The techniques WPdians subvert neutrality on the most vital subjects, while all the while proclaiming they are advancing "neutral point of view" is to:
Make sure every conceivable reference to POVs aligned with their own POV are included in every article -- referring to them of course as simply yet another POV (which takes up 90% of the article).
Encumber, with the entire history of mankind's fallacies, those subjects they'd like to see suppressed while relegating the best current knowledge to minor subsections or even to separate "special" articles linked to from the primary subject. It's rather like writing about "Heat" and focusing on the history of ideas like "phlogiston" while leaving statistical mechanics to a special article such as "Heat as a statistical mechanical phenomenon".
Enforce standards rigorously on POVs they want suppressed and relax standards consistently on POVs they want promoted.
In other words, they do pretty much what standard encyclopedias do only more so.
Well, the Pundette of Google is at least pointing the market toward recognizing The Trillion Dollar Mistake of putting the presentation layer at the server.
The reason the dotcom era crashed was because the damn xenophobes running the country didn't let visionaries like Sun's Scott McNealy hire more really bright Israelis and Indians.
This fact alone is enough to dispense with programming languages that attempt to use large numbers of low quality programmers by inhibiting polymorphism with static type declarations. Compile time assertions are only one kind of test and do a lot less for quality assurance than allowing flexibility in choosing the test points on a more succinct body of code.
If the world were an idealized plane the math says the noise floor would grow without bound. Aside from the fact that the world is round, and therefore has a limited horizon for any signal, more important is the fact that any given node in a mesh is likely to have quite limited line of sight.
You build up a mesh by having a lot of low power nodes that have their signals attenuated by a lot of near-by obstructions, not by having a lot of high power nodes sitting atop clear-line-of-sight towers.
There are no inherent limits on the capacity of mesh networks. Any supposed limits are imposed more by antenna technology than anything else.
If Intel got into phased array/smart antenna chips their mesh networks could even be high power and long line of sight without creating noise floor problems. Intel might like to have a mass market for such chips and it would certainly benefit the mass market.
So they're fine upstanding citizens who are just doing their best under tought circumstances... circumstances like:
Let's open the borders to all kinds of nasties so that we can protect the citizens from them in exchange for their rights.
Sounds like just what the founding fathers thought government should do ------- about the time it becomes the duty of every law-abiding citizen to create a new one.
it is criminal to 'intentionally intercept' any 'electronic communication.'
So we can conclude that so-called "Homeland Security" -- which routinely intercepts electronic communication without a warrant -- is a criminal organization.
Never heard of "Tranzi" before. Transnational progressivism as described by John Fonte has a number of points/goals -- none of which are consistent with and/or likely to be reached with freedom of association as the foundation of human rights.
First of all all my known ancestors back to 1776 were here before the war for independence, so I have a very deep relationship to the United States.
The United States is now the main global threat.
This is not because her people are evil. It is because the American Experiment has gone awry. The original intent of a multi-state "United States" was to retain enough sovereignty at a local enough level that people could voluntarily form groups with which to conduct grand living experiments founded on freedom of association. This system of free association-founded experimentation to discover what works and, by implication, what does not work for various peoples, has somehow been hijacked by central government, and meaningful experimental variation has been quashed.
The consequence is a treasonous monster actively denying the freedom of not just the US citizens but of the entire world to live.
It is no coincidence that the de facto government of the United States, in violating the right of its people to freely associate, is violating he natural. This monster is attacking its own source -- the people's sovereignty, which is, itself, founded in the laws of nature and of nature's god as described in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events,
it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Citizens of the United States must not allow this travesty to continue. Freedom of association means voluntary association which means when someone pollutes the environment they are creating a situation in which others are not being left alone to conduct their lives as they see fit -- their desire to not participate in the US's experiment is being violated.
The same goes for any experiment that spills over its borders. If you want to conduct those kinds of experiments you should go set up separate ecosystems -- ultimately in space where they have a minimum chance of interacting with others.
What this means is that all terrestrial living experiments should give priority to traditional indigenous societies. Technological civilization should ultimately leave earth to the indigenous peoples, and conduct its grand experiments elsewhere.
But the political process has turned us away from legitimate research and toward emotional, reactionary, and outright half-baked "solutions" to problems that may not even exist, or may not even be problems.
That's a reasonable description of the present-day anti-eugenicist/anti-racist political consensus posing as scientific consensus.
It is untenable that the Library of Congress doesn't have the most complete Usenet archive and provide a copy for the cost of duplication. Of course, it is untenable that there aren't multiple redundant copies the world over available for comparison to check up on damage to the archival records.
How many DVDs could contain the entire Usenet archive if pruned to just text? I've gotten close to 30:1 compression ratios out of WinRK.
And the original article clearly said Gates said he would make good on the threat:
if the country opposed the European Union's proposed directive on software patents.
Microsoft is one of the worst exploiters of the patent system. Patents are monopoly rights over areas of technology. The originators of patent law were individual ivnentors who would have been apalled at how it is being abused by enormous corporations to "restrain trade and commerce".
You may be the first person to claim that it is implausible to categorize Microsoft as a monopoly. Even Gates didn't move for dismissal of the major antitrust actions against Microsoft on the grounds that such lawsuits were frivolous.
Indeed, the broad acceptance of that premise is precisely why I looked up the Sherman Act. On that premise, the Sherman Act is plausibly applicable. Microsoft is attempting to use its overwhelming presence in the marketplace to further entrench that presence.
Sherman Antitrust Act, basic federal enactment regulating the operations of corporate trusts, passed by the U.S. Congress in July 1890, through the efforts of Senator John Sherman of Ohio. The act declared illegal "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations." Criminal penalties were provided for violators of the law, and aggrieved persons were entitled to recover three times the amount of losses suffered as a result of the violation. The Sherman Act has been amended and supplemented by several subsequent enactments. Most notable among these enactments was the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. See Monopoly; Trusts.
OK, so given that the main article's title changes "blackmail" to "extort",/. is probably not committing libel.
I'd change it. Even though Gates is a "public figure" it really is poor practice to throw around accusations carelessly.
Actually, I was involved with the initial U of IL prototype of the SAIT plasmascope back in 1975 (doing a 3D demo) during which transpants from the PLATO project to (then) SAI got small amounts of early stock before moving on to other jobs. I'm sure most of them haven't been notified and some of them have dropped off he radar completely.
I was running the software department for automated ordnance inspection systems around 15 years ago and and I've received no notice. Melvin Laird and Bobby Inman were among the SAIC employees at that time IIRC and I'll be they were notified.
You mentioned nothing about the real problem, which was the granting of monopoly rights to broadcast mass media by the government several decades ago.
What we have here is a case where the patient is dying of a serious disease, something happens that will save the patient but causes the patient to vomit or have the shits and all you can do is point to the unpleasant odor.
A small group of people in authority over mass media causing people to stop talking to ANYONE else and instead adopt the views of that incestuously small group.
A lot of small, voluntarily formed groups, any member of which is also a member of a number of other groups, discovering that after many decades of alienation from their own thought processes they are very pissed off and have some serious grievances that some -- especially the old incestuous community of mass media authorities -- would consider "extreme"
This is no false dilemma. It is the practical reality of the situation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Look at the history of interference with peacable assembly for a clue as to why the Founders put this clause as the first of the rights they considered most likely for the government to usurp from the people.
Yes you read that right... the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of the rights guaranteed to the people by the government -- but an enumeration of the rights that the people possess by "the laws of nature and nature's god" in the order most likely to be usruped by government.
Moreover, what this means is that the Bill of Rights is a declaration of natural rights meaning that if any government violates them that government cannot be considered consistent with the laws of nature.
This is an "extremist" stand. Indeed, any stand of integrity means adhering to the principles stated in the face even of death. That is the essence of "extremism". Can you think why powerful people might consider any integrity exhibited by those without power as "extremist" and seek to have "extremism" suppressed through social, cultural, legal, economic, police and any other means necessary?
Indeed, when weaseling courts mockingly refer to "the penumbra of the Constitution" what they are in fact saying is that the government is like the light of the Sun itself and the people's rights are like the shadow of the moon on the earth during a total eclipse of the sun -- absolute only at a single point.
Well, if there is a single point to the Constitution, it is reflected in the first paragraph of the document forming the foundation for the creation of the Constitution:
When in the Course of human events,
it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
It is clearly stated:
The whole point of freedom, the single point made by the whole of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights, is recognition of the primordial freedom to choose those with whom one will associate.
A lot of people were nipping at the Wrights' heels during that time period but the thing that really let the Wrights win the title of first in flight was their high frequency of testing back in Ohio where they perfected the flight controls.
Everyone else was pretty much able to duplicate the internal combustion engine-powered glider, but only the Wrights managed to run enough tests under a high enough rate of evolutionary change (enabled by their hands-on experience in their bicycle shop) that they could solve the all-important control problem.
Similarly, the thing that will really open space to private enterprise will be a group that figures out how to run a steady stream of test flights at a high rate with evolutionary changes enabled by flexible design/fabrication.
The next time you're in Germany or Canada, you might be arrested, tried, convicted and incarcerated for relativizing The Holocaust in those countries via the Internet.
When small states acquire nuclear weapons as security against larger states, their military credibility depends critically on their militancy -- their willingness to use those weapons in a first strike. This is the barking mad dog strategic posture:
A report 11 in 1976 of a CIA briefing claimed that the Israeli arsenal of 13 weapons was prepared for possible use at the start of the 1973 war. Defence Minister Moshe Dyan was quoted in the report as justifying the Israeli nuclear option as, 'Israel has no choice, with our manpower we cannot physically go on acquiring more and more tanks and more and more planes'. The readiness to use their nuclear weapons to fight, if they are in danger of being defeated, indicates that the 'no first use' policy is rhetoric.
Now a big difference between Israel and North Korea is that it is believable that North Korean command will sacrifice much of its population during retaliation. Moreover, give the US's open borders policy, North Korea's doesn't need missiles to deliver nuclear warheads to the most critical central control structuers of the US. If they were to strike during a time of civil disturbance arising from the neocon use of immigrant floods to justify protecting US citizens with "Homeland Security" in exchange for their rights, it could shatter that ideological and political con-game of open-borders combined with the tyranny of "Homeland Security" and cause a shooting war between the employer class and the working class.
Israel's likely targets, on the other hand, are far less fragile than the highly centralized and corrupted US. Moreover, compared to North Korea, Israel has something resembling accountability to its Jewish citizens, most of whom would prefer not to be the offering under a real holocaust:
Slashdot Mirror
- Make sure every conceivable reference to POVs aligned with their own POV are included in every article -- referring to them of course as simply yet another POV (which takes up 90% of the article).
- Encumber, with the entire history of mankind's fallacies, those subjects they'd like to see suppressed while relegating the best current knowledge to minor subsections or even to separate "special" articles linked to from the primary subject. It's rather like writing about "Heat" and focusing on the history of ideas like "phlogiston" while leaving statistical mechanics to a special article such as "Heat as a statistical mechanical phenomenon".
- Enforce standards rigorously on POVs they want suppressed and relax standards consistently on POVs they want promoted.
In other words, they do pretty much what standard encyclopedias do only more so.Well, the Pundette of Google is at least pointing the market toward recognizing The Trillion Dollar Mistake of putting the presentation layer at the server.
The reason the dotcom era crashed was because the damn xenophobes running the country didn't let visionaries like Sun's Scott McNealy hire more really bright Israelis and Indians.
This fact alone is enough to dispense with programming languages that attempt to use large numbers of low quality programmers by inhibiting polymorphism with static type declarations. Compile time assertions are only one kind of test and do a lot less for quality assurance than allowing flexibility in choosing the test points on a more succinct body of code.
You build up a mesh by having a lot of low power nodes that have their signals attenuated by a lot of near-by obstructions, not by having a lot of high power nodes sitting atop clear-line-of-sight towers.
There are no inherent limits on the capacity of mesh networks. Any supposed limits are imposed more by antenna technology than anything else.
If Intel got into phased array/smart antenna chips their mesh networks could even be high power and long line of sight without creating noise floor problems. Intel might like to have a mass market for such chips and it would certainly benefit the mass market.
Didn't they give Homeland Security the charter to cohere all branches of government regarding data gathered?
If so, there's no point quibbling -- they're one big happy government.
So we can conclude that so-called "Homeland Security" -- which routinely intercepts electronic communication without a warrant -- is a criminal organization.
Never heard of "Tranzi" before. Transnational progressivism as described by John Fonte has a number of points/goals -- none of which are consistent with and/or likely to be reached with freedom of association as the foundation of human rights.
The United States is now the main global threat.
This is not because her people are evil. It is because the American Experiment has gone awry. The original intent of a multi-state "United States" was to retain enough sovereignty at a local enough level that people could voluntarily form groups with which to conduct grand living experiments founded on freedom of association. This system of free association-founded experimentation to discover what works and, by implication, what does not work for various peoples, has somehow been hijacked by central government, and meaningful experimental variation has been quashed.
The consequence is a treasonous monster actively denying the freedom of not just the US citizens but of the entire world to live.
It is no coincidence that the de facto government of the United States, in violating the right of its people to freely associate, is violating he natural. This monster is attacking its own source -- the people's sovereignty, which is, itself, founded in the laws of nature and of nature's god as described in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence:
Citizens of the United States must not allow this travesty to continue. Freedom of association means voluntary association which means when someone pollutes the environment they are creating a situation in which others are not being left alone to conduct their lives as they see fit -- their desire to not participate in the US's experiment is being violated.
The same goes for any experiment that spills over its borders. If you want to conduct those kinds of experiments you should go set up separate ecosystems -- ultimately in space where they have a minimum chance of interacting with others.
What this means is that all terrestrial living experiments should give priority to traditional indigenous societies. Technological civilization should ultimately leave earth to the indigenous peoples, and conduct its grand experiments elsewhere.
That's a reasonable description of the present-day anti-eugenicist/anti-racist political consensus posing as scientific consensus.
How many DVDs could contain the entire Usenet archive if pruned to just text? I've gotten close to 30:1 compression ratios out of WinRK.
Indeed, the broad acceptance of that premise is precisely why I looked up the Sherman Act. On that premise, the Sherman Act is plausibly applicable. Microsoft is attempting to use its overwhelming presence in the marketplace to further entrench that presence.
OK, so given that the main article's title changes "blackmail" to "extort", /. is probably not committing libel.
I'd change it. Even though Gates is a "public figure" it really is poor practice to throw around accusations carelessly.
Actually, I was involved with the initial U of IL prototype of the SAIT plasmascope back in 1975 (doing a 3D demo) during which transpants from the PLATO project to (then) SAI got small amounts of early stock before moving on to other jobs. I'm sure most of them haven't been notified and some of them have dropped off he radar completely.
I was running the software department for automated ordnance inspection systems around 15 years ago and and I've received no notice. Melvin Laird and Bobby Inman were among the SAIC employees at that time IIRC and I'll be they were notified.
What we have here is a case where the patient is dying of a serious disease, something happens that will save the patient but causes the patient to vomit or have the shits and all you can do is point to the unpleasant odor.
Get real.
Having:
- A small group of people in authority over mass media causing people to stop talking to ANYONE else and instead adopt the views of that incestuously small group.
- A lot of small, voluntarily formed groups, any member of which is also a member of a number of other groups, discovering that after many decades of alienation from their own thought processes they are very pissed off and have some serious grievances that some -- especially the old incestuous community of mass media authorities -- would consider "extreme"
This is no false dilemma. It is the practical reality of the situation.Look at the history of interference with peacable assembly for a clue as to why the Founders put this clause as the first of the rights they considered most likely for the government to usurp from the people.
Yes you read that right... the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of the rights guaranteed to the people by the government -- but an enumeration of the rights that the people possess by "the laws of nature and nature's god" in the order most likely to be usruped by government.
Moreover, what this means is that the Bill of Rights is a declaration of natural rights meaning that if any government violates them that government cannot be considered consistent with the laws of nature.
This is an "extremist" stand. Indeed, any stand of integrity means adhering to the principles stated in the face even of death. That is the essence of "extremism". Can you think why powerful people might consider any integrity exhibited by those without power as "extremist" and seek to have "extremism" suppressed through social, cultural, legal, economic, police and any other means necessary?
Indeed, when weaseling courts mockingly refer to "the penumbra of the Constitution" what they are in fact saying is that the government is like the light of the Sun itself and the people's rights are like the shadow of the moon on the earth during a total eclipse of the sun -- absolute only at a single point.
Well, if there is a single point to the Constitution, it is reflected in the first paragraph of the document forming the foundation for the creation of the Constitution:
It is clearly stated:
The whole point of freedom, the single point made by the whole of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights, is recognition of the primordial freedom to choose those with whom one will associate.
Everyone else was pretty much able to duplicate the internal combustion engine-powered glider, but only the Wrights managed to run enough tests under a high enough rate of evolutionary change (enabled by their hands-on experience in their bicycle shop) that they could solve the all-important control problem.
Similarly, the thing that will really open space to private enterprise will be a group that figures out how to run a steady stream of test flights at a high rate with evolutionary changes enabled by flexible design/fabrication.
The next time you're in Germany or Canada, you might be arrested, tried, convicted and incarcerated for relativizing The Holocaust in those countries via the Internet.
Now a big difference between Israel and North Korea is that it is believable that North Korean command will sacrifice much of its population during retaliation. Moreover, give the US's open borders policy, North Korea's doesn't need missiles to deliver nuclear warheads to the most critical central control structuers of the US. If they were to strike during a time of civil disturbance arising from the neocon use of immigrant floods to justify protecting US citizens with "Homeland Security" in exchange for their rights, it could shatter that ideological and political con-game of open-borders combined with the tyranny of "Homeland Security" and cause a shooting war between the employer class and the working class.
Israel's likely targets, on the other hand, are far less fragile than the highly centralized and corrupted US. Moreover, compared to North Korea, Israel has something resembling accountability to its Jewish citizens, most of whom would prefer not to be the offering under a real holocaust:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :
Breaking up HP into a lot of much smaller businesses is as good an idea as merging with Compaq was a bad idea.
In CAPP operations are generally carried out in a bit-serial, word-parallel manner. This is radically different from Cell processor architecture.