Actually it's quite easy, don't let them move on a grade or give them a diploma. Then call the cops because the kid isn't in school for grade 4 cause he didn't pass grade 3. Make the parents responsible. If they can't be responsible enough for the book then what the hell are they doing with a child?
Actually if you read what the foundation wrote, you will see that they did so well in large donations that they would loose their charity status which they want to keep. So they are asking for lots of smaller donations.
PS: if I read the ballance sheet right they have about $200K in the bank. Hardly poorly managed
There is a simple answer to that. If there is a text book that doesn't last 3 years, one of three people owes the state the cost of a new replacement book for the damage they did to state property.
This is not a "military funded system". This is a US government funded system that the US Military has been given reasonable influence over for obvious reasons. There is nothing lucky about my being able to use a system I paid for. It is non US citizens who should be lucky they can use it, however, quite frankly, I am happy to give the rest of the world a free ride on the system.
If you think the US wouldn't ask the EU to turn off Gallileo first you are an idiot. The question is what does the US do after they've asked and the EU has turned them down? Answer: evaluate the harm to the US-EU relationship (which is extremely important) in the context of the present need, and if necessary take down Gallileo. As for the me and only me attitude; this is what I can't stand about Europeans. They never seem to understand that it takes two to Tango. Why, if we ask you to do something and you don't, is the failure of the relationship our fault? Answer it's not! America has got a lot of problems, but this is one European habit that really ticks me off.
Um, you may not understand how the system works, you see the president only proposes a budget (and legally he isn't even required to do that). Then it goes to the congress which under Reagan and Bush I were both Democratically controlled. It is the legislature which controls the purse strings in the US system, not the President. Further Clinton was the only one of the 3 to have a congress controlled by his own party. Plus (as if that weren't enough)Reagan and Bush I didn't even have the line item veto so there was little they could do but sign or veto a bill altogether.
All this is great, but who makes a 4 port 11g wireless router that supports IPv6 (nativly, not via 6to4 or some such thing.) My ISP (SpeakEasy.net) has been saying (for several months) that they are going to roll out IPv6 RSN, but I don't think my dlink 624 supports it.
First, often the papers can't be accessed online because of contractual requirements the journal places on the author, after all the journal own the copyright on the article. And authors may not want to diseminate their raw data to critics or competitors for obvious reasons.
Second, neither the authors or the journal should be required to publish on the web, but they should be required to submit the to the government so IT can publish it.
Thrid, the journal doesn't really encure that much cost "preparing" the article, the author creates the article, often for no monetary renumeration, it the LaTex (or word) style handed out by the journal, and the "peer review" is usually performed free by others in the community.
You bring up an interesting point, but one that is completely orthogonal to the discussion at hand. Charging money for the results doesn't prevent other governments from reaping the benefit of the research, it only makes them pay an insignificant fee for it. While the danger you point is real, charging money for journal articles will have absolutely no effect on foreign governments getting their hands on the information, and I would suggest that the possible economic harm is far out weighed by the return from having this information out their for our citizens to use.
Nope, it shouldn't but the rocket is a scarse resource. If you have it, then I can't, however, this isn't true of a paper. If the government makes a rocket, using public money, then I ought to be able to look at the plans and build my own if I so choose, with out having to pay anyone.
Look we have entered an era where the marginal cost of reporducing information has, as a practical matter, dropped to zero. These journal articles are probably in PDF format somewhere in along the publication chain, how burdensome is it to email a copy to a central repository run by the government so that, for instance, the GPO (Government Printing Office) can make the document available on line free of charge? I would gladly divert some of my tax money from the NEA and NPR so the government could run a website and hire a dozen archivist to organize and put online all papers and information it payed for.
OMG! Of course the people pay those taxes. Who do you think owns those corporations? People DUH! And who do you think is paying those sales taxes? I know when I bought my car that no one stepped forward and payed the sales tax for me, I had to. US tax payers pay for the bond debt in addition to the other expenditures.
As for all those cool inventions: I sure as hell would like to think that we could have gotten Tang and Velcro for a lot less than the billions of dollars that landing a man on the moon cost us!
Don't get me wrong I am sure we got much more out of the space program than Tang and Velcro, but if the goal is to invent cool stuff, then lets pay to invent cool stuff. If the goal is to do science, lets do science. But you want to take the resources of the tax payers from them and use it do something, you owe it to them to do it in the most efficent manner possible thereby taking from them the least amount of resources.
Personally I think the problem is a lack of mission statement (or perhaps we just don't all agree on what it is.) What is the mission of NASA? Is it science? Is it technology? Is it lifting the human spirit? Pick one (or advocate your own) and lets have a debate over what it should be. Once you do that, the rest falls into place naturally.
That's great, but when you are going to take my money at gun point, (and that's what taxes are) you damn well better have a better reason than "I need some adventure in my life." You need some adventure, go sky diving, or swim with sharks, but pay for it yourself. Don't ask the force the rest of us to. Otherwise where does it end? I need some music? I need some art? What about if I need some porn?
Sure there is a lot you can learn from putting a man in space, and maybe even more than if you use a robot, but my guess is that what you learn from X dollars spent on a robot in space is vastly greater than what you get from X dollars spent on a man in space. And really that ought to be the standard: what is the most efficent way to get the knowledge. Show me it can't be done by a robot, and then we'll talk about putting a man in space.
No we would most definitly go nuclear, do you think for a minute that the America public would stand for wasting American lives trying to take a country half way around the world that had *ALREADY* nuked us? Hell no, we would nuke them back. Now if they start out conventionall that is a different story.
NOTE: I am making no claim as to if this would be a morally just course of action, only stating what *would* happen
One of the basic rules of cryptography is that you NEVER encrypt the same thing with different keys.
I thought it was never get into a land war in Asia, and only slightly less famous is never get into a battle of witts with a Sicillian when death is on the line.
Yes but who cares? I don't want driver source code, I want chipset specs, so I can write my own. There is no issue with patents for chipset specs unless the patent license EXPLICITLY disallows specs being published. There is no reason to do this, as it's a patent, the patent has to be published in the first place so there is nothing to be gained.
Reasoning by analogy is a poor way to go and it isn't really the issue. The issue is that Justices have used the "reasonable man" test coupled with the "expectation of privacy" standard for many years now to slowly squeeze our pivacy rights. Now a case comes up where the "reasonable man" (sysadmins are not reasonable men, your granny or your mom are) clearly has an "expectation of privacy" (most of em don't now how mail is sent much less that you store their email on your machines, and they probably couldn't read it even if they had the password to your machines) Live by the sword, die by the sword. If "the expectation of privacy by the reasonable man" is the standard then lets live by it and over turn this decision. If it isn't then fine, lets go back and revisit all those other decisions where we mistakenly thought it was.
I get worried any time anyone sais obviously blah. Because things aren't obvious to others, thats the whole reason you are making an argument. If they agreed with you, you wouldn't be talking. Obviously they are just avoiding making an argument since they know the one they have doesn't hold water.
Read the whole article my friend. While 2 MBytes may not be much it is plenty for many embedded applications, plus its fabed in.18 Micron CMOS which means the.13 Micron versions probably have 8 Mbytes, and it only uses 3 metal layers, which in an age of 8 metal layer chips should mean good yeilds which means low costs. It seems to use a fairly standard CMOS process which means it will be able to leverage all the general CMOS improvements. It uses less operating power than DRAM, has faster cycle times than FLASH and being magnetic, I am guessing is non-volatile. Plus this isn't a commerical product yet, they said clearly they still have a long way to go in reducing size before then. All in all it actually sounds pretty good. I look forward to the day when all memory is non-volatile, I think we will find that it will change the way we design and look at products.
Bullshit: as soon as you said "however" there was a restriction. You may think it a benign restriction; harmless in its effect but it is a restriction none the less. With out expressing an opinion on the GPL itself, I wish the pro-GPLers would stop saying that the GPL is not restrictive. It is! It may have fewer than other licenses and they may or may not be less odious but there are still restrictions and so, qualitatively, is no different than any other license. If you want to relase software with out restriction use the public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
She was not forced to do anything. Something was done with out her knowledge or consent. They two are not the same.
But some how, someone sitting on their butt telling someone else how fix something they aren't willing to even help fix themselves is?
Actually it's quite easy, don't let them move on a grade or give them a diploma. Then call the cops because the kid isn't in school for grade 4 cause he didn't pass grade 3. Make the parents responsible. If they can't be responsible enough for the book then what the hell are they doing with a child?
Actually if you read what the foundation wrote, you will see that they did so well in large donations that they would loose their charity status which they want to keep. So they are asking for lots of smaller donations.
PS: if I read the ballance sheet right they have about $200K in the bank. Hardly poorly managed
There is a simple answer to that. If there is a text book that doesn't last 3 years, one of three people owes the state the cost of a new replacement book for the damage they did to state property.
This is not a "military funded system". This is a US government funded system that the US Military has been given reasonable influence over for obvious reasons. There is nothing lucky about my being able to use a system I paid for. It is non US citizens who should be lucky they can use it, however, quite frankly, I am happy to give the rest of the world a free ride on the system.
If you think the US wouldn't ask the EU to turn off Gallileo first you are an idiot. The question is what does the US do after they've asked and the EU has turned them down? Answer: evaluate the harm to the US-EU relationship (which is extremely important) in the context of the present need, and if necessary take down Gallileo. As for the me and only me attitude; this is what I can't stand about Europeans. They never seem to understand that it takes two to Tango. Why, if we ask you to do something and you don't, is the failure of the relationship our fault? Answer it's not! America has got a lot of problems, but this is one European habit that really ticks me off.
This is an awesomely usefull piece of software and incredibly well done and complete.
Um, you may not understand how the system works, you see the president only proposes a budget (and legally he isn't even required to do that). Then it goes to the congress which under Reagan and Bush I were both Democratically controlled. It is the legislature which controls the purse strings in the US system, not the President. Further Clinton was the only one of the 3 to have a congress controlled by his own party. Plus (as if that weren't enough)Reagan and Bush I didn't even have the line item veto so there was little they could do but sign or veto a bill altogether.
All this is great, but who makes a 4 port 11g wireless router that supports IPv6 (nativly, not via 6to4 or some such thing.) My ISP (SpeakEasy.net) has been saying (for several months) that they are going to roll out IPv6 RSN, but I don't think my dlink 624 supports it.
I disagree, they should pay you the salary for the new job you got and are not allowed to take.
Second, neither the authors or the journal should be required to publish on the web, but they should be required to submit the to the government so IT can publish it.
Thrid, the journal doesn't really encure that much cost "preparing" the article, the author creates the article, often for no monetary renumeration, it the LaTex (or word) style handed out by the journal, and the "peer review" is usually performed free by others in the community.
You bring up an interesting point, but one that is completely orthogonal to the discussion at hand. Charging money for the results doesn't prevent other governments from reaping the benefit of the research, it only makes them pay an insignificant fee for it. While the danger you point is real, charging money for journal articles will have absolutely no effect on foreign governments getting their hands on the information, and I would suggest that the possible economic harm is far out weighed by the return from having this information out their for our citizens to use.
Look we have entered an era where the marginal cost of reporducing information has, as a practical matter, dropped to zero. These journal articles are probably in PDF format somewhere in along the publication chain, how burdensome is it to email a copy to a central repository run by the government so that, for instance, the GPO (Government Printing Office) can make the document available on line free of charge? I would gladly divert some of my tax money from the NEA and NPR so the government could run a website and hire a dozen archivist to organize and put online all papers and information it payed for.
OMG! Of course the people pay those taxes. Who do you think owns those corporations? People DUH! And who do you think is paying those sales taxes? I know when I bought my car that no one stepped forward and payed the sales tax for me, I had to. US tax payers pay for the bond debt in addition to the other expenditures.
As for all those cool inventions: I sure as hell would like to think that we could have gotten Tang and Velcro for a lot less than the billions of dollars that landing a man on the moon cost us!
Don't get me wrong I am sure we got much more out of the space program than Tang and Velcro, but if the goal is to invent cool stuff, then lets pay to invent cool stuff. If the goal is to do science, lets do science. But you want to take the resources of the tax payers from them and use it do something, you owe it to them to do it in the most efficent manner possible thereby taking from them the least amount of resources.
Personally I think the problem is a lack of mission statement (or perhaps we just don't all agree on what it is.) What is the mission of NASA? Is it science? Is it technology? Is it lifting the human spirit? Pick one (or advocate your own) and lets have a debate over what it should be. Once you do that, the rest falls into place naturally.
That's great, but when you are going to take my money at gun point, (and that's what taxes are) you damn well better have a better reason than "I need some adventure in my life." You need some adventure, go sky diving, or swim with sharks, but pay for it yourself. Don't ask the force the rest of us to. Otherwise where does it end? I need some music? I need some art? What about if I need some porn?
Sure there is a lot you can learn from putting a man in space, and maybe even more than if you use a robot, but my guess is that what you learn from X dollars spent on a robot in space is vastly greater than what you get from X dollars spent on a man in space. And really that ought to be the standard: what is the most efficent way to get the knowledge. Show me it can't be done by a robot, and then we'll talk about putting a man in space.
No we would most definitly go nuclear, do you think for a minute that the America public would stand for wasting American lives trying to take a country half way around the world that had *ALREADY* nuked us? Hell no, we would nuke them back. Now if they start out conventionall that is a different story.
NOTE: I am making no claim as to if this would be a morally just course of action, only stating what *would* happen
What was the problem with the old NTPd? I thought it was open source.
One of the basic rules of cryptography is that you NEVER encrypt the same thing with different keys.
I thought it was never get into a land war in Asia, and only slightly less famous is never get into a battle of witts with a Sicillian when death is on the line.
Yes but who cares? I don't want driver source code, I want chipset specs, so I can write my own. There is no issue with patents for chipset specs unless the patent license EXPLICITLY disallows specs being published. There is no reason to do this, as it's a patent, the patent has to be published in the first place so there is nothing to be gained.
Reasoning by analogy is a poor way to go and it isn't really the issue. The issue is that Justices have used the "reasonable man" test coupled with the "expectation of privacy" standard for many years now to slowly squeeze our pivacy rights. Now a case comes up where the "reasonable man" (sysadmins are not reasonable men, your granny or your mom are) clearly has an "expectation of privacy" (most of em don't now how mail is sent much less that you store their email on your machines, and they probably couldn't read it even if they had the password to your machines)
Live by the sword, die by the sword. If "the expectation of privacy by the reasonable man" is the standard then lets live by it and over turn this decision. If it isn't then fine, lets go back and revisit all those other decisions where we mistakenly thought it was.
I get worried any time anyone sais obviously blah. Because things aren't obvious to others, thats the whole reason you are making an argument. If they agreed with you, you wouldn't be talking. Obviously they are just avoiding making an argument since they know the one they have doesn't hold water.
Read the whole article my friend. While 2 MBytes may not be much it is plenty for many embedded applications, plus its fabed in .18 Micron CMOS which means the .13 Micron versions probably have 8 Mbytes, and it only uses 3 metal layers, which in an age of 8 metal layer chips should mean good yeilds which means low costs. It seems to use a fairly standard CMOS process which means it will be able to leverage all the general CMOS improvements. It uses less operating power than DRAM, has faster cycle times than FLASH and being magnetic, I am guessing is non-volatile. Plus this isn't a commerical product yet, they said clearly they still have a long way to go in reducing size before then. All in all it actually sounds pretty good. I look forward to the day when all memory is non-volatile, I think we will find that it will change the way we design and look at products.
Given the number of sources cited as incorrect, I wonder, how do you know that the answer you gave is correct and that the others are wrong?
Bullshit: as soon as you said "however" there was a restriction. You may think it a benign restriction; harmless in its effect but it is a restriction none the less. With out expressing an opinion on the GPL itself, I wish the pro-GPLers would stop saying that the GPL is not restrictive. It is! It may have fewer than other licenses and they may or may not be less odious but there are still restrictions and so, qualitatively, is no different than any other license. If you want to relase software with out restriction use the public domain.