragraph One:
To give enough rights to innovators that they may profit from improvements that they make to open source products, while ensuring that their work eventually becomes available to other innovators, so they are able to do the same, for the benefit of the end-users.
Intent of Paragraph Two:To ensure that no court or other politically influenced body shall ever have any authority over the products released under this license.
Intent of Paragraph Three:To prevent the rapid changes in laws from having any meaning to the innovators and end-users of products released under this license.
Hopefully this new Indian license will try to protect the nature of open source while freeing people to do as they please with it the way the Zesiger License tries to.
Here's the MSDS - http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m7700.htm - It's not particularly harmful stuff, but it's not something that just "goes away" either. It's insoluble in water, and would probably be easy to remove at a sewage treatment facility, but one way or another, it has to be removed and disposed of properly - if not by you, then by someone more responsible. Fish can't breathe it, ducks can't eat it. It won't go away. Please don't dump it down the drain. I'm not an environmentalist per se, but the thought of people dumping inorganic oils down the sink willy-nilly just sets off my "Are you insane" alarms.
mineral oil is a byproduct of the oil industry. In other words, dumping 2 gallons of it down the sink is more-or-less your own Exxon Valdez environmental disaster.
How do you dispose of the oil? You can't just pour it down the sink...What are the consequences of everyone having a few dozen gallons of oil for home electronics that become obsolete in an average of 2 years?
I have a Motorola A630 with a full QWERTY keyboard. Your telling me he can type faster then I can with my keyboard over SMS? I don't think so...
You better believe it - A good morse code operator can do 30 words a minute literally blindfolded. That's competitive with most people's typing skills. Many jobs only require 25 words per minute in typing skills.
http://www.rogerwendell.com/morsecode.html
Okay, who was the fastest code operator, ever??
I put that question to my friend Marshall Emm, N1FN, who runs the world's best key and keyer shop (www.MorseX.com). Marshall provided, from memory, some tidbits from the Theodore McElroy legend:
"Ted McElroy started manufacturing keys in 1934. McElroy was a master of both American and International Morse code and he promoted telegraphy most of his life, first as a telegrapher and later as a manufacturer of keys, bugs, and related equipment.
"By age 15, McElroy was a leading telegrapher (Wirechief) for Western Union. In 1922, he won the world championship in Asheville, NC by copying code at 56.5 WPM. That record was beaten in 1934. So, he went back the following year (1935) and beat the world record again. On July 2, 1939, McElroy broke the world record code speed at 75.2 WPM, which remains unsurpassed today. For the record, there is an individual ham radio operator who claims to have beaten it, on the basis that 75.2 wpm in 1939 currency is only worth about 65 wpm today.
"Anyone considering the nature of the record should recognize that the 1939 contest was a PROGRESSIVE test, with around a dozen candidates, but only two surviving to the final round. Each round consisted of a 15 minute transmission of text from a newspaper. Speed calculation was about as scientific as you could get-- they cranked up the speed a couple notches, and at the end of the 15 minutes they counted how many words had been sent.
"Hams struggle with 5 minute tests (in which they only have to have solid copy for ONE minute!), and the two finalists in the 1939 test had to survive multiple, consecutive 15 wpm tests at ever increasing speeds.
"The legend is that Mac astounded the audience by not doing anything when the sending started-- except to take a drink of water, and light a cigarette. He didn't start typing until a full 15 seconds of code had gone by. When the tape finished, he kept typing for that same 15 seconds. And it's no coincidence that he also won touch typing contests! Ever the showman, Ted "Mac" McElroy put his name and "World's Champion Radio Telegrapher" on his keys and bugs, which are highly prized today by discriminating operators and collectors."
73
Marshall Emm N1FN/VK5FN
Actually, it's not pure fantasy. I know what the laws SAY, but do you know how they're APPLIED? I'd like to show you a few cases, but you won't be able to judge for yourself because, you're not allowed to see the details of these cases. Unlike the evidence in any other kind of crime, this kind of evidence is closed to public scrutiny. I suspect this is why child porn is such a popular accusation - it's almost impossible to defend against. For one court case I was involved in, the defense didn't get to see the evidence the prosecution was claiming was child-porn until after a full 4 YEARS of legal wrangling. The government's reasons for not giving the defense access to the evidence was that they "didn't want to distribute child pornography". The poor defendant in that case had to deal with regular news articles trumpeting the "thousands of images" of child porn without anyone ever actually being allowed to see the evidence.
What one person considers to be kids playing on a beach naked, another person will consider to be child pornography. Some states have a "sexual gratification" clause that's used to imprison people for ANY picture that someone could possibly get aroused over. Some states don't limit those clauses to nudity either, they use phrases like "dress inappropriate for the subject's age".
What REALLY muddies the waters is the fact that the courts have ruled that a prosecutor doesn't have to prove that a person depicted in a pornographic image is actually underage, they only need to LOOK underage. For this, the prosecutors hire pediatricians to decide what subjects LOOK underage and which ones don't. Prosecutors are never required to produce a birth certificate and a photograph date, which would be definitive proof that a subject is actually underage. In fact, the prosecution doesn't even have to prove that it's a person that really exists! It's the defendant's job to prove that the image is fake, the court's presume guilt until the defendant proves otherwise.
I have seen cases where a person gets prosecuted over a commercially produced piece of pornography where the female is in her 20's, but only about 4 and half feet tall, and maybe 70 pounds, and the male subject might be over seven feet. Those images would pass anyone's "child porn" detector, they're unbelievably similar to actual child porn. I must tell you, it's absolutely not possible to REALLY know if a photograph is of a child just by looking at the image. Once you start mixing in computer generated images, you must have a birth certificate just to prove that the person depicted EVEN EXISTS.
The laws are all very vague (legally speaking, remember, legalese is another language) and are interpreted pretty much any way you can imagine in actual court cases. On top of this, the standards for proof are unbelievably low for such serious charges. Imagine a young nudist girl sitting cross-legged on the ground. Is it just a benign picture of a girl sitting there, or is it a pornographic image exhibiting her genitals? The law allows a judge to rule any way he pleases, and a bad ruling could mean an innocent person will spend the rest of his life in prison, until he dies in an "accident" or "suicide", as so commonly happens to American prisoners, especially ones convicted of crimes against children, whether a real person, or just their pictures.
People accused of possessing child porn usually face more than 1000 years in prison, far more than a typical serial killer or child molester. The plea agreements offered usually reduce the penalty to a few months of jail plus community service. When the defendant is required to find a way to prove that the images are not children, not porn, or not even human, it becomes incredibly attractive to just plead guilty, which most people wisely do, especially considering that an effective legal defense will cost at least $20,000 and that money must be on hand within a few weeks of the defendant's arrest.
I've seen what happens to people who don't plead guilty, and let me tell you,
you would think that limiting it to crimes against children 11 and younger would limit this law to only genuine, dangerous criminals. Unfortunatly, people get locked up in the USA for taking pictures of their babies splashing around in the bathtub - It's clearly child pornography according to the law in many states. I'm not joking, people really go to prison for taking pictures of their kids playing in the tub or similar benign activities. I've seen so many decent people get cruelly mistreated by the USA government, it makes me feel sick. Thank god slashdotters recognize what's going on and don't just pretend the only people in jail are bad people.
One thing I've noticed is that #1, normal and healthy people reach biological adulthood well before they reach legal adulthood, and #2, if people are idiots in their teens, they're idiots in their 20's and 30's too. The fixation with the age of 18 is rediculous, nothing magic happens at 18 that doesn't happen at 13, 14, 20, or 50. Some people are pemanently children, others seem to grow up in a reasonable amount of time.
People in jail are, by and large, fucking criminals. They are not "oppressed" or any other politically correct term.
It's not as simple as that, and in most cases, it's not true at all. Here's some interesting info that might change your assumptions about how the USA works:
For Americans, imprisonment is a normal part of life. Probably every American family has several members who have been imprisoned. How many people in the population are criminally insane, versus how many people have been in a cage?
What we're dealing with isn't sudden genetic mutation that causes vast swaths of the population to be born criminally insane, we're dealing with wholesale oppression.
You give these people gum and they'll short a circuit with the wraper. You give them a floppy disk and they'll open a master lock (that's not a joke, the metalic part can very easily be made to open locks).
That makes sense, I imagine most people would do anything for freedom.
In my country (USA), all it takes to be incarcerated is losing your job before a parking ticket comes due, and not being able to pay. The government here will imprison you for that, and sometimes much less. It's true, I've seen it happen. Most people don't care about prisoners, and just assume they're evil. That's why prisoners are sometimes responsible for revolutions - They're desperate, and no one will let them have hope for a normal life. Please see my comment The American Bastille for more on why it's bad to pretend prisoners are irrelevant. The short version: #1 Governments have proven repeatedly they'll imprison anyone, not just rapists and murderers. #2 It's not wise to instill a sense of hopeless desperation in ex-criminals, because desperate people might behave dangerously in their quest for freedom.
Who cares? Helicopters? I hear at least two of those every day, and I never bother to go outside to look at it. When I read the headliner for this post, I expected something like a satellite photo of someone famous picking their nose. Now THAT's interesting!
On earth keeping enough pressure to make the structure rigid is a whole different beast, involving airlocks to keep pressure in
Actually, that's not true. I've been inside inflatable structures 100 meters long and 30 meters high (I'm guessing) that didn't have enough pressure in them to be all that noticeable. My ears didn't even pop. As far as air locks go, that's totally unnecessary. Either double doors, regular doors, or one of those turnstile-type doors work fine. Now, they'll require fans to keep them inflated, but that's no biggy, it's just a big fan, not really even a "pump". Once again, if it's the WALLS that are inflated, no fan is necessary, just fill to the appropriate pressure (say, 5-10 PSI above atmospheric), and it'll stay inflated and relatively rigid, even in a hurricane. You can inflate it with chemical cannisters, much like airbags in cars are inflated, so still, no pumps needed.
Actually, being inflatable doesn't imply it needs lots of pressure. Also, the inventors of the concrete version obviously intended it to be a glorified medical tent. Tents, hospitals, and clean rooms all utilize positive internal pressure to keep microbes and dust out. On top of that, the inflatable structure I would envision, would have inflatable WALLS, not necessarily an inflatable interior, though, for medical purposes, positive pressure is a plus.
Why not dispense with the concrete and just make it inflatable? I doubt the concrete will make it all that much more permanent of a shelter than it would otherwise be. Besides, if it's good enough for space, it's good enough as a temporary shelter. Check out the inflatable space habitats
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos267.htm
As many of the people who read slashdot know, the software industry in the USA (and I'm guessing Europe too) has suffered from ousourcing. I've read the US Department of Labor's Occupational outlook handbook for it, and one thing I've noticed is that it's always written in a dry, politically neutral style, which leaves the MEANING of the information up for interpretation by the (hopefully skeptical) reader. If you don't read between the lines, you'll not get an accurate picture of a career field from the handbook. I recommend actually talking to both happy people and disgruntled people in a career field before deciding whether it's what you want. That said, read on for info on software engineering from the handbook:
Computer software engineers are projected to be one of the fastest growing occupations over the 2002-12 period.
Computer software engineers held about 675,000 jobs in 2002. About 394,000 were computer applications software engineers, and about 281,000 were computer systems software engineers.
What they don't say is how many of those jobs are held by Americans, in the USA. IIRC, those figures come from employers, and so if an American company hires 500 software engineers, but they're all from India, the USA government will still proudly announce the addition of 500 new jobs to the US economy, when in fact, those jobs are actually overseas, and they're actually hurting the USA economy by removing money from it. Welcome to the world of political spin, and half-truths.
An increasing number of computer software engineers are employed on a temporary or contract basis, with many being self-employed, working independently as consultants.
What they don't say is how many of those jobs will remain in the country that created them.
As many of the people reading this will probably already know, in the software industry, "consultant" or "self-employed" typically means "unemployed" or "underemployed". Companies iin the USA aren't willing to hire permanent employees, so the easiest way to get at least SOME work, is to be an independent contractor or consultant that can be easily dumped when you've worked yourself out of a job. Of course, it's not always like that, but it's like that often enough to make people think "unemployed" when someone says "I'm a consultant" at social gatherings.
Also note that those who the government considers self-employed are counted as employed, even if they haven't earned a check in a year, and unemployed people who NEVER find a job in their field are counted as employed as soon as they're no longer eligible for unemployment benefits.
Job growth will not be as rapid as during the previous decade however, as the software industry begins to mature and as routine software engineering work is increasingly outsourced overseas.
As with other information technology jobs, employment growth of computer software engineers may be tempered somewhat by an increase in contracting out of software development abroad. Firms may look to cut costs by shifting operations to foreign countries with highly educated workers who have strong technical skills.
The truth comes out, at least a little. Remember, these are bureacrats and politicians writing this, so when they use words like "tempered", what they mean is "holy crap, this is important, read this section twice!". You should probably also take a look at Tomorrow's Jobs to get an overview of the entire USA economy. Notice that even though the USA has been in it's worst economic condition since the 1980's, everything is rosy in nearly every sector, according to the goverment.
I'm not a software engineer, and I could be biased in some ways, so here's a little about me. I work in manufacturing, which has been suffering longer than any other sector from outsourcing. The only sector that's decli
Do we like this because it's Apple, or do we hate this because 'geeks' lost their case...
When in doubt, run and hide. Or, you could form your own opinion...
Harvard might have to take responsibility for leaving these students' personal information unsecured on the internet...So, how many of those 119 denied students want to sign up for a class action lawsuit? If Harvard feels it needs to deal so harshly with these students, then surely the students can find it in their hearts to deal harshly with Harvard.
May not be practical, but it's something to think about, especially if Harvard feels it needs to play hardball every chance it gets, then perhaps it is due for some humble-pie.
(For non-native english speakers, "hardball" means "tough", and "humble pie", in this context, means feeling the pain you've caused others)
Maybe if the Dylan community created a killer IDE with a really high-quality implementation, it might still take off...
Have you seen Functional Developer? It's a commercial windows IDE from Functional Objects, and it's recently been open sourced. From zesiger.com's blurb on FunDev:
Looks like the blurb is a bit outdated since it's already been open sourced...but anyways, did you know about FunDev when you made a call for a "really high-quality" IDE from the Dylan community?
Of course, besides FunDev, there's Gwydion Dylan, a nice commandline compiler for unix/linux.
here's google's cache of the site http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:0P-b3Qx1lg8J: devnulled.com/content/2005/01/an-evaluation-of-the -current-technology-job-market-updated/+&hl=en&lr= lang_en