Talking about universal health care is what got this discussion so far off-topic (glad to see my parent get modded Offtopic, but all the others got some high scores?!) I thought the real story is why it's so expensive to repair Hubble, not what the war is costing us. Go to politics section and rant about chem trails and Bush if you must! GOSH!
The real story is that Hubble was too good at what it did. It was too good and needed to be terminated. See, the illuminati didn't want anyone to see the alien invasion force maneuvering into position behind the rings of Antares. Reliable sources indicate that the human traitors will 'milk the cow' till the last moment before invasion. The traitors who hid the aliens existence from the public will be completely disappointed when they find out they are a section of the buffet. But this happens almost everyday according to Men In Black. And my reliable source was a three-shot margarita and un cerveza. So don't quote me, quote my beer.
My first Wikipedia.org entry... If only a slight addition.
Added: The Van Allen radiation belt has been incorrectly referred to as the "Van Halen" radiation belt. A simple web search may reveal multiple, published errors.
What about flying cars being used in the future? Will traditional highways even be used if a cheap and nearly foolproof flying car is introduced? A VW Bug flying car..?
"It's strictly one of attitude - are we focused on moralism and changing peoples' thoughts (free software) or on results and changing peoples' behavior (open source)?
It's not a question of attitude at all. Attitude is determined by the past experiences of the individual. From what I've studied in psychology, a person's underlying behavior will only change if the thought patterns change. For thought patterns to change, there has to be an incentive. Change in behavior will ultimately follow if the new thoughts persist long enough.
But the original post mentioned 'moralism' - therefore, it sounds like the author is alleging the question, "Does free/open-source software versus stolen software change people's attitudes toward the usability of free/open-source software?" Stolen software has to be part of this equation because moralism has nothing to do with free/open-source software. Unless you are illegally bundling/distributing code or binaries. Without the moralism check, we can assume that a larger percentage of people will steal software because of the one underlying notion that 'something that is free isn't really that good.' Sayings like 'Nothing is free' and 'Everything has a price' are part of our consumer culture. Case in point, I lost a bid for developing a large corporate website. The reason: I bid 2/3 below the largest bidder! They ultimately won because the board members felt the higher price was going to bring better quality because it cost more. How many people pay for 'quality' when they purchase something based on the label/manufacturer? Are those Nike sneakers really that much better than they were 10 years ago? Is that Mercedes better now that Chrysler bought them? Or that Gucci handbag made in Malaysia?
With time, all empires fall, and some notions, too. Given enough time, some software packages become bloated and less functional (M$ Office) while other become more nimble (Blender.) I believe this is the future for free and open-source software to eventually dominate, however I still don't make much of a distinction between them. From what I see, all software has a license to use it. Almost every consumer product has directions or limitations of use (Take two pills every four hours for pain not exceeding 10 pills in one 24 hour period.) If I see any distinction between free and open-source, one gives you the binary while the other gives you the source.
For people's attitudes to change about free/open-source software, they have to feel like they are getting that bargain. It's about changing the rooted perspective 'that which is 'free' is not without consequence.'
The root of this problem may be because of the publishers of open-source software. Some projects are more relaxed than others when it comes to their development and maintenance pace. Support may be non-existent, and documentation and interfaces are usually not well thought out. They also don't have megabucks for wide media exposure so their product is not widely known. A person who does discover a free/OS solution may eventually opt to pay for corporate software ultimately because of support. Look at how corporations have bent to take the believability away from free/OS software; dropping prices, reduced versions of flagship products, extended support. Microsoft offering Asia a stripped version of Windows and Photoshop Elements for $99 are two examples of Linux and GIMP winning.
I could understand someone in the mid-90's using Microsoft's free browser versus paying Netscape for theirs. Microsoft hadn't yet established themselves for consistently building poor software. Many are finally discovering that Firefox is a wonderful, free alternative to an addled IE. I seriously doubt the newest open-source adopters make any distinction between free and open-source software. They weren't part of the process that shaped that software. Given time, they may use it, come to like it enough to become part of the process eventually offering the development team feature suggestions and bug comments. That is the behavior change needed to make open-source software the dominate player in the world.
One word can explain what is wrong... and this constant hasn't changed since we became 'civilized' and continues to be the birth of all problems...
Greed.
When it all boils down, the fact remains that one person will feel that he/she is more entitled to resources than another person. This becomes the root of all conflicts. People are ultimately only resources to be used like energy or materials. The wars of the future (it's here already) are going to be fought in the minds of those people.
Tenet claims that "Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited to those who can show they take security seriously."
Mods, please note that I didn't have time to read through all 721+ submissions, so sorry if someone already worked out this backward logic, BUT..... shouldn't access to the web be limited to those who show they _can't_ take security seriously?
Or, is this a two-sided statement really meaning that those who are smart enough to bypass security, á la Kevin Mitnick, will be limited to what they can do and be monitored every time they have contact with 'technology?'
Kind of off-topic, but a search feature that allows searching within submissions related to that specific story would save me some time and help avoid being redundant.
Former doesn't mean that he doesn't have influence anymore. After all, Kissinger and Bush Sr. are still kicking in the background with their old chums that started this NWO dream in the 50s. They still have massive influence.
Personally, I don't believe that this could ever happen. There is just too much to be lost by the private sector (meaning that all actions distill down to $$$.)
Also, I haven't seen anyone mention that this is the CIA we're talking about here. They can't enforce policy like that --they can't even operate in the U.S.A. -- that's the NSA and FBI's job to do. Plus, their credibility is severely lacking after all the false intelligence from Iraq.
Commuter Cars Company was featured as having a pretty sweet little car called the Tango. They claim that it will do 0-60 in 4 seconds (better than most high-end sports cars), will finish a standing 1/4 mile in 12 seconds @120 MPH. On top of this, it is electric, not hybrid. On top of that, it will go 80 miles before needing a recharge. A 10 minute charge from a 400 amp feed will charge it for 50 miles (80% full) whereas a full charge is achieved in less than three hours.
Check out the movie of the Tango cornering on a closed track. Very impressive!
We recently got rid of the Niesen 'box' in the house I live in. We had four roommates when we started and they didn't really participate. We also know that we are in the two most difficult groups to market to (young women and 25-35 year-old men - yeah, you read that right!) - yet, Nielsen didn't really pay much attention us. I remember a friend who was also doing the survey and he said that they would call his house if they weren't sticking to pressing the 'confirm button' on what looked like antiquated gear (circa 1970's) - the box wold start flashing all of it's lights in a crazed pattern if the person who changed the TV channel didn't also confirm the change with the Nielsen remote. One day, the Nielsen rep came to their door with $50 asking them nicely to be more diligent participants. He did that every month for about three months since they kept it up. At the beginning, they gave us $200 and paid for the monthly land-line phone fee (for their equipment to talk to the local server.)
All of the experience made me curious. I wondered why it took them so long to switch to something more hi-tech. Cable boxes have been out since the 70's. I remember watching Jaws on HBO when I was a kid. We could have easily been a Nielsen house then if they got wise earlier. We didn't give them any useful information in the hopes they would come back to us and say 'it's so important for our statistic pool, here's another $200.'
They never did. We did get Dish with a DVR so that was a great reason to ditch the 'UFO' that roosted on our TV.
One thing they did do was break our VCR when they opened it up to install their sensing equipment. They replaced it with a new one, and then, when they packed up, they gave us a new one in the box because the technician needed to install it at a new house. I think it was refurbished because there was a sticker on the plastic inside that said 'Do Not Return To Retailer' - maybe Nielsen gets them in bulk.
We probably gave them more bunk data than usable. In the end, I guess I'd have to say that we came out on top because I didn't own a VCR with stereo inputs until they came along.
Their price is not only ridiculous, it's outright scandalous.
This is true. The price they charge versus the problems it creates with every update versus the 'new features' it offers make it horribly overpriced.
Contrast that price with Mac OS X's yearly price tag, and I see a lot more value from Apple. Sure, many Mac owners bitch at the $129 price tag, but with every iteration, the OS is more feature-rich, and more stable.
What I just don't get... How can a company with $50,000,000 in the bank and access to the finest minds in the world continually make such contrived crap? It's horribly obvious that they try (unsuccessfully) to imitate the Mac since its birth. But, I ask, WHY can't they take a slogan from Nike's page and "Just do it?"
It's the inappropriate use of certain words that condemn groups of people.
Russia was never a Communist state. They were Socialist. The media mislabeled them and Communism has a stain on it for the rest of history. So, is there something synonymous between being a programmer and a hacker? Yes.
However, are people who make 'questionable' applications (like good worms that destroy bad worms) going to be ostracized in the future because of their non-corporate or anti-corporate actions, or simply because no corporation they are attached to didn't react faster to a market/solution?
And think what the girls would think when they read your business card;-) You'd have it made when you're just the 'Assistant Computer Infrastructure Practitioner" - some may even think you're some kind of 'computer' doctor!
Hope this isn't redundant,
So, I went to the first link mentioned and nothing. I'm thinking/. effect is taking place, just come back later... so I do, and what do I see, but a VB script error. No story.
Here's a link I found on Google to the story on another site - all africa.com
VB script error? Man, I'm just going to shake my head and get some sleep.
"...and replaced all there unix systems with NT ones only to downgrade back to unix."
Don't you mean UPgrade back to UNIX;)
How you phrased it sounds like something an ad executive would say about Microsoft products vs the competition.
Hey, you're not an ad exec parading around as a *NIX user trying to find out what the/. crowd thinks, are you? Trying to dream up some new strategies to befuddle even the most intelligent people, are you?:D
Gee... not to sound like I know it all, but isn't it logical to assume that, even in small amounts, pollution kills. Isn't this the very reason health-conscious people take anti-oxidants - to help the body remove 'free radicals'? Free radicals, for those of you who haven't any knowledge of nutritional/environmental terms, are components that interfere or completely disrupt cellular activity, e.g., carbon monoxide, lead, PCBs, radioactivity and other carcinogens.
I would assume that all people who wish to live a healthy life (for without health, life is a constant struggle) remove all of the free radicals that propagate the very pollution that we are breathing.
The 'free radicals' that I am referring to are the very ones who follow the mantra of greed, not the commitment to think about the future. Those people are the politicians - the auto makers - OPEC - corporate America, need I say more...
Yes, I do need to say more. I don't own a car. I sacrifice by riding in the rain and snow. I am not lazy, but more often I have felt like a really expensive air purifier. I have to remember that not everyone is lazy and drives 20 feet to get their mail, however there are a great many people whose reliance on the auto has become too much. It's time (and I don't want this to sound cliche) for all of you who feel any iota of responsibility to stand up and demand that governments (city, county, state, and federal) do something to make the quality of life better. Vote for those representatives who endorse recycling and mass transit. Don't vote for amendments that increase money for bigger and better highways.
Here in Colorado our air has been the worst I have ever seen it in my life. Everyone drives and this is the main cause of the 'brown cloud' that used to be the domain of only Denver, but now stretches from as far north as Cheyenne, WY and as far south as Pueblo, CO!
Not to sound like such a dork, because these matters are usually the 'Holy Grail' of worthwhile causes for extreme activists, but greed is the monster behind the problem. Greed is the very center of the problems that Wall Street has been having lately. Think about greed and you. And then think about how greed has changed you. Are you searching for a successful future. If 'yes,' then how do you define success.
I could go on, but it is time for me to bicycle home so I can eat some lunch.
Slashdot Mirror
Talking about universal health care is what got this discussion so far off-topic (glad to see my parent get modded Offtopic, but all the others got some high scores?!) I thought the real story is why it's so expensive to repair Hubble, not what the war is costing us. Go to politics section and rant about chem trails and Bush if you must! GOSH!
The real story is that Hubble was too good at what it did. It was too good and needed to be terminated. See, the illuminati didn't want anyone to see the alien invasion force maneuvering into position behind the rings of Antares. Reliable sources indicate that the human traitors will 'milk the cow' till the last moment before invasion. The traitors who hid the aliens existence from the public will be completely disappointed when they find out they are a section of the buffet. But this happens almost everyday according to Men In Black. And my reliable source was a three-shot margarita and un cerveza. So don't quote me, quote my beer.
My first Wikipedia.org entry... If only a slight addition.
Added: The Van Allen radiation belt has been incorrectly referred to as the "Van Halen" radiation belt. A simple web search may reveal multiple, published errors.
thanks slashdot for getting me more involved!
What about flying cars being used in the future? Will traditional highways even be used if a cheap and nearly foolproof flying car is introduced? A VW Bug flying car..?
What does our government have against people named Kevin?
"It's strictly one of attitude - are we focused on moralism and changing peoples' thoughts (free software) or on results and changing peoples' behavior (open source)?
It's not a question of attitude at all. Attitude is determined by the past experiences of the individual. From what I've studied in psychology, a person's underlying behavior will only change if the thought patterns change. For thought patterns to change, there has to be an incentive. Change in behavior will ultimately follow if the new thoughts persist long enough.
But the original post mentioned 'moralism' - therefore, it sounds like the author is alleging the question, "Does free/open-source software versus stolen software change people's attitudes toward the usability of free/open-source software?"
Stolen software has to be part of this equation because moralism has nothing to do with free/open-source software. Unless you are illegally bundling/distributing code or binaries.
Without the moralism check, we can assume that a larger percentage of people will steal software because of the one underlying notion that 'something that is free isn't really that good.'
Sayings like 'Nothing is free' and 'Everything has a price' are part of our consumer culture. Case in point, I lost a bid for developing a large corporate website. The reason: I bid 2/3 below the largest bidder! They ultimately won because the board members felt the higher price was going to bring better quality because it cost more. How many people pay for 'quality' when they purchase something based on the label/manufacturer? Are those Nike sneakers really that much better than they were 10 years ago? Is that Mercedes better now that Chrysler bought them? Or that Gucci handbag made in Malaysia?
With time, all empires fall, and some notions, too. Given enough time, some software packages become bloated and less functional (M$ Office) while other become more nimble (Blender.) I believe this is the future for free and open-source software to eventually dominate, however I still don't make much of a distinction between them. From what I see, all software has a license to use it. Almost every consumer product has directions or limitations of use (Take two pills every four hours for pain not exceeding 10 pills in one 24 hour period.)
If I see any distinction between free and open-source, one gives you the binary while the other gives you the source.
For people's attitudes to change about free/open-source software, they have to feel like they are getting that bargain. It's about changing the rooted perspective 'that which is 'free' is not without consequence.'
The root of this problem may be because of the publishers of open-source software. Some projects are more relaxed than others when it comes to their development and maintenance pace. Support may be non-existent, and documentation and interfaces are usually not well thought out. They also don't have megabucks for wide media exposure so their product is not widely known. A person who does discover a free/OS solution may eventually opt to pay for corporate software ultimately because of support. Look at how corporations have bent to take the believability away from free/OS software; dropping prices, reduced versions of flagship products, extended support. Microsoft offering Asia a stripped version of Windows and Photoshop Elements for $99 are two examples of Linux and GIMP winning.
I could understand someone in the mid-90's using Microsoft's free browser versus paying Netscape for theirs. Microsoft hadn't yet established themselves for consistently building poor software. Many are finally discovering that Firefox is a wonderful, free alternative to an addled IE. I seriously doubt the newest open-source adopters make any distinction between free and open-source software.
They weren't part of the process that shaped that software. Given time, they may use it, come to like it enough to become part of the process eventually offering the development team feature suggestions and bug comments. That is the behavior change needed to make open-source software the dominate player in the world.
The parachutes are stored behind the rear seats in small planes and fired with a rocket through the rear windshield.
:^) I hope Santa brought you all the techno-goodies you wanted!
What plane has a rear windshield? I hope there's fire extinguishers handy because that rocket may singe the back of your head!
Oh yes, Happy Holiday Session to all Slashdotters
One word can explain what is wrong... and this constant hasn't changed since we became 'civilized' and continues to be the birth of all problems...
Greed.
When it all boils down, the fact remains that one person will feel that he/she is more entitled to resources than another person. This becomes the root of all conflicts. People are ultimately only resources to be used like energy or materials. The wars of the future (it's here already) are going to be fought in the minds of those people.
Tenet claims that "Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited to those who can show they take security seriously."
Mods, please note that I didn't have time to read through all 721+ submissions, so sorry if someone already worked out this backward logic, BUT..... shouldn't access to the web be limited to those who show they _can't_ take security seriously?
Or, is this a two-sided statement really meaning that those who are smart enough to bypass security, á la Kevin Mitnick, will be limited to what they can do and be monitored every time they have contact with 'technology?'
Kind of off-topic, but a search feature that allows searching within submissions related to that specific story would save me some time and help avoid being redundant.
Former doesn't mean that he doesn't have influence anymore. After all, Kissinger and Bush Sr. are still kicking in the background with their old chums that started this NWO dream in the 50s. They still have massive influence.
Personally, I don't believe that this could ever happen. There is just too much to be lost by the private sector (meaning that all actions distill down to $$$.)
Also, I haven't seen anyone mention that this is the CIA we're talking about here. They can't enforce policy like that --they can't even operate in the U.S.A. -- that's the NSA and FBI's job to do. Plus, their credibility is severely lacking after all the false intelligence from Iraq.
Commuter Cars Company was featured as having a pretty sweet little car called the Tango. They claim that it will do 0-60 in 4 seconds (better than most high-end sports cars), will finish a standing 1/4 mile in 12 seconds @120 MPH. On top of this, it is electric, not hybrid. On top of that, it will go 80 miles before needing a recharge. A 10 minute charge from a 400 amp feed will charge it for 50 miles (80% full) whereas a full charge is achieved in less than three hours. Check out the movie of the Tango cornering on a closed track. Very impressive!
We recently got rid of the Niesen 'box' in the house I live in. We had four roommates when we started and they didn't really participate. We also know that we are in the two most difficult groups to market to (young women and 25-35 year-old men - yeah, you read that right!) - yet, Nielsen didn't really pay much attention us. I remember a friend who was also doing the survey and he said that they would call his house if they weren't sticking to pressing the 'confirm button' on what looked like antiquated gear (circa 1970's) - the box wold start flashing all of it's lights in a crazed pattern if the person who changed the TV channel didn't also confirm the change with the Nielsen remote. One day, the Nielsen rep came to their door with $50 asking them nicely to be more diligent participants. He did that every month for about three months since they kept it up. At the beginning, they gave us $200 and paid for the monthly land-line phone fee (for their equipment to talk to the local server.)
All of the experience made me curious. I wondered why it took them so long to switch to something more hi-tech. Cable boxes have been out since the 70's. I remember watching Jaws on HBO when I was a kid. We could have easily been a Nielsen house then if they got wise earlier. We didn't give them any useful information in the hopes they would come back to us and say 'it's so important for our statistic pool, here's another $200.'
They never did. We did get Dish with a DVR so that was a great reason to ditch the 'UFO' that roosted on our TV.
One thing they did do was break our VCR when they opened it up to install their sensing equipment. They replaced it with a new one, and then, when they packed up, they gave us a new one in the box because the technician needed to install it at a new house. I think it was refurbished because there was a sticker on the plastic inside that said 'Do Not Return To Retailer' - maybe Nielsen gets them in bulk.
We probably gave them more bunk data than usable. In the end, I guess I'd have to say that we came out on top because I didn't own a VCR with stereo inputs until they came along.
Their price is not only ridiculous, it's outright scandalous.
This is true. The price they charge versus the problems it creates with every update versus the 'new features' it offers make it horribly overpriced.
Contrast that price with Mac OS X's yearly price tag, and I see a lot more value from Apple. Sure, many Mac owners bitch at the $129 price tag, but with every iteration, the OS is more feature-rich, and more stable.
What I just don't get... How can a company with $50,000,000 in the bank and access to the finest minds in the world continually make such contrived crap? It's horribly obvious that they try (unsuccessfully) to imitate the Mac since its birth. But, I ask, WHY can't they take a slogan from Nike's page and "Just do it?"
"Or would you be OK with your employer deciding that your services are overpriced..." It seems like a lot of employers are deciding just that:
How about Programmers?
It's the inappropriate use of certain words that condemn groups of people.
Russia was never a Communist state. They were Socialist. The media mislabeled them and Communism has a stain on it for the rest of history. So, is there something synonymous between being a programmer and a hacker? Yes.
However, are people who make 'questionable' applications (like good worms that destroy bad worms) going to be ostracized in the future because of their non-corporate or anti-corporate actions, or simply because no corporation they are attached to didn't react faster to a market/solution?
And think what the girls would think when they read your business card ;-) You'd have it made when you're just the 'Assistant Computer Infrastructure Practitioner" - some may even think you're some kind of 'computer' doctor!
Hope this isn't redundant, So, I went to the first link mentioned and nothing. I'm thinking /. effect is taking place, just come back later... so I do, and what do I see, but a VB script error. No story.
Here's a link I found on Google to the story on another site - all africa.com
VB script error? Man, I'm just going to shake my head and get some sleep.
"...and replaced all there unix systems with NT ones only to downgrade back to unix."
;)
/. crowd thinks, are you? Trying to dream up some new strategies to befuddle even the most intelligent people, are you? :D
Don't you mean UPgrade back to UNIX
How you phrased it sounds like something an ad executive would say about Microsoft products vs the competition.
Hey, you're not an ad exec parading around as a *NIX user trying to find out what the
Gee... not to sound like I know it all, but isn't it logical to assume that, even in small amounts, pollution kills. Isn't this the very reason health-conscious people take anti-oxidants - to help the body remove 'free radicals'? Free radicals, for those of you who haven't any knowledge of nutritional/environmental terms, are components that interfere or completely disrupt cellular activity, e.g., carbon monoxide, lead, PCBs, radioactivity and other carcinogens.
I would assume that all people who wish to live a healthy life (for without health, life is a constant struggle) remove all of the free radicals that propagate the very pollution that we are breathing.
The 'free radicals' that I am referring to are the very ones who follow the mantra of greed, not the commitment to think about the future. Those people are the politicians - the auto makers - OPEC - corporate America, need I say more...
Yes, I do need to say more. I don't own a car. I sacrifice by riding in the rain and snow. I am not lazy, but more often I have felt like a really expensive air purifier. I have to remember that not everyone is lazy and drives 20 feet to get their mail, however there are a great many people whose reliance on the auto has become too much. It's time (and I don't want this to sound cliche) for all of you who feel any iota of responsibility to stand up and demand that governments (city, county, state, and federal) do something to make the quality of life better. Vote for those representatives who endorse recycling and mass transit. Don't vote for amendments that increase money for bigger and better highways.
Here in Colorado our air has been the worst I have ever seen it in my life. Everyone drives and this is the main cause of the 'brown cloud' that used to be the domain of only Denver, but now stretches from as far north as Cheyenne, WY and as far south as Pueblo, CO!
Not to sound like such a dork, because these matters are usually the 'Holy Grail' of worthwhile causes for extreme activists, but greed is the monster behind the problem. Greed is the very center of the problems that Wall Street has been having lately. Think about greed and you. And then think about how greed has changed you. Are you searching for a successful future. If 'yes,' then how do you define success.
I could go on, but it is time for me to bicycle home so I can eat some lunch.
-est a.k.a. thoughtlover