Uh... they did negotiate. That was part of the problem. Germany got too entrenched - a decisive counter-strike as soon as the German military left their own borders would have saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives, both military and civilian.
Then again, no one would have built their air forces or any other weaponry nearly as much if that were the case, and then the US/allies would have lost magnitudes of order more lives in invading Afghanistan and/or Iraq. (Or even Vietnam.)
Ob On-Topic: and we wouldn't have had the nukes with which to bomb those RIAA-fingered lawbreakers!
We're waiting for them to sue/. for inclusion in on the icons... but when they come to serve the papers, we'll have the riot police arrest them for trespassing.
All I've been convinced of is that the majority of right wingers who comment on media bias are flaming kooks who wouldn't know bias if it pushed them up and made them fall over.
I've been similarly convinced in the opposite direction. Perhaps it's just because the media will sensationalise anything, and extremes are sensational. So, some stories will be emphasising the left wing (and the right-wingers will notice and complain, while the left-wingers won't even notice the bias because the left-coloured shades they see the world through won't change the colour of the stories), while others will be emphasising the right wing (and the left-wingers will notice and complain, while the right-wingers won't even notice the bias because the right-coloured shades they see the world through won't change the colour of the stories).
Short version: we're all kooks. Those of us who recognise it are at least on the road to recovery;-)
And what about Saudi Arabia (15 of 19 hijackers)? You don't see us going after them do you? We have more cause to go after Saudi Arabia (off the top of my head: members of the royal family that financed 9/11, impeded our investigation into the towers bombings, financing Islamic extremism the World over, gouging us with oil prices, undemocratic oppressive Government) then we ever did to go after Iraq and yet we invaded Iraq.
Let's see... if 15 of 19 hijackers were Canadian, would you think that this is a good reason to invade Canada, even though Iceland was the one selling weapons, offering a safe place to train, etc.? No, I don't think so. As for financing 9/11 - this is the first time I've heard the Saudi royal family financing it - I always thought it was Bin Laden. Afghanistan financing it (directly or indirectly), yes, and Iraq to some degree, yes, but not really the Saudis.
Saudi Arabia financing extremism, yes, getting in the way of investigation, yes. But even that, when deciding who to make an example of, would you go after business partners who could be swayed (and the US didn't succeed as well as the terrorists themselves!), or a madman who gasses his opponents, I think that Dubya chose the right example. Not that he told anyone that's what he's doing (he ain't no saint), but I don't see it as really that bad of a tactic.
Not necessarily - they're living up to the letter of the law. (The DoJ won't have any problems reading it - they probably use IE anyway.) Contempt of Slashdotters, maybe...:-)
Oddly, perhaps China could be a more realistic comparison point, since it has more dialects than I'd care to count (Mandarin being the official one, with Cantonese being the next largest group, but many, many others being spoken). Perhaps there's a link between too many languages and inability to pull one's country out of the third world?
(For the humour-challenged mods out there, that's supposed to be funny. Not "+1, Funny" funny, but "man, he's a dork" funny.)
What we need is a grand unified desktop API. One where I can call "createIcon()" or "queryIcon()" or "deleteIcon()", etc., to add, query, delete, or otherwise manipulate the user's desktop(s). Trying to support KDE 2, KDE 3, Gnome, and any other potential desktops is impossible. We have a "create icons" tool for our (commercial) product, and of those who have owned the tool, one was fired, two were laid off, and the latest just quit, all in the span of 2 years. That's actually two independant statements, completely unrelated, but it is an interesting fact to me:-)
In short, a common desktop API would be incredibly useful. From a purely commercial standpoint, it would be just as useful to have only one Linux desktop. Personally, I'd love to see the opensource competition that drives each project to become better, but there does need to be some co-operation, just like OOo and KOffice and others are standardising on common XML document formats, making it easier for not only document interchange, but for others to write to the spec. We need that programmability for the desktops, too.
Public financing is intended to encourage all comers to have a say in the future of their country. Theoretically, it should allow those who can't afford to run, but may have valid positions, to run. In reality, it turns into another quagmire of rules and regulations which help perpetuate the two-party system.
To be honest, though, Canada nominally has a 4-party system: Conservative (centre-right), Liberal (centre-left), New Democratic Party (far left), and Bloc Quebecois (left, right, who cares, as long as Quebec is treated as the only province of importance, otherwise we're separating). And the debates, though treated "fairly" among all leaders (each leader gets the same amount of time, plus there is some round-robin debating where it's 1-on-1 between each pair), is of very little interest except for the two main parties: Conservatives and Liberals. The other two leaders are there purely for show, I think.
In some ways, the US debates are better - they focus on the two candidates that 90% of Americans care about.
I do understand how members of other parties feel that this perpetuates the marginalisation of their party. But, as/.ers continually proclaim, free speech also means we're free to ignore you, too.
This is probably a good example of why commercial theoretical advances should be weighted down in considerations for Nobel prizes. Commercial success is already a goal - smart people can make money this way. I think that the encouragement of smart people to make money from Nobel prizes is a good thing - spurring advances in fields which may not see commercial return in the discoverer's lifetime.
Brian Greene is obviously making money on books and TV shows - perhaps not the million or so that a Nobel prize brings, but that's his choice. Probably still more than an average university professor, as the average Nobel prize winner (in the sciences) probably is.
Oh, I see - the car is documenting the evidence. However, the problem is that I paid for the car to do that, and that data needs to be subpoenaed. There still is the concept of non-self-incrimination, too - can law enforcement subpoena your own documentation to incriminate you?
In any organisation with more than two people in it, there will be politics. The more people, the worse it will be. There are steps that management/owners can do to reduce the level of politics, but not eliminate it. Any time you have people competing for something (jobs, bonuses, promotions), there will be politics involved. It's just human nature to try to puff oneself up and/or lower the competition via backstabbing (rumours, false reports, etc.). Even the nicest of us will do some of this - only the truly uncaring will purposefully do it.
Despite the comments above, I would say that even IBM has some - although compared to other similarly sized organisations, it seems to have less than average, in my extremely limited experience. There is a lot of BS, slacking, incompetence, sloppiness, and political maneuvering. But I would say it's more than the inverse of the MS claim: less than 1/10th of the people. Of course, the fact that there have been a few rounds of layoffs in the last few years really helped to trim some of the fat. The problem always is when the fat is already promoted - it's a lot harder to lay off someone who has received promotions. So, I'm sure IBM managed to trim some meat, but definitely has trimmed a fair bit of fat. And this helps keep the politics down - at least at the peon level. The PHBs still have lots to share.
That's fine for places where an expectation of privacy are established. But is driving on the open road such a place? (I'll get flamed for sure with this blatant attempt to get back on topic...)
I really doubt that a warrant will be needed to read this information.
Ok, typically I see people advertisng mods for their iPod, XBox, PS2, or refridgerator, and I shrug thinking I'd never bother doing that.
However, this is quite different. If someone posted mods for their 2006 SAAB, I'd be more than interested in figuring out how to use that to patch my vehicle to become anonymous.
I suppose the big question is... if NASA instead were merely a contracting arm of the goverment which put together specs for tender, would we have gotten further, faster, and cheaper?
And let's not forget the human cost: would we have lost similar or fewer people doing it (safety)?
No, really. I'm serious. This is not intended as a slam against government waste or corporate cost/corner cutting. It's really a question for thought. Is there a middle ground available where we get the same safety, but further/faster/cheaper?
Contractors would need to be able to find ways to compete against others for the research business. There are some things that competition is good for. But, then again, with only one possible customer at the time (NASA), would there be enough competition for those dollars? Now might be a much better time (than, say, the 1950's) to thin out NASA, spin off JPL, and then have NASA merely contract out: the competition will be competing for business from much more than NASA - airlines will be interested in some of this technology, too, I'm sure.
Re:GOOD LORD!!!! Let me save them some $$$$
on
Securing Pricelessness
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, since you asked...
Seriously, I don't see a problem with GP's idea. Last time I was at Le Louvre, admittedly in the late 80's, the Mona Lisa was behind plexiglass, reflected on two mirrors, and physically located at least a storey away (to me, a grade 9 student at the time, it seemed pretty cool). If it's that important, that's what the museum will do. For whatever reason, The Scream was not priceless enough to warrant this.
As a few people have pointed out, the author of the article seems to have overstepped his bounds a bit. He's not really qualified to render a legal opinion. To state that Mr. Connelly is definitely in the wrong is a potentially dangerous thing. Especially given that he seems to be lawsuit happy.
Right. But did newsforge really render a legal opinion? They implied it, but one of the <sarcasm>wonderful</sarcasm> things about the law is that they differentiate between what is said (legally binding) and what is left unsaid (ignored) but heavily implied.
In other interpretations of "definitive", if Jem is an expert in the technical aspects of the dispute, then a proclamation of "definitive" is just a pompous way of saying "I'm absolutely sure of myself."
In my (pompous) opinion, I think that Jem should have shown more professional restraint in choosing the terms used in the essay. More fuel for the fire was spread than fact, and I think there was a fair bit of fact there. A bit more calm would have produced the same information with a lot less useless bickering.
Slashdot Mirror
I have GalCiv for OS/2 ... don't use it anymore ... any offers? ;-)
Uh ... they did negotiate. That was part of the problem. Germany got too entrenched - a decisive counter-strike as soon as the German military left their own borders would have saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives, both military and civilian.
Then again, no one would have built their air forces or any other weaponry nearly as much if that were the case, and then the US/allies would have lost magnitudes of order more lives in invading Afghanistan and/or Iraq. (Or even Vietnam.)
Ob On-Topic: and we wouldn't have had the nukes with which to bomb those RIAA-fingered lawbreakers!
Voltaire died defending it.
Gotta love it. "I don't trust my users, but I do trust MS and my vendor." Hmmm.
We're waiting for them to sue /. for inclusion in on the icons ... but when they come to serve the papers, we'll have the riot police arrest them for trespassing.
I've been similarly convinced in the opposite direction. Perhaps it's just because the media will sensationalise anything, and extremes are sensational. So, some stories will be emphasising the left wing (and the right-wingers will notice and complain, while the left-wingers won't even notice the bias because the left-coloured shades they see the world through won't change the colour of the stories), while others will be emphasising the right wing (and the left-wingers will notice and complain, while the right-wingers won't even notice the bias because the right-coloured shades they see the world through won't change the colour of the stories).
Short version: we're all kooks. Those of us who recognise it are at least on the road to recovery ;-)
Let's see ... if 15 of 19 hijackers were Canadian, would you think that this is a good reason to invade Canada, even though Iceland was the one selling weapons, offering a safe place to train, etc.? No, I don't think so. As for financing 9/11 - this is the first time I've heard the Saudi royal family financing it - I always thought it was Bin Laden. Afghanistan financing it (directly or indirectly), yes, and Iraq to some degree, yes, but not really the Saudis.
Saudi Arabia financing extremism, yes, getting in the way of investigation, yes. But even that, when deciding who to make an example of, would you go after business partners who could be swayed (and the US didn't succeed as well as the terrorists themselves!), or a madman who gasses his opponents, I think that Dubya chose the right example. Not that he told anyone that's what he's doing (he ain't no saint), but I don't see it as really that bad of a tactic.
Not necessarily - they're living up to the letter of the law. (The DoJ won't have any problems reading it - they probably use IE anyway.) Contempt of Slashdotters, maybe... :-)
Oddly, perhaps China could be a more realistic comparison point, since it has more dialects than I'd care to count (Mandarin being the official one, with Cantonese being the next largest group, but many, many others being spoken). Perhaps there's a link between too many languages and inability to pull one's country out of the third world?
(For the humour-challenged mods out there, that's supposed to be funny. Not "+1, Funny" funny, but "man, he's a dork" funny.)
What we need is a grand unified desktop API. One where I can call "createIcon()" or "queryIcon()" or "deleteIcon()", etc., to add, query, delete, or otherwise manipulate the user's desktop(s). Trying to support KDE 2, KDE 3, Gnome, and any other potential desktops is impossible. We have a "create icons" tool for our (commercial) product, and of those who have owned the tool, one was fired, two were laid off, and the latest just quit, all in the span of 2 years. That's actually two independant statements, completely unrelated, but it is an interesting fact to me :-)
In short, a common desktop API would be incredibly useful. From a purely commercial standpoint, it would be just as useful to have only one Linux desktop. Personally, I'd love to see the opensource competition that drives each project to become better, but there does need to be some co-operation, just like OOo and KOffice and others are standardising on common XML document formats, making it easier for not only document interchange, but for others to write to the spec. We need that programmability for the desktops, too.
He did. He thought about karma-whoring.
<tongue planted="firmly in cheek" />
When you can get your customers to do your QA for you, why not? Especially when they keep buying from ya.
(Never bought Dell - have two IBM PCs, 5 and 7 years old, still kicking!)
You'd think. But since when have mere facts swayed the opinion of /.ers?
Never attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by ignorance.
In other words, he's not lying, he's blissfully unaware of reality, as his employer has brainwashed him to think this way.
Public financing is intended to encourage all comers to have a say in the future of their country. Theoretically, it should allow those who can't afford to run, but may have valid positions, to run. In reality, it turns into another quagmire of rules and regulations which help perpetuate the two-party system.
To be honest, though, Canada nominally has a 4-party system: Conservative (centre-right), Liberal (centre-left), New Democratic Party (far left), and Bloc Quebecois (left, right, who cares, as long as Quebec is treated as the only province of importance, otherwise we're separating). And the debates, though treated "fairly" among all leaders (each leader gets the same amount of time, plus there is some round-robin debating where it's 1-on-1 between each pair), is of very little interest except for the two main parties: Conservatives and Liberals. The other two leaders are there purely for show, I think.
In some ways, the US debates are better - they focus on the two candidates that 90% of Americans care about.
I do understand how members of other parties feel that this perpetuates the marginalisation of their party. But, as /.ers continually proclaim, free speech also means we're free to ignore you, too.
This is probably a good example of why commercial theoretical advances should be weighted down in considerations for Nobel prizes. Commercial success is already a goal - smart people can make money this way. I think that the encouragement of smart people to make money from Nobel prizes is a good thing - spurring advances in fields which may not see commercial return in the discoverer's lifetime.
Brian Greene is obviously making money on books and TV shows - perhaps not the million or so that a Nobel prize brings, but that's his choice. Probably still more than an average university professor, as the average Nobel prize winner (in the sciences) probably is.
What happened to innocence until proven guilty?
Oh, I see - the car is documenting the evidence. However, the problem is that I paid for the car to do that, and that data needs to be subpoenaed. There still is the concept of non-self-incrimination, too - can law enforcement subpoena your own documentation to incriminate you?
In any organisation with more than two people in it, there will be politics. The more people, the worse it will be. There are steps that management/owners can do to reduce the level of politics, but not eliminate it. Any time you have people competing for something (jobs, bonuses, promotions), there will be politics involved. It's just human nature to try to puff oneself up and/or lower the competition via backstabbing (rumours, false reports, etc.). Even the nicest of us will do some of this - only the truly uncaring will purposefully do it.
Despite the comments above, I would say that even IBM has some - although compared to other similarly sized organisations, it seems to have less than average, in my extremely limited experience. There is a lot of BS, slacking, incompetence, sloppiness, and political maneuvering. But I would say it's more than the inverse of the MS claim: less than 1/10th of the people. Of course, the fact that there have been a few rounds of layoffs in the last few years really helped to trim some of the fat. The problem always is when the fat is already promoted - it's a lot harder to lay off someone who has received promotions. So, I'm sure IBM managed to trim some meat, but definitely has trimmed a fair bit of fat. And this helps keep the politics down - at least at the peon level. The PHBs still have lots to share.
That's fine for places where an expectation of privacy are established. But is driving on the open road such a place? (I'll get flamed for sure with this blatant attempt to get back on topic...)
I really doubt that a warrant will be needed to read this information.
Ok, typically I see people advertisng mods for their iPod, XBox, PS2, or refridgerator, and I shrug thinking I'd never bother doing that.
However, this is quite different. If someone posted mods for their 2006 SAAB, I'd be more than interested in figuring out how to use that to patch my vehicle to become anonymous.
<shudder>
Nah - just write down your password ROT13-encoded. Nigh unbreakable, I tell ya!
I suppose the big question is ... if NASA instead were merely a contracting arm of the goverment which put together specs for tender, would we have gotten further, faster, and cheaper?
And let's not forget the human cost: would we have lost similar or fewer people doing it (safety)?
No, really. I'm serious. This is not intended as a slam against government waste or corporate cost/corner cutting. It's really a question for thought. Is there a middle ground available where we get the same safety, but further/faster/cheaper?
Contractors would need to be able to find ways to compete against others for the research business. There are some things that competition is good for. But, then again, with only one possible customer at the time (NASA), would there be enough competition for those dollars? Now might be a much better time (than, say, the 1950's) to thin out NASA, spin off JPL, and then have NASA merely contract out: the competition will be competing for business from much more than NASA - airlines will be interested in some of this technology, too, I'm sure.
Well, since you asked ...
Seriously, I don't see a problem with GP's idea. Last time I was at Le Louvre, admittedly in the late 80's, the Mona Lisa was behind plexiglass, reflected on two mirrors, and physically located at least a storey away (to me, a grade 9 student at the time, it seemed pretty cool). If it's that important, that's what the museum will do. For whatever reason, The Scream was not priceless enough to warrant this.
Right. But did newsforge really render a legal opinion? They implied it, but one of the <sarcasm>wonderful</sarcasm> things about the law is that they differentiate between what is said (legally binding) and what is left unsaid (ignored) but heavily implied.
In other interpretations of "definitive", if Jem is an expert in the technical aspects of the dispute, then a proclamation of "definitive" is just a pompous way of saying "I'm absolutely sure of myself."
In my (pompous) opinion, I think that Jem should have shown more professional restraint in choosing the terms used in the essay. More fuel for the fire was spread than fact, and I think there was a fair bit of fact there. A bit more calm would have produced the same information with a lot less useless bickering.