- Couldn't some company somewhere come up with an AI card. Think along the lines of the 3d accelerators 4 years ago. There could then be a stand set of APIs to interact with AI hardware linke DirectX or openGL.
- What about an open-source AI project for use in games.
Support and acceptance lies with the DNS admins. To resolve alternate TLDs one simply needs to add the appropriate entries into named.conf and configure the system to resolve to the correct servers.
To the end user, they type in whatever.alttld and poof, it resolves. No plugin, nothing.
To set up your workstation:
http://www.pacificroot.com/setup_unix_resolv.shtml
TO set up a caching server:
http://www.pacificroot.com/setup_unix_cache.shtm l
That's it. If it's done at the ISP level, the transition slowly opens up the alternate TLDs to all users.
Speaking of High School, a guy I knew, as a final farewell to everyone that ever pissed him off during the course of our school years, wrapped up a shoe-box of his excrement, toe-nail clippings and shower drain spooge and mailed it to people. This was all wrapped in sealed bags so the smell would not give it away.
It was sick and childish but it's better than killing those people I guess. And point being, the mail service delivered it without question.
I was at a conference in '99 where Nicholas Negroponte (spelling?) of the MIT media lab was speaking about this technology and its application being mostly lowcost computers for the third world. From what I understand, it all has to do with electro-conductive ink being printed on standard paper. Now considering that they were working out the logistics of a computer, I don't see how this would be too unfeasable for phones.
Sure we do, just check out the posting on responses from the first two presidetial candidates to slashdotter's posts. There are people actually posting that they think the Socialists and the Libertarians are just too similar for their tastes.
One of the problems with an interview like this is that it is lacking in the "hows" of instituting reform. Now on Browne's website, he outlines this.
Legislation relating to finance in the federal government can only originate one place - The House Of Representatives. So you're right, the President can not do squat about inacting new tax laws.
The President can, however, put all of these tax laws that are on the books now, up to a Supreme Court challenge. As with all the oversized programs and other things the Federal Government has no business doing.
In an election year such as this, where there are so many seats on the Supremem Court that will be appointed by this President, a radical change is very possible. Four libertarian justices on the court and true constitutional government could be a reality for the first time in over 100 years.
You're already paying excise taxes, it's the income tax that would be no longer needed.
Income tax came into being on Februaury 3, 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Ammendment. Prior to that, taxes were levied based upon property owned. This included personal items in addition to real estate.
The only reason we have such a high tax burden today is due to social programs and the huge cost associated with a huge federal government. I will conceed that it will not be an absolute drop in the total amount you pay in federal tax because the states will have levy taxes to make up for lost federal funding and to institue program the federal government cut. But in the end, there will still be more money to go around and we have the added benefit of more direct control of our money as it stays in the state.
I wouldn't really call them the best thing since sliced bread. Excise taxes have been around since Washington was President. Which I beleive predates sliced bread.
For some interesting history, do some reading on the whiskey rebellion in Pennsylvania. THat was all about excise taxes.
First:
Okay, so Mr. Browne wants to abolish the IRS and the Income Tax (yay!). But then he wants to offer $25 or $50b to whomever comes up with the first working missile defense system.
It was President Regan and the DOD that instituted that "prize", not Brown. It would be probably be by presidential mandate if that was still in effect, though.
The money to support the government will be derived from excise taxes and tarrifs. Necessary projects are the constitutionally mandated duties of government. You know, common defense, protection of freedom, print money all that jazz. All of these tasks can be funded by a) the taxes collected I mentioned above and b) by selling public lands that are not being used or reserved (ie. retired military bases and non-protected open land).
All of this is outlined at www.harrybrowne2000.org
Prior to President Truman, I will argue that a person would be hardpressed to find significant and direct government influence or funding of science. There are some exceptions, but government was not as far reaching as it is today.
One of the problems to understand is that when you call for tech support, chances are you're calling a very large contract call center. Most of "kids" manning the phones at these places are lightly trained and to be quite honest the bottom of the barrel. Any of the tech support / CS people who are any good have long since been promoted to supervisors or managers.
As a rule of thumb, if your problem is of a significant enough nature, politely ask for your problem to be escalated without going into details. This normally works, and you have the added benefit of speaking with a better trained and normally less stressed person who has the time to work with you.
ISP's in general do not think this way of their subs. Mega large broadband ISP conglomerates think this way of their subs.
I'm a partner in a small ISP and I can say with all honesty I have never thought this way of my subs.
If I have a problem, I let the customers know. If a customer calls me with a problem, I give them the benefit of the doubt before passing summary judgement.
If one of my customers wants to personally attack my service, that's their right. If someone wants internal memos sent between me and my partner, come on down, I'll give the grand tour of the facility and see if we can't work out this disagreement.
My point being, don't over generalize. It's like saying that all/.ers are hot-headed over generalizing, narrow-minded fools when in fact that percentage is much less than all encompassing.
A cable company is a cable company is a cable company.
It doesn't matter that they pedal data instead of HBO. For over 30 years, cable companies have been under constant criticism for exploiting their monopoly power. Does the company change because now they play with the internet? No.
The Regas (spelling?) family sat at the head of Adelphia cable, they now sit at the head of Adelphia communications (both Western New York cable service providers). Has anything changed? Of course not.
I conceed that the office is not devine appointment and that the man should earn our respect. But the original poster was commenting on the use of title and appropriate useage of them by the media.
When referring to the President of the United States it is inappropriate for the media to refer to him as Clinton. The correct usage should be President Clinton. This does not matter at all what personal feelings are carried for the man, but this is a sign of respect for the office he holds.
Giving the office due respect does not put it above the law or justify anything more than recognizing the man who holds the Presidency is the figurative head of our government and the defacto face given to the american people in world affairs. To deny that the office should deserve respect, is in fact denying our entire system respect, at which point we might as well get a new government because this one has over stayed its welcome.
To support this, Gov. Bush made comments about bringing the dignity and respect back to the office. Some of that actual respect was lost over the past eight years with our current administration (cigars and fat chicks anyone), the implied respect that is due when referring to the office and what it stands for has not changed and is immutable. It is the attitude of people that change.
The economy is far too complex to put the blame for its failings on any one person. No matter who that person is.
Just as it is too complex to give credit to any one person or administration.
In college I had an economics professor that taught the economy, although founded in government action, is in fact a seperate entity that is no to an extent controlling the actions and movement of government. It in itself is really non-dependent to a large part. The true economy as outlined in wealth of nations. Just more perverted now.
In April of 1865, the grand experiment that was America turned into a shadowy reflection of itself and has not emerged since.
For those not in the know, 1865 was the end of the Civil War and the rise of dicatatorial Republican power. This power is what gave rise to the famed 14th Amendment and its ramifications and ambiguities regarding C(c)itizenship.
For most of the last 135 years, the Federal government has taken rights and privelidges it was never intended to have. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but from my interpretation, the Federal government is the binding force that acts as the unified face for the states. In very few instances does the federal government have direct jurisdiction over the populace itself.
In contrast, today we have many, many laws governing our everyday life in a direct way that are mandated by the federal government. Take drugs for example. Why is it illegal to smoke weed? Who else besides me does it hurt?
Another example is the new drunk driving law put into effect. The federal government is blackmailing states to go along. Why is this allowed? Not that this is, per se, a bad idea, but this is and should not be a federal issue. This is a state decision.
When I started this election year, I was going to vote for Bush. I have always supported the republicans since I've been able to vote. After watching the debates, I realized that the two major candidates are just carbon copies of each other and neither have addressed my concerns.
I'm 26, married with a daughter, and I work in a well paying job. I could give a damn about social security as I've never planned to see dime one from it I have my own retirement accounts set up. I'm insured and I have a prescription drug benefit. The tax cut, that's a joke. What is the average cut $500 - $1000 per year depending? Even at that, what does that amount to...just under the price of a loaded pizza each week. Woo Hoo.
After doing reasearch, I decided to vote for Brown. He makes sense for me and my views. Does he have a chance to win...not even close, but I cannot in good conscience vote for either Mr. Bush or the current Vice President. I'm voting as a protest, that we cannot continue. The arrogance of the American Federal government must end. We seem to have forgotten, of the people, by the people for the people.
It is a response such as this as compared to the point made by the original post that speaks volumes about why our country is in such miserable straights. It is not the man that deserves respect, it is the office.
I can appreciate what you say as I was once a youth with those same concerns, but as I got older and spent time in college studying history, government and social science, I was made aware of the fact that there is a big difference between being a resident of a country and being a citizen of the same. One of the problems with modern law is that we are very quick to grant constitutional protections and rights to residents when in fact these protections are guaranteed to citizens. As I said, I appreciate what you say, but in truth, if you are under 18 you are a minor and have only a limited subset of protections offered to citizens under the constitution.
Do I agree with what's happening, no, but until someone steps up to the plate and demands change we're stuck with it. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, although not technically an American or US document, a government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. There are times, such as election years, when we need to remind the people in Washington who's boss.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux and the rest of those "open-source" terrorists are wrecking America. We need to stop this whole open source thing now.
...Just Kidding.
Here's a couple thoughts:
- Couldn't some company somewhere come up with an AI card. Think along the lines of the 3d accelerators 4 years ago. There could then be a stand set of APIs to interact with AI hardware linke DirectX or openGL.
- What about an open-source AI project for use in games.
Just my $.02
Support and acceptance lies with the DNS admins. To resolve alternate TLDs one simply needs to add the appropriate entries into named.conf and configure the system to resolve to the correct servers.
l
m l
To the end user, they type in whatever.alttld and poof, it resolves. No plugin, nothing.
To set up your workstation:
http://www.pacificroot.com/setup_unix_resolv.shtm
TO set up a caching server:
http://www.pacificroot.com/setup_unix_cache.sht
That's it. If it's done at the ISP level, the transition slowly opens up the alternate TLDs to all users.
Not to mention the X-15.
I don't quite have the stats, but someone should be easily able to look them up.
This is all great news!
Now when someone calls me fat-ass, I can simply say I am storing raw materials in the event of a catastrophic catilage loss!
No more New Years resolution, no more 200 calorie diet.
This is the best news I've had all day!
In all honesty I thought it was a good read.
It was a little heavy on the reviews of new products, but I liked some of the projects...
The 1u rack for a car mp3 player with a mysql database and web server was pretty cool.
I'll miss the CD everymonth because it had some interesting utilities on it.
Anyone have any other paper based Linux mags they recommend?
Glad my wife didn't mail out my subscription renewel yet.
(it's in the envelope just waiting to go to the mailbox)...
Speaking of High School, a guy I knew, as a final farewell to everyone that ever pissed him off during the course of our school years, wrapped up a shoe-box of his excrement, toe-nail clippings and shower drain spooge and mailed it to people. This was all wrapped in sealed bags so the smell would not give it away.
It was sick and childish but it's better than killing those people I guess. And point being, the mail service delivered it without question.
I was at a conference in '99 where Nicholas Negroponte (spelling?) of the MIT media lab was speaking about this technology and its application being mostly lowcost computers for the third world. From what I understand, it all has to do with electro-conductive ink being printed on standard paper. Now considering that they were working out the logistics of a computer, I don't see how this would be too unfeasable for phones.
Sure we do, just check out the posting on responses from the first two presidetial candidates to slashdotter's posts. There are people actually posting that they think the Socialists and the Libertarians are just too similar for their tastes.
One of the problems with an interview like this is that it is lacking in the "hows" of instituting reform. Now on Browne's website, he outlines this.
Legislation relating to finance in the federal government can only originate one place - The House Of Representatives. So you're right, the President can not do squat about inacting new tax laws.
The President can, however, put all of these tax laws that are on the books now, up to a Supreme Court challenge. As with all the oversized programs and other things the Federal Government has no business doing.
In an election year such as this, where there are so many seats on the Supremem Court that will be appointed by this President, a radical change is very possible. Four libertarian justices on the court and true constitutional government could be a reality for the first time in over 100 years.
You're already paying excise taxes, it's the income tax that would be no longer needed.
Income tax came into being on Februaury 3, 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Ammendment. Prior to that, taxes were levied based upon property owned. This included personal items in addition to real estate.
The only reason we have such a high tax burden today is due to social programs and the huge cost associated with a huge federal government. I will conceed that it will not be an absolute drop in the total amount you pay in federal tax because the states will have levy taxes to make up for lost federal funding and to institue program the federal government cut. But in the end, there will still be more money to go around and we have the added benefit of more direct control of our money as it stays in the state.
I wouldn't really call them the best thing since sliced bread. Excise taxes have been around since Washington was President. Which I beleive predates sliced bread.
For some interesting history, do some reading on the whiskey rebellion in Pennsylvania. THat was all about excise taxes.
It was President Regan and the DOD that instituted that "prize", not Brown. It would be probably be by presidential mandate if that was still in effect, though.
The money to support the government will be derived from excise taxes and tarrifs. Necessary projects are the constitutionally mandated duties of government. You know, common defense, protection of freedom, print money all that jazz. All of these tasks can be funded by a) the taxes collected I mentioned above and b) by selling public lands that are not being used or reserved (ie. retired military bases and non-protected open land).
All of this is outlined at www.harrybrowne2000.org
Prior to President Truman, I will argue that a person would be hardpressed to find significant and direct government influence or funding of science. There are some exceptions, but government was not as far reaching as it is today.
One of the problems to understand is that when you call for tech support, chances are you're calling a very large contract call center. Most of "kids" manning the phones at these places are lightly trained and to be quite honest the bottom of the barrel. Any of the tech support / CS people who are any good have long since been promoted to supervisors or managers.
As a rule of thumb, if your problem is of a significant enough nature, politely ask for your problem to be escalated without going into details. This normally works, and you have the added benefit of speaking with a better trained and normally less stressed person who has the time to work with you.
ISP's in general do not think this way of their subs. Mega large broadband ISP conglomerates think this way of their subs.
/.ers are hot-headed over generalizing, narrow-minded fools when in fact that percentage is much less than all encompassing.
I'm a partner in a small ISP and I can say with all honesty I have never thought this way of my subs.
If I have a problem, I let the customers know. If a customer calls me with a problem, I give them the benefit of the doubt before passing summary judgement.
If one of my customers wants to personally attack my service, that's their right. If someone wants internal memos sent between me and my partner, come on down, I'll give the grand tour of the facility and see if we can't work out this disagreement.
My point being, don't over generalize. It's like saying that all
A cable company is a cable company is a cable company.
It doesn't matter that they pedal data instead of HBO. For over 30 years, cable companies have been under constant criticism for exploiting their monopoly power. Does the company change because now they play with the internet? No.
The Regas (spelling?) family sat at the head of Adelphia cable, they now sit at the head of Adelphia communications (both Western New York cable service providers). Has anything changed? Of course not.
Now it's official -
/. being compared to Chicken-little, there are no more deragatory simliarities to be made.
With the recent addition of
Guess I'm leaving, last one out turn off the light lock the door.
I agree with you about 90%.
I conceed that the office is not devine appointment and that the man should earn our respect. But the original poster was commenting on the use of title and appropriate useage of them by the media.
When referring to the President of the United States it is inappropriate for the media to refer to him as Clinton. The correct usage should be President Clinton. This does not matter at all what personal feelings are carried for the man, but this is a sign of respect for the office he holds.
Giving the office due respect does not put it above the law or justify anything more than recognizing the man who holds the Presidency is the figurative head of our government and the defacto face given to the american people in world affairs. To deny that the office should deserve respect, is in fact denying our entire system respect, at which point we might as well get a new government because this one has over stayed its welcome.
To support this, Gov. Bush made comments about bringing the dignity and respect back to the office. Some of that actual respect was lost over the past eight years with our current administration (cigars and fat chicks anyone), the implied respect that is due when referring to the office and what it stands for has not changed and is immutable. It is the attitude of people that change.
Just as it is too complex to give credit to any one person or administration.
In college I had an economics professor that taught the economy, although founded in government action, is in fact a seperate entity that is no to an extent controlling the actions and movement of government. It in itself is really non-dependent to a large part. The true economy as outlined in wealth of nations. Just more perverted now.
Here's my thoughts.
In April of 1865, the grand experiment that was America turned into a shadowy reflection of itself and has not emerged since.
For those not in the know, 1865 was the end of the Civil War and the rise of dicatatorial Republican power. This power is what gave rise to the famed 14th Amendment and its ramifications and ambiguities regarding C(c)itizenship.
For most of the last 135 years, the Federal government has taken rights and privelidges it was never intended to have. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but from my interpretation, the Federal government is the binding force that acts as the unified face for the states. In very few instances does the federal government have direct jurisdiction over the populace itself.
In contrast, today we have many, many laws governing our everyday life in a direct way that are mandated by the federal government. Take drugs for example. Why is it illegal to smoke weed? Who else besides me does it hurt?
Another example is the new drunk driving law put into effect. The federal government is blackmailing states to go along. Why is this allowed? Not that this is, per se, a bad idea, but this is and should not be a federal issue. This is a state decision.
When I started this election year, I was going to vote for Bush. I have always supported the republicans since I've been able to vote. After watching the debates, I realized that the two major candidates are just carbon copies of each other and neither have addressed my concerns.
I'm 26, married with a daughter, and I work in a well paying job. I could give a damn about social security as I've never planned to see dime one from it I have my own retirement accounts set up. I'm insured and I have a prescription drug benefit. The tax cut, that's a joke. What is the average cut $500 - $1000 per year depending? Even at that, what does that amount to...just under the price of a loaded pizza each week. Woo Hoo.
After doing reasearch, I decided to vote for Brown. He makes sense for me and my views. Does he have a chance to win...not even close, but I cannot in good conscience vote for either Mr. Bush or the current Vice President. I'm voting as a protest, that we cannot continue. The arrogance of the American Federal government must end. We seem to have forgotten, of the people, by the people for the people.
It is a response such as this as compared to the point made by the original post that speaks volumes about why our country is in such miserable straights. It is not the man that deserves respect, it is the office.
All things considered, I think Taco's reasoning was more to the effect of why change something that's already working very successfully?
I don't think it was meant to be sun bashing.
But IANT - I am not Taco.
I can appreciate what you say as I was once a youth with those same concerns, but as I got older and spent time in college studying history, government and social science, I was made aware of the fact that there is a big difference between being a resident of a country and being a citizen of the same. One of the problems with modern law is that we are very quick to grant constitutional protections and rights to residents when in fact these protections are guaranteed to citizens. As I said, I appreciate what you say, but in truth, if you are under 18 you are a minor and have only a limited subset of protections offered to citizens under the constitution.
Do I agree with what's happening, no, but until someone steps up to the plate and demands change we're stuck with it. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, although not technically an American or US document, a government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. There are times, such as election years, when we need to remind the people in Washington who's boss.