Saying ID is appropriate for a Social Science or Philosophy class, shows great contempt for those subjects. ID is junk, it doesn't belong in any class. Philosophy, like science, is based on logical reasoning, hence ID is not appropriate. Social Sciences, likewise follow the scientific method to some extent, and are largely unrelated. The only place I could see an appropriate discussion of ID is in a Political Science class and then the focus would be on how it managed to garner such political support.
I used SELinux for a while. It was rather difficult to use. Setting permissions correctly was a really big pain, so we ended up turning it off. It's a good concept, but it still needs a little fleshing out.
There's a popular saying in China, "The Empire, long divided, must unite: long united, must divide." (This is the opening to the famous historical novel, Romance of Three Kingdoms)
I'm sorry. This is why it's always good to us the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags, just to make sure, especially for the mods, they tend to be very dense on these matters. Memo to Original poster: Include a link and optionally a summery, don't post the whole thing.
Synthetic Oil has been around for a long time. The Germans made oil from coal in WWII as did the South Africans under the Aparthaid Sanctions. (The Chinese are now starting to use this techlonogy as well.) I don't if this new method will help with this, but if it could be done at a large scale I imagine it would.
I guess this is getting further afield, but there a good reasons why the ROC claims all of China. This has a lot to do with the internal politics of Taiwan. There are two large population groups there: the "natives" (Chinese who settled there in the 17th - 19th Centuries) and those who came in 1949 fleeing the Communists. Many in the latter group want the solution to the "Taiwan Question" to be a unified Democratic China, while many in the former group would prefer an independent Taiwan. As you said, it's a complicated issue and balancing doing what's best for Taiwan, what's morally right, and what's best for China (and by this I mean the Chinese people, not the government) is all difficult. Breaking rleations with China in favor of Taiwan would probably be counter-productive at this point, which is what recognizing Taiwan would do. The best thing is probably to continue informal relations with Taiwan and continue to promise military support. The status quo is working fairly well. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but my hope is that China's government will eventually change eiter to something the Taiwanese feel comfortable being a part of or something that wouldn't mind allowing them to be seperate.
1) Taiwan was controlled by Japan from 1895-1945. It was ceded by China in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. It was only returned after WWII.
2) This has nothing to do with "anti-American professors", (I love how stating an opinion that is only tangentially related to America becomes "anti-American",) but rather with internationally recognized standards. It's not Google's fault that the international community doesn't recognize Republic of China as a Sovereign state. Likewise it's not Google's fault that the International Community doesn't recognize The http://www.somaliland.org/somaliland.asp> Republic Of Somaliland as a Sovereign State. In both cases, the are by actual fact and by moral right separate governments, but due to various political considerations, nations ignore this. (I realize Taiwan has some recognition, but those states, largely Latin American or island nations, are the minority.)
This is a dilemma for any map maker: How to properly label territories in dispute. If you can show that Google is somehow being inconstant with regard to Taiwan, then you would perhaps have a claim that they were sucking up to China, but if they are being consistent there is no basis for such a claim.
Ps. Heh, I just looked at Google Maps to make sure Somaliland wasn't shown and guess what? Taiwan is now labeled as a separate entity. (So are Hong Kong and Macao, probably so the Chinese don't think their implying Taiwan is Sovereign, but just has separate status.) So I guess this story and/or Taiwanese complaints made a difference!
I can't see this is evil, considering Taiwan, in the view of most of the world, doesn't have de jure independence. If they want to go with de facto independence, then they'll have to show all sorts of breakaway regions like Somaliland, Bouganville, Kurdistan, etc.
That's true of Play Stations since they can make back the costs on other revenues, but not of things like steel, timber, etc. See WTO site for more info.
Dumping refers to selling products below market value in international trade.[1] There's no law against doing domestically. I stick with my original point though. The telecoms are politically connected enough to find someway to torpedo this.
[1] This is what this the US always accuses other contries of doing whenever some domestic producer has trouble competeing with foreign products.
Big telecoms have a lot of political influence. Watch this to be denounced as unfair competition, Communist, unamerican, etc. Followed by FCC rules or laws prohibiting it.
Indeed, I don't really understand Slashdot's love affair with Google. They say "Don't be evil, don't be evil, don't be evil" a hundred times, then go around and do things that most slashdotters consider evil and somehow we are myopic to this and get stories like Google's 7th Birthday and raw raw raw Google and so on. I suppose anyone who is in the crosshairs of Microsoft gets lot of slack on Slashdot, like Apple with their DRM. If it were any other company, this is would be virulently denounced.
Cute, but a more accurate analogy would be, "Exxon and Shell announced that unless Ford and GM gave them a share of SUV revenues they'd stop selling Gas to SUV owners."
It's probably just a bluff, but if the Music Industry does go through with this it would be incredibly stupid of them. I know it would be contrary to their agreements with Apple Records, but if the music execs do go ahead with this, I think Apple should start selling music directly from the musicians rather than going through the labels. They could simultaneously reduce the prices and give the musicians much more than they get under their current contracts.
I once heard that the demographic most likely to shoplift, (at least in the US) was middle aged white women. Of course that's also the demographic that does the most shopping...
Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.
Sort of takes the edge off Article 35, doesn't it?
There's a difference between Open Source and Open Formats. Promoting standards has long been a proper role of government. If every railway line built their tracks a different guage, every phone company used a different protocol, every merchant had a different definition of how much a pound weighed, and so on, that wouldn't be benificial to society, therefore we adopt a standard. Likewise for documents, we all want to be able to read government documents now and in the future, regardless of the whims of a private company that controls the format, so we adopt a standard. To use the railway example again, mandating an "Open Source" railroad, would be equivenant of publically owned tracks, mandating an "Open Format" railroad, is equivilant to using Standard Gauge.
Some people seem to be confused. A monopoly is not a free market, in fact it hinders a free market. One of the ways it hinders a free market in software is by adopting closed formats. Therefore forcing open formats promotes the free market, thus fostering innovation. Nothing is preventing Massachusetts from using Microsoft's products once they decided to adopt open formats.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying ID is appropriate for a Social Science or Philosophy class, shows great contempt for those subjects. ID is junk, it doesn't belong in any class. Philosophy, like science, is based on logical reasoning, hence ID is not appropriate. Social Sciences, likewise follow the scientific method to some extent, and are largely unrelated. The only place I could see an appropriate discussion of ID is in a Political Science class and then the focus would be on how it managed to garner such political support.
I used SELinux for a while. It was rather difficult to use. Setting permissions correctly was a really big pain, so we ended up turning it off. It's a good concept, but it still needs a little fleshing out.
You need proper code reviews, etc. if you want to find security flaws. The company writting the code should be responsible for organizing such things.
There's a popular saying in China, "The Empire, long divided, must unite: long united, must divide." (This is the opening to the famous historical novel, Romance of Three Kingdoms)
I'm sorry. This is why it's always good to us the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags, just to make sure, especially for the mods, they tend to be very dense on these matters. Memo to Original poster: Include a link and optionally a summery, don't post the whole thing.
Can you say Copy and Paste Troll?
Synthetic Oil has been around for a long time. The Germans made oil from coal in WWII as did the South Africans under the Aparthaid Sanctions. (The Chinese are now starting to use this techlonogy as well.) I don't if this new method will help with this, but if it could be done at a large scale I imagine it would.
I guess this is getting further afield, but there a good reasons why the ROC claims all of China. This has a lot to do with the internal politics of Taiwan. There are two large population groups there: the "natives" (Chinese who settled there in the 17th - 19th Centuries) and those who came in 1949 fleeing the Communists. Many in the latter group want the solution to the "Taiwan Question" to be a unified Democratic China, while many in the former group would prefer an independent Taiwan. As you said, it's a complicated issue and balancing doing what's best for Taiwan, what's morally right, and what's best for China (and by this I mean the Chinese people, not the government) is all difficult. Breaking rleations with China in favor of Taiwan would probably be counter-productive at this point, which is what recognizing Taiwan would do. The best thing is probably to continue informal relations with Taiwan and continue to promise military support. The status quo is working fairly well. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but my hope is that China's government will eventually change eiter to something the Taiwanese feel comfortable being a part of or something that wouldn't mind allowing them to be seperate.
Eh, sorry about the bad link, copy and paste rather than click please...
1) Taiwan was controlled by Japan from 1895-1945. It was ceded by China in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. It was only returned after WWII.
2) This has nothing to do with "anti-American professors", (I love how stating an opinion that is only tangentially related to America becomes "anti-American",) but rather with internationally recognized standards. It's not Google's fault that the international community doesn't recognize Republic of China as a Sovereign state. Likewise it's not Google's fault that the International Community doesn't recognize The http://www.somaliland.org/somaliland.asp> Republic Of Somaliland as a Sovereign State. In both cases, the are by actual fact and by moral right separate governments, but due to various political considerations, nations ignore this. (I realize Taiwan has some recognition, but those states, largely Latin American or island nations, are the minority.)
This is a dilemma for any map maker: How to properly label territories in dispute. If you can show that Google is somehow being inconstant with regard to Taiwan, then you would perhaps have a claim that they were sucking up to China, but if they are being consistent there is no basis for such a claim.
Ps. Heh, I just looked at Google Maps to make sure Somaliland wasn't shown and guess what? Taiwan is now labeled as a separate entity. (So are Hong Kong and Macao, probably so the Chinese don't think their implying Taiwan is Sovereign, but just has separate status.) So I guess this story and/or Taiwanese complaints made a difference!
I can't see this is evil, considering Taiwan, in the view of most of the world, doesn't have de jure independence. If they want to go with de facto independence, then they'll have to show all sorts of breakaway regions like Somaliland, Bouganville, Kurdistan, etc.
Or perhaps he simply spends some time reading books that were written back when people actually used the English Language to its full potential.
Also, at least for Boston Area, Google's directions are much worse than Mapquest's. Their algorithm likes to direct you on city streets excessivly.
That's true of Play Stations since they can make back the costs on other revenues, but not of things like steel, timber, etc. See WTO site for more info.
Sorry, I made an error, it's not selling products below market value, but rather selling them below the cost of producing them.
Dumping refers to selling products below market value in international trade.[1] There's no law against doing domestically. I stick with my original point though. The telecoms are politically connected enough to find someway to torpedo this.
[1] This is what this the US always accuses other contries of doing whenever some domestic producer has trouble competeing with foreign products.
Big telecoms have a lot of political influence. Watch this to be denounced as unfair competition, Communist, unamerican, etc. Followed by FCC rules or laws prohibiting it.
Indeed, I don't really understand Slashdot's love affair with Google. They say "Don't be evil, don't be evil, don't be evil" a hundred times, then go around and do things that most slashdotters consider evil and somehow we are myopic to this and get stories like Google's 7th Birthday and raw raw raw Google and so on.
I suppose anyone who is in the crosshairs of Microsoft gets lot of slack on Slashdot, like Apple with their DRM. If it were any other company, this is would be virulently denounced.
Cute, but a more accurate analogy would be, "Exxon and Shell announced that unless Ford and GM gave them a share of SUV revenues they'd stop selling Gas to SUV owners."
It's probably just a bluff, but if the Music Industry does go through with this it would be incredibly stupid of them. I know it would be contrary to their agreements with Apple Records, but if the music execs do go ahead with this, I think Apple should start selling music directly from the musicians rather than going through the labels. They could simultaneously reduce the prices and give the musicians much more than they get under their current contracts.
I once heard that the demographic most likely to shoplift, (at least in the US) was middle aged white women. Of course that's also the demographic that does the most shopping...
Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.
Sort of takes the edge off Article 35, doesn't it?
There's a difference between Open Source and Open Formats. Promoting standards has long been a proper role of government. If every railway line built their tracks a different guage, every phone company used a different protocol, every merchant had a different definition of how much a pound weighed, and so on, that wouldn't be benificial to society, therefore we adopt a standard. Likewise for documents, we all want to be able to read government documents now and in the future, regardless of the whims of a private company that controls the format, so we adopt a standard. To use the railway example again, mandating an "Open Source" railroad, would be equivenant of publically owned tracks, mandating an "Open Format" railroad, is equivilant to using Standard Gauge.
Some people seem to be confused. A monopoly is not a free market, in fact it hinders a free market. One of the ways it hinders a free market in software is by adopting closed formats. Therefore forcing open formats promotes the free market, thus fostering innovation. Nothing is preventing Massachusetts from using Microsoft's products once they decided to adopt open formats.
The change to official policy was in 2002. There may have been capitialists prior to that though. BBC Story