Programming is a small part of computer science, but it is an integral part. A computer science graduate who cannot code is like an electrical engineer who can't wire resistors in series. It doesn't matter how much of the theory they've mastered; if they're unable to apply any of it, they're useless.
No. That's an example of societal norms changing in response to more rigid laws. This treatment of sex offenders really came about after "zero tolerance" and "mandatory registration" laws were passed. I mean, if you're making these people register on a list, and practically wear a scarlet letter wherever they go, its not a stretch for society to view them as subhuman, even if their actual crime was minor.
So the thousands of European immigrants that came in through Ellis Island all had proper visas and paperwork? How about all the Chinese migrants that arrived in San Francisco to work on the railroads? And lets not forget about the Mexican migrant workers who simply walked across the border when the area was still an uncivilized frontier.
Face it, the immigration system is currently one of the most restrictive in American history.
No. The East was always bad in terms of human rights. Beriya and Stalin were torturing political enemies in the twenties, long before there was any sort of "arms race" with the West.
How did Oswald actually resolve anything? Hell, the only reason we admire JFK today is because he got shot by Oswald. If you look at JFK's policies (instead of becoming entranced by his speeches), you'll see that he wasn't a very good president at all. Bay of Pigs, escalation of the Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis - all of these things were started by JFK.
I believe Microsoft's only market threat, really, is themselves.
No. The real threat to Microsoft is the fact that, increasingly, the OS you run is irrelevant. More and more applications are being developed in a cross-platform manner. That, coupled with the return of networked, server-hosted applications, means that (for many applications) it doesn't matter anymore whether you're running Windows, Linux, Unix or OSX.
As another poster indicated, the success of the Linux EEE shows that there are a lot of people who really only need a computer for e-mail and basic office applications.
Its not that Microsoft has a threat to its market, but more that the entire market is disappearing as freely available alternatives become increasingly adequate for the majority of use cases.
It's also worth mentioning as a cautionary tale, perhaps. IBM managed to re-invent themselves, and after a rather painful process of revolution became a reasonably healthy firm again. Can Microsoft?
Perhaps. However, Microsoft has one big disadvantage compared to IBM, in that Microsoft never sold hardware. One reason that IBM was able to "weather the storm" is that it had a huge number long term support contracts on its mainframes. Microsoft, having never sold any hardware, doesn't have nearly the same cushion that IBM did.
If everyone and their dog has your code for building a web site, your market share is killed and you are not going to be able to sell enough support... i.e. you are not going to be able to make a living.
I don't know. IBM makes a pretty good living off WebSphere and Tomcat, which are both open-source.
I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning. The reason open-source web applications are unsustainable is not because one has to give away the source code for running those applications. No, they're unsustainable because, unlike client side applications, the costs of running a web application all fall onto the original developer.
If I make a client application and release it under the GPL, the costs of running that application (and redistributing it) are borne by you. Its your bandwidth and electricity, not mine. On the other hand, if I make an "open" web based application, then its my bandwidth and electricity. And, because the application is open, you're free to strip out advertisements and other means for me to pay for hosting the application.
That's not to say that such an application cannot exist, of course. I'd argue that Wikipedia fulfills Stallman's criteria to a tee.
The real catch with Internet privacy law (well, all Internet law, really) is that the Internet is a global system. If I don't like your country's privacy laws, I'll host my system somewhere else.
The issue is that, unlike client software which uses the user's computer to run, web-based software requires your computer (server) to run. Unless someone's willing to give away hosting for free, I'll have to charge at least a token amount to cover my bandwidth costs.
My other point still stands. Timothy McVeigh, the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombings, drove up to a federal building in a state with very liberal gun laws, parked his truck laden with explosives, and walked away. No one tried to stop him when he either approached the building in his truck or walked away afterwards.
The main problem with terrorism is not stopping the terrorists. Heck, many times the terrorists will not even be armed (accidental weapons discharge + explosives = failed mission). The main issue is finding them in time, and having all the guns in the world will not help you there.
I would strongly disagree with that. The current military is stretched very thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. The government would have no chance against a determined American populace. The key word is "determined".
And you don't think the US military would drop its obligations in Afghanistan and Iraq if there was a significant uprising at home?
Machine guns are legal to possess also if you pay the transfer tax.
Fair point, but I certainly don't have an F-16 in my driveway, and I'm willing to bet that you don't either.
An armed person is a citizen. an unarmed person is a subject.
You're assuming "armed" vs. "unarmed" is a binary quality. Truth is, there are differing levels of "armed". If you have a hunting rifle, and I have a fighter jet, we're both armed, but who do you think will win the battle?
Face it. With the rise of the military-industrial complex after World War 2, the US military has amassed a huge lead in the sophistication and power of its armaments as compared to the civilians.
Yeah, but what about us folks that still like to pay cash? I already find it offensive that retailers are trying to keep track of my purchasing habits, why should I want government getting into that game?
And, even if you could get everyone to flash their papers every time they had to pay for something, you'd still have a much higher data processing burden on the backend than with the current system. Given the historical success rate of the government with automated data processing, I'd say there's a snowball's chance in hell of the government actually getting any system like this functioning correctly.
A major struggle involving armed rebels who disagreed with one fundamental policy of the lawfully elected United States government took up arms, and despite having a common language, culture, and knowledge of the terrain, as well as command of the seas for the most part, the entire massed force of the US Army was very nearly defeated.
The US Civil War was much more one sided than you make it out to be. The reason the South was able to hold out as long as it did was because the Southern generals (Lee, Jackson, J.E.B Stewart, etc.) were tactical geniuses, the cream of the Virginia Military Institute and West Point. By comparison, the North had better logistics, a larger industrial base, and a larger population of military age men from which to draw. While the South was able to employ brilliant tactics to hold out for a while, eventually the North's industrial supremacy showed, and the armies of McLellan and Grant were able to steamroll the South using tactics that were little better than glorified siege warfare.
However, in this day and age, the loyalty of generals and soldiers to federal government is much higher. So, while small units (platoons, companies, etc.) might defect in the case of a civil war, I find it difficult to see any larger units or generals defecting. Therefore, any future civil war is likely to be even more one sided than the North's steamroller victory over the South at the end of the Civil War.
From an Australian's perspective, I am quite sure that a terrorist acting in the US is much more likely to be shot before completing their plans than here in Oz.
Well, I didn't see anyone pull a gun on the 9/11 hijackers, did you? Or how about Tim McVeigh? No one stopped him with a rifle and asked to check out the truck. To think that terrorists would be more likely to get shot in the US is a laughable idea, since, the person doing the shooting would have to be reasonably convinced that the person he or she was shooting at was a terrorist. At this point, either the person is engaging in vigilante justice (if they're shooting before the "terrorist" has done anything), or its too late (if they're shooting after the terrorist has launched his attack).
Assuming that you meant to, I just wish to point out that BECAUSE the French helped us win our revolt against the British Empire, WE were then able to help THEM liberate mainland Europe. Twice.
Erm, not really. By the time the twentieth century rolled around, we were pretty staunch allies with both Britain and France. In World War 1, we went to war mainly because we didn't like the Germans. In World War 2, we went to war because the Japs attacked us, and when we declared war on them, Germany declared war on us (as per their treaty obligations).
I don't mind licensing guns, its the ban I have an issue with. And, if you actually read the Supreme Court decision (rather than spouting off like an ignoramus), you'll see that the justices agree - reasonable restrictions on gun ownership (like licensing) are ok, but outright bans are not.
Not true, there are more gun owners in the USA then there are troops in the US military.
Yeah, but I don't have a howitzer in the backyard, nor an F-16 in the driveway, How 'bout you?:)
Similar cultural background is more likely to hurt the military than the civilians. I imagine many soldiers would have a lot more hesitation firing on their own countrymen.
That may have been true in the civil war, when you had to "look the enemy in the eye" as it were. Today? Who knows? Especially with the presence of precision artillery and air strikes, it might be all too easy to rationalize away an attack on other Americans (example: classifying the attackers as "terrorists" or "insurgents").
I was speaking more along the lines of cultural and linguistic norms. I mean, it'd be a lot easier for an American to "read" another American than it'd be for an American to read an Iraqi or an Afghan.
We should have let the USSR continue to exist, it's not like the people in Poland, the Ukraine, or Czech Republic have it all that much better now.
Its funny that you mention the Ukraine and the Czech Republic, because, when those countries tried to rebel against their Soviet overlords in the '50s and '60s, the US turned its back. When they finally did overthrow their puppet governments, they did it without a whit of help from America.
What's the solution you would have used for Saddam? Because we tried for 12 FREAKING years to go about the peaceful, UN approach and ended up finding the UN was skimming billions and in bed with Saddam anyway.
You can't use Saddam as an example, since the only reason he was able to consolidate his power in the first place is because of US support. Fact is, we kept Saddam supplied with arms and cash and turned a blind eye to his atrocities against his own people because we needed a bulldog to go against Iran (another mess of our own making).
What's your solution to the Taliban?
How about kicking some Pakistani ass? Oh, that's right, it'd upset another one of our friendly puppets.
Care to sit down with Mugabe and explain why he is wrong and he really should just try to understand his people a little better?
While I agree with the sentiment, do you really want the US military to be fighting a full scale war every time some peasant gets repressed?
Give peace a chance, but after that prepare for an ass kicking...
Perhaps if you didn't make so many enemies you wouldn't have so many people looking to kick your ass.
By that logic, we shouldn't be regulating any industry that doesn't sell "necessities". Ford sells cars that blow up and roast their occupants alive? Oh well, don't buy Ford. Get cancer from the asbestos in your house? Should have thought of that when choosing your builder.
I'm sorry, but I'd rather live in the 21st century, not the 19th.
It doesn't have to be a "flat" tax, it could be a progressive consumption tax, perhaps zero up to the $30,000 if you are concerned about the effect on the poor.
The problem with that idea is one of enforcement. Unless you want people to fill out an income statement every time they buy a pack of gum, you're proposing a tax that is unenforceable.
The issue with your examples is that they've all occurred overseas. Here in the US, the soldiers will know the local terrain about as well as the residents. Also, they'll have a common language and cultural background, so they won't be reliant on translators and imperfect training to read locals' intentions.
Slashdot Mirror
Programming is a small part of computer science, but it is an integral part. A computer science graduate who cannot code is like an electrical engineer who can't wire resistors in series. It doesn't matter how much of the theory they've mastered; if they're unable to apply any of it, they're useless.
No. That's an example of societal norms changing in response to more rigid laws. This treatment of sex offenders really came about after "zero tolerance" and "mandatory registration" laws were passed. I mean, if you're making these people register on a list, and practically wear a scarlet letter wherever they go, its not a stretch for society to view them as subhuman, even if their actual crime was minor.
So the thousands of European immigrants that came in through Ellis Island all had proper visas and paperwork? How about all the Chinese migrants that arrived in San Francisco to work on the railroads? And lets not forget about the Mexican migrant workers who simply walked across the border when the area was still an uncivilized frontier.
Face it, the immigration system is currently one of the most restrictive in American history.
one can still wonder if the west was better...
No. The East was always bad in terms of human rights. Beriya and Stalin were torturing political enemies in the twenties, long before there was any sort of "arms race" with the West.
How did Oswald actually resolve anything? Hell, the only reason we admire JFK today is because he got shot by Oswald. If you look at JFK's policies (instead of becoming entranced by his speeches), you'll see that he wasn't a very good president at all. Bay of Pigs, escalation of the Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis - all of these things were started by JFK.
I believe Microsoft's only market threat, really, is themselves.
No. The real threat to Microsoft is the fact that, increasingly, the OS you run is irrelevant. More and more applications are being developed in a cross-platform manner. That, coupled with the return of networked, server-hosted applications, means that (for many applications) it doesn't matter anymore whether you're running Windows, Linux, Unix or OSX.
As another poster indicated, the success of the Linux EEE shows that there are a lot of people who really only need a computer for e-mail and basic office applications.
Its not that Microsoft has a threat to its market, but more that the entire market is disappearing as freely available alternatives become increasingly adequate for the majority of use cases.
It's also worth mentioning as a cautionary tale, perhaps. IBM managed to re-invent themselves, and after a rather painful process of revolution became a reasonably healthy firm again. Can Microsoft?
Perhaps. However, Microsoft has one big disadvantage compared to IBM, in that Microsoft never sold hardware. One reason that IBM was able to "weather the storm" is that it had a huge number long term support contracts on its mainframes. Microsoft, having never sold any hardware, doesn't have nearly the same cushion that IBM did.
If everyone and their dog has your code for building a web site, your market share is killed and you are not going to be able to sell enough support... i.e. you are not going to be able to make a living.
I don't know. IBM makes a pretty good living off WebSphere and Tomcat, which are both open-source.
I agree with your conclusion, but not your reasoning. The reason open-source web applications are unsustainable is not because one has to give away the source code for running those applications. No, they're unsustainable because, unlike client side applications, the costs of running a web application all fall onto the original developer.
If I make a client application and release it under the GPL, the costs of running that application (and redistributing it) are borne by you. Its your bandwidth and electricity, not mine. On the other hand, if I make an "open" web based application, then its my bandwidth and electricity. And, because the application is open, you're free to strip out advertisements and other means for me to pay for hosting the application.
That's not to say that such an application cannot exist, of course. I'd argue that Wikipedia fulfills Stallman's criteria to a tee.
The real catch with Internet privacy law (well, all Internet law, really) is that the Internet is a global system. If I don't like your country's privacy laws, I'll host my system somewhere else.
The issue is that, unlike client software which uses the user's computer to run, web-based software requires your computer (server) to run. Unless someone's willing to give away hosting for free, I'll have to charge at least a token amount to cover my bandwidth costs.
My other point still stands. Timothy McVeigh, the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombings, drove up to a federal building in a state with very liberal gun laws, parked his truck laden with explosives, and walked away. No one tried to stop him when he either approached the building in his truck or walked away afterwards.
The main problem with terrorism is not stopping the terrorists. Heck, many times the terrorists will not even be armed (accidental weapons discharge + explosives = failed mission). The main issue is finding them in time, and having all the guns in the world will not help you there.
I would strongly disagree with that. The current military is stretched very thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. The government would have no chance against a determined American populace. The key word is "determined".
And you don't think the US military would drop its obligations in Afghanistan and Iraq if there was a significant uprising at home?
Machine guns are legal to possess also if you pay the transfer tax.
Fair point, but I certainly don't have an F-16 in my driveway, and I'm willing to bet that you don't either.
An armed person is a citizen. an unarmed person is a subject.
You're assuming "armed" vs. "unarmed" is a binary quality. Truth is, there are differing levels of "armed". If you have a hunting rifle, and I have a fighter jet, we're both armed, but who do you think will win the battle?
Face it. With the rise of the military-industrial complex after World War 2, the US military has amassed a huge lead in the sophistication and power of its armaments as compared to the civilians.
Although since the 2nd has been neutered, the armed forces do have bigger ones that shoot faster.
Precisely my point. A .22 cal popgun and a self propelled 105mm howitzer are both "guns", but I know which one I'd rather have on my side.
Yeah, but what about us folks that still like to pay cash? I already find it offensive that retailers are trying to keep track of my purchasing habits, why should I want government getting into that game?
And, even if you could get everyone to flash their papers every time they had to pay for something, you'd still have a much higher data processing burden on the backend than with the current system. Given the historical success rate of the government with automated data processing, I'd say there's a snowball's chance in hell of the government actually getting any system like this functioning correctly.
A major struggle involving armed rebels who disagreed with one fundamental policy of the lawfully elected United States government took up arms, and despite having a common language, culture, and knowledge of the terrain, as well as command of the seas for the most part, the entire massed force of the US Army was very nearly defeated.
The US Civil War was much more one sided than you make it out to be. The reason the South was able to hold out as long as it did was because the Southern generals (Lee, Jackson, J.E.B Stewart, etc.) were tactical geniuses, the cream of the Virginia Military Institute and West Point. By comparison, the North had better logistics, a larger industrial base, and a larger population of military age men from which to draw. While the South was able to employ brilliant tactics to hold out for a while, eventually the North's industrial supremacy showed, and the armies of McLellan and Grant were able to steamroll the South using tactics that were little better than glorified siege warfare.
However, in this day and age, the loyalty of generals and soldiers to federal government is much higher. So, while small units (platoons, companies, etc.) might defect in the case of a civil war, I find it difficult to see any larger units or generals defecting. Therefore, any future civil war is likely to be even more one sided than the North's steamroller victory over the South at the end of the Civil War.
From an Australian's perspective, I am quite sure that a terrorist acting in the US is much more likely to be shot before completing their plans than here in Oz.
Well, I didn't see anyone pull a gun on the 9/11 hijackers, did you? Or how about Tim McVeigh? No one stopped him with a rifle and asked to check out the truck. To think that terrorists would be more likely to get shot in the US is a laughable idea, since, the person doing the shooting would have to be reasonably convinced that the person he or she was shooting at was a terrorist. At this point, either the person is engaging in vigilante justice (if they're shooting before the "terrorist" has done anything), or its too late (if they're shooting after the terrorist has launched his attack).
Assuming that you meant to, I just wish to point out that BECAUSE the French helped us win our revolt against the British Empire, WE were then able to help THEM liberate mainland Europe. Twice.
Erm, not really. By the time the twentieth century rolled around, we were pretty staunch allies with both Britain and France. In World War 1, we went to war mainly because we didn't like the Germans. In World War 2, we went to war because the Japs attacked us, and when we declared war on them, Germany declared war on us (as per their treaty obligations).
I don't mind licensing guns, its the ban I have an issue with. And, if you actually read the Supreme Court decision (rather than spouting off like an ignoramus), you'll see that the justices agree - reasonable restrictions on gun ownership (like licensing) are ok, but outright bans are not.
Yeah, but I don't have a howitzer in the backyard, nor an F-16 in the driveway, How 'bout you? :)
Similar cultural background is more likely to hurt the military than the civilians. I imagine many soldiers would have a lot more hesitation firing on their own countrymen.That may have been true in the civil war, when you had to "look the enemy in the eye" as it were. Today? Who knows? Especially with the presence of precision artillery and air strikes, it might be all too easy to rationalize away an attack on other Americans (example: classifying the attackers as "terrorists" or "insurgents").
I was speaking more along the lines of cultural and linguistic norms. I mean, it'd be a lot easier for an American to "read" another American than it'd be for an American to read an Iraqi or an Afghan.
Its funny that you mention the Ukraine and the Czech Republic, because, when those countries tried to rebel against their Soviet overlords in the '50s and '60s, the US turned its back. When they finally did overthrow their puppet governments, they did it without a whit of help from America.
What's the solution you would have used for Saddam? Because we tried for 12 FREAKING years to go about the peaceful, UN approach and ended up finding the UN was skimming billions and in bed with Saddam anyway.You can't use Saddam as an example, since the only reason he was able to consolidate his power in the first place is because of US support. Fact is, we kept Saddam supplied with arms and cash and turned a blind eye to his atrocities against his own people because we needed a bulldog to go against Iran (another mess of our own making).
What's your solution to the Taliban?How about kicking some Pakistani ass? Oh, that's right, it'd upset another one of our friendly puppets.
Care to sit down with Mugabe and explain why he is wrong and he really should just try to understand his people a little better?While I agree with the sentiment, do you really want the US military to be fighting a full scale war every time some peasant gets repressed?
Give peace a chance, but after that prepare for an ass kicking...Perhaps if you didn't make so many enemies you wouldn't have so many people looking to kick your ass.
Are we talking about the same North Vietnamese who received massive funding from the Soviets and Chinese?
By that logic, we shouldn't be regulating any industry that doesn't sell "necessities". Ford sells cars that blow up and roast their occupants alive? Oh well, don't buy Ford. Get cancer from the asbestos in your house? Should have thought of that when choosing your builder.
I'm sorry, but I'd rather live in the 21st century, not the 19th.
The problem with that idea is one of enforcement. Unless you want people to fill out an income statement every time they buy a pack of gum, you're proposing a tax that is unenforceable.
The issue with your examples is that they've all occurred overseas. Here in the US, the soldiers will know the local terrain about as well as the residents. Also, they'll have a common language and cultural background, so they won't be reliant on translators and imperfect training to read locals' intentions.