I sell gunpowder, bullets, casings, and primers. Business is so brisk I have no time to check the legal status or age of the people that throw cash at me. Besides, no one could reasonably commit a crime solely with what I've provided. Thus I should be free to continue undisturbed in my business.
I may even open a disco with the profits. There is a flat rate cover charge, but free beer and no ID checks at the door. I'm sure nothing harmful will result.
However, I don't see oligarchy as being anywhere on the optimum path. At least, not for anyone other than the oligarchs. I'll take rule by the masses in some form.
Some people sacrificing for the greater good is all very well and good. It is often necessary. But some people deciding who will sacrifice, and others having the sacrifice thrust upon them, THAT is what makes the process so irritating or exciting. The who and how of that is what keeps the gears of history lubed with blood.
That was foreign entanglements and factionalism we were to avoid. Parties had begun to form DURING the Washington administration, so he was clearly both aware of them and not directly opposed to them, just the power that they often tend to accumulate to themselves. Wiki Article George_Washington's_Farewell_Address and the text itself.
Power grabs for the greater good are always done in the best interests of the people. I'm sure our new benevolent dictator(s) will keep us in mind as they shear mercilessly through what we laughingly consider to be our personal rights and privileges while they build a better tomorrowfor us all. After all, what benefit to them if we were all enslaved?
Now that the first version is finally in relaase, how long before the first set of changes hits? Everybody knows 1.0 of anything is full of bugs.
And on a more serious note, did anyone ever publish a specification of what a 1.0 release should have in it? Or is this somewhere between "declare victory" and "declare exhaustion"?
Hollywood is unionized, and the Writers are part of the Writer;s Guild. There Are Rules about credits given and how. For years producers and directors would credit themselves or their friends in a film when someone else did the work. The guild forced a change in that, but the flip side is that generally a writer MUST take credit for his work if it was a union project, which all the major studios would be. That actual rules for pseudonyms have changed over the years, but typically you can't just change it at will. Plus, Ellison mostly worked a while ago. Things could be different more recently.
The point is that it isn't usually as cut and dried as he presents. Rarely would you see one a quit decision after one set of notes comes back. And no matter how bad the notes were, the answer coming back would be more along the lines of, "yes, but..." not "No Way". You want a papier mache watch?, OK, but it won't keep good time or be at all durable or reliable. And it will probably be ugly as hell. Still want it?
The novel isn't good. It is however a page turner. Hubbard was a good pulp writer, and Battlefield Earth is pretty much a pulp cliffhanger series, 1000 pages long. Lots of short chapters, in which our intrepid hero is always about to be killed or captured. The story never makes a lot of sense, but its fun watching it go along. It would make a great half hour summer filler series. Each chapter feels about like The Venture Brothers level of dramatization. As a movie, you have to cut out way too much to get the right campy feel.
Writers, uhhh shall we say, fictionalize, about this situation all the time.
They, like all of us, have certain principles they will not compromise. They also have a lot of things they would happily, or not so happily, do for money, if the money is right. Someone asked for changes to his precious baby of a script. It happens all the time. Nothing new about that. Certainly not unique to Scientology being attached. The only thing to know here is where the tearing point really was. They wanted changes. Did he really just refuse, or was it more of a negotiation, "I can add that scene X, but I need to rework Y", "No, add X and leave Y. Don't touch Z either", "but Z won't make sense anymore! Howabout..."? This goes on for a while until someone gives up. For the right price, the writer caves. After enough silliness, the writer says, "I'm out", or the producer says it for him.
But don't buy into the Writer's Crusade for Artistic Purity. They're craftsmen, like anyone else, and they give the client, more or less what they ask for.
The current thinking on cancer is that it can be caused by quite a lot of things. Radiation (e.g. xrays or sunlight), chemicals (e.g. cigarette smoke, solvents, adhesives, fuels, a whole library of other industrial chemicals, and even stuff in your last soda pop), viruses (e.g. cervical cancer), or just plain bad luck (mutation of fragile genetics).
Why you body might kick off a cancer to prevent something else is kind of mind boggling. Certainly it might be *possible* that something wacky like that could happen, but the evolutionary indicators run strongly against it. The "something else" would have to be even worse than trying to fight the cancer with all-natural means, and what in hell could that be?
Perhaps. But even then it is a business decision. Not until some regulatory agency forces them to put a particular device on the product is a requirement. Until then, they only pay a penalty if someone buys a product, gets injured, sues, and wins. Which means including it or not is a business decision, not a mandate. Remember Ford Pintos and the exploding gas tanks? Supposedly $8 times however many they sold was more expensive than the few lawsuits they would defend, so no gas tank shields.
And the next time around maybe the manufacturer will have a better case for why they didn't need to include the safety stop feature. Or maybe the appeals court will not uphold the verdict, or uphold it for a lesser amount. $1.5M is really not a whole lot of money in the world of power tools. Not enough to change your whole production line.
A jury verdict is not a government order. The jury, for whatever reason, found that the plaintiff had a good argument and they agreed with him. That doesn't immediately mean every saw manufacturer must now and forever include this patented technology. Certainly it doesn't men they must license it at whatever price the patent holder demands. It only means the plaintiff had a good lawyer, Ryobi had a not so good one, and the jury decided Ryobi could have made a safer product. The rest is just outrageous hyperbole.
Yep. Everybody wants Freedom. And Security. Ask them and they always say they do. But when it comes right down to it, they don't really care that much about it. Certainly you can't get most people to pay for it (would you pay $1 for this encryption...?) And getting them to understand even the most basic principles of how to be secure is an infinite task. When you hear people say, "I don't want people looking at all my information on Myspace/Facebook/etc." you have to wonder why they put it out there in the first place.
And as for Software Freedom, I suspect that is so abstract and esoteric a concept they will assume you're speaking Klingon. Most people can't be bothered to configure their own software, let alone worry about what rights are encumbered, or what might prevent them from using someone else's.
A thousand bad ideas in "a market place of ideas" is no better than one. And the same goes for implementation. Even a great idea will go to hell with a crappy builder.
The problem here wasn't that a single group was involved. The problem was that they weren't honest with themselves about what they wanted, how they were going to do it, and how much progress they were making.
A design competition only works when there is some way to grade the competitors for the quality of their designs. But that would mean having real specs and a way to know they were met.
An implementation competition only works when lots of competitors can all build their design and have a "fence-off" showdown. But that would mean two, three, four, or more teams building fences, then someone deciding which one let fewer Mexicans across. And of course figuring out who pays. If you think $1.4B was a lot of money for nothing, what would that cost?
How in hell would a de-centralized border fence work? Lots of little fences, independently operated, with hundreds of license agreements and EULAs where they touch each other?
Or maybe a GPL fence, where every illegal that crosses it agrees to improve it for the next illegal that comes behind him (or her)?
This thing has been shocking for years. At every major point in the development, Boeing basically said, "trust us" and the Government basically said, "OK".
Where is the design and analysis, where is the small-scale working model, where is the prototype, where is the incremental build up, where are the TEST RESULTS?????
I mean come on people! Committing to full scale production before you've seen a working model is foolish. Committing to it AGAIN, even when you've NEVER seen improvement in the original performance is just asinine.
Damnit! Now all the Windoze Fanboiz are going to say there's evidence that Linux and FOSS are communist.
They are. If you take that as an insult or pejorative, that says more about your values than how FOSS says it works. The whole community contribution model is right there, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx, 1875
I can see it now, a thriving Free and Open Source Software community openly exchanging data and techniques across the burgeoning and widely expanding North Korean BBS, Chat room, data, and social infrastructure. The movement cannot be stopped, because as we all know, information wants to be...[dedicated to the dear leader]...
The 10kpbs Sneakernet Cobblestone(tm) backbone is only the start!
Slashdot Mirror
I sell gunpowder, bullets, casings, and primers. Business is so brisk I have no time to check the legal status or age of the people that throw cash at me. Besides, no one could reasonably commit a crime solely with what I've provided. Thus I should be free to continue undisturbed in my business.
I may even open a disco with the profits. There is a flat rate cover charge, but free beer and no ID checks at the door. I'm sure nothing harmful will result.
I wasn't asked to.
However, I don't see oligarchy as being anywhere on the optimum path. At least, not for anyone other than the oligarchs. I'll take rule by the masses in some form.
Some people sacrificing for the greater good is all very well and good. It is often necessary. But some people deciding who will sacrifice, and others having the sacrifice thrust upon them, THAT is what makes the process so irritating or exciting. The who and how of that is what keeps the gears of history lubed with blood.
That was foreign entanglements and factionalism we were to avoid. Parties had begun to form DURING the Washington administration, so he was clearly both aware of them and not directly opposed to them, just the power that they often tend to accumulate to themselves. Wiki Article George_Washington's_Farewell_Address and the text itself.
Power grabs for the greater good are always done in the best interests of the people. I'm sure our new benevolent dictator(s) will keep us in mind as they shear mercilessly through what we laughingly consider to be our personal rights and privileges while they build a better tomorrow for us all. After all, what benefit to them if we were all enslaved?
Now that the first version is finally in relaase, how long before the first set of changes hits? Everybody knows 1.0 of anything is full of bugs.
And on a more serious note, did anyone ever publish a specification of what a 1.0 release should have in it? Or is this somewhere between "declare victory" and "declare exhaustion"?
Hollywood is unionized, and the Writers are part of the Writer;s Guild. There Are Rules about credits given and how. For years producers and directors would credit themselves or their friends in a film when someone else did the work. The guild forced a change in that, but the flip side is that generally a writer MUST take credit for his work if it was a union project, which all the major studios would be. That actual rules for pseudonyms have changed over the years, but typically you can't just change it at will. Plus, Ellison mostly worked a while ago. Things could be different more recently.
The point is that it isn't usually as cut and dried as he presents. Rarely would you see one a quit decision after one set of notes comes back. And no matter how bad the notes were, the answer coming back would be more along the lines of, "yes, but..." not "No Way". You want a papier mache watch?, OK, but it won't keep good time or be at all durable or reliable. And it will probably be ugly as hell. Still want it?
You could always go for the truly obscure and join the Urantia movement.
The novel isn't good. It is however a page turner. Hubbard was a good pulp writer, and Battlefield Earth is pretty much a pulp cliffhanger series, 1000 pages long. Lots of short chapters, in which our intrepid hero is always about to be killed or captured. The story never makes a lot of sense, but its fun watching it go along. It would make a great half hour summer filler series. Each chapter feels about like The Venture Brothers level of dramatization. As a movie, you have to cut out way too much to get the right campy feel.
Writers, uhhh shall we say, fictionalize, about this situation all the time.
They, like all of us, have certain principles they will not compromise. They also have a lot of things they would happily, or not so happily, do for money, if the money is right. Someone asked for changes to his precious baby of a script. It happens all the time. Nothing new about that. Certainly not unique to Scientology being attached. The only thing to know here is where the tearing point really was. They wanted changes. Did he really just refuse, or was it more of a negotiation, "I can add that scene X, but I need to rework Y", "No, add X and leave Y. Don't touch Z either", "but Z won't make sense anymore! Howabout..."? This goes on for a while until someone gives up. For the right price, the writer caves. After enough silliness, the writer says, "I'm out", or the producer says it for him.
But don't buy into the Writer's Crusade for Artistic Purity. They're craftsmen, like anyone else, and they give the client, more or less what they ask for.
Really? Is this really what we wanted??
The current thinking on cancer is that it can be caused by quite a lot of things. Radiation (e.g. xrays or sunlight), chemicals (e.g. cigarette smoke, solvents, adhesives, fuels, a whole library of other industrial chemicals, and even stuff in your last soda pop), viruses (e.g. cervical cancer), or just plain bad luck (mutation of fragile genetics).
Why you body might kick off a cancer to prevent something else is kind of mind boggling. Certainly it might be *possible* that something wacky like that could happen, but the evolutionary indicators run strongly against it. The "something else" would have to be even worse than trying to fight the cancer with all-natural means, and what in hell could that be?
Perhaps. But even then it is a business decision. Not until some regulatory agency forces them to put a particular device on the product is a requirement. Until then, they only pay a penalty if someone buys a product, gets injured, sues, and wins. Which means including it or not is a business decision, not a mandate. Remember Ford Pintos and the exploding gas tanks? Supposedly $8 times however many they sold was more expensive than the few lawsuits they would defend, so no gas tank shields.
And the next time around maybe the manufacturer will have a better case for why they didn't need to include the safety stop feature. Or maybe the appeals court will not uphold the verdict, or uphold it for a lesser amount. $1.5M is really not a whole lot of money in the world of power tools. Not enough to change your whole production line.
A jury verdict is not a government order. The jury, for whatever reason, found that the plaintiff had a good argument and they agreed with him. That doesn't immediately mean every saw manufacturer must now and forever include this patented technology. Certainly it doesn't men they must license it at whatever price the patent holder demands. It only means the plaintiff had a good lawyer, Ryobi had a not so good one, and the jury decided Ryobi could have made a safer product. The rest is just outrageous hyperbole.
Yep. Everybody wants Freedom. And Security. Ask them and they always say they do. But when it comes right down to it, they don't really care that much about it. Certainly you can't get most people to pay for it (would you pay $1 for this encryption...?) And getting them to understand even the most basic principles of how to be secure is an infinite task. When you hear people say, "I don't want people looking at all my information on Myspace/Facebook/etc." you have to wonder why they put it out there in the first place.
And as for Software Freedom, I suspect that is so abstract and esoteric a concept they will assume you're speaking Klingon. Most people can't be bothered to configure their own software, let alone worry about what rights are encumbered, or what might prevent them from using someone else's.
A thousand bad ideas in "a market place of ideas" is no better than one. And the same goes for implementation. Even a great idea will go to hell with a crappy builder.
The problem here wasn't that a single group was involved. The problem was that they weren't honest with themselves about what they wanted, how they were going to do it, and how much progress they were making.
A design competition only works when there is some way to grade the competitors for the quality of their designs. But that would mean having real specs and a way to know they were met.
An implementation competition only works when lots of competitors can all build their design and have a "fence-off" showdown. But that would mean two, three, four, or more teams building fences, then someone deciding which one let fewer Mexicans across. And of course figuring out who pays. If you think $1.4B was a lot of money for nothing, what would that cost?
How in hell would a de-centralized border fence work? Lots of little fences, independently operated, with hundreds of license agreements and EULAs where they touch each other?
Or maybe a GPL fence, where every illegal that crosses it agrees to improve it for the next illegal that comes behind him (or her)?
I am comforted to know that foolish and disastrous IT integration projects happen the world around.
Maybe the Borg were right, Resistance *is* Futile.
This thing has been shocking for years. At every major point in the development, Boeing basically said, "trust us" and the Government basically said, "OK".
Where is the design and analysis, where is the small-scale working model, where is the prototype, where is the incremental build up, where are the TEST RESULTS?????
I mean come on people! Committing to full scale production before you've seen a working model is foolish. Committing to it AGAIN, even when you've NEVER seen improvement in the original performance is just asinine.
Just begging for it aren't you?
Prepare for incoming!!
the computer in question is hydraulic, with power provided by the operator via pedals. ~
Oooh, direct measurement of computational efficiency and difficulty. I like it!
Damnit! Now all the Windoze Fanboiz are going to say there's evidence that Linux and FOSS are communist.
They are. If you take that as an insult or pejorative, that says more about your values than how FOSS says it works. The whole community contribution model is right there, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx, 1875
I can see it now, a thriving Free and Open Source Software community openly exchanging data and techniques across the burgeoning and widely expanding North Korean BBS, Chat room, data, and social infrastructure. The movement cannot be stopped, because as we all know, information wants to be ...[dedicated to the dear leader]...
The 10kpbs Sneakernet Cobblestone(tm) backbone is only the start!
Hans Brix searches for Wines of Substandard Quality, not Weapons of Mass Destruction. A common mistake.