Having taken a look at this latest release, I'm convinced that THIS IS THE YEAR that Linux will be the dominant desktop OS. Easy installation, advanced package manager, FREE!, and tons of community support; there's really no reason that it won't win the hearts and minds of users everywhere.
And with the cost of oil skyrocketing, people have less money to shell out to Microsoft, so a free OS is just what this ailing economy needs. It's surprising. Just a few months ago I was mentioning to someone just how good Linux was, but at that time he scoffed and said his grandmother still wouldn't be able to use it. However with this latest Mandriva Alpha (cool name) release, I think we're looking at a watershed moment here.
I'm looking forward to upgrading my systems post haste.
Whether research is aimed at solving an immediate problem or a problem conjured up in the mind of a scientist, it is not the technical abilities that make research useful. Any project can come up with a solution, pretty much. Rather, it is the mindset that "we are doing research" that makes the activity so productive.
By opening your eyes to all possibilities and outcomes makes even mistakes useful, and having no penalty (relatively speaking, of course) when those mistakes arise frees researchers to create and build. Instead of creating a tailored solution, they can find various solutions and even branch out into more fruitful areas if the main branch turns cold.
Having overarching themes that you want to pursue, like HP and IBM have, makes it easy for researchers to focus. On the other hand, pure research as they do at MS allows the researchers to go off in any direction that seems fruitful, even if most of the projects end up as dead ends.
Take the politics and costs out of the equation for a second. The general attitude towards GM crops in the US ranges from ignorance to lukewarm acceptance. The general attitude towards them in the EU is outright rejection.
Do you think there is a conspiracy in the US to promote GM crops? Do you think there is a conspiracy elsewhere to promote rejection of GM crops? If the governments are complicit with their support or rejection of these technologies, is it likely that they are also using their power to "brainwash" the citizenry to support the corresponding ideology?
This is why I believe that there are only two choices. One to embrace technology and one to take a wait and see attitude. There is no way to embrace the new technologies without simultaneously exposing all the consumers of it to the risks, with disregard for their will, I might add. And there is no way to take a wait and see attitude without something to wait for. A wait and see attitude without taking any action results in deadlock, so it requires someone, somewhere deploy the technology.
The first choice propels science and technology, the second choice leads to stagnation. I still can't say which one is the better choice, considering the risks.
I didn't mention the IP ramifications of GM crops because they are completely irrelevant to their safety and not germane to this conversation.
There are only two choices when it comes to GM crops. The choice to use them or the choice to eschew them. At the consumer level, there is almost no chance to exercise choice at all since there is no way to determine whether a product contains GM components or not. The only possible leverage a consumer has is to purchase expensive organic products, but that is only possible for those who have extra disposable income (a group sadly shrinking in recent years).
So if you use GM crops in the production of a product, you reap the immediate benefits of higher margins due to cheaper ingredients, but you also have a huge unknown factor as to how those ingredients will affect your consumers in the long term. Maybe not at all, but maybe horrifically, maybe somewhere in between (Olestra?).
The choice boils down to risk management. For the immense gain in production, are we willing (as a citizenry) to accept that there are unknowns that may adversely affect us? In the US, the answer is yes. In many other industrialized countries, especially in Europe and some parts of Asia, the answer is no.
In the US, we all count on GM agriculture to provide us with cheap and plentiful fruits and vegetables as well as provide feed grain for our chemically-enhanced cows and chickens. Genetic manipulation provides us with our way of life and for the most part we are happily accepting of it.
In other parts of the world, this type of "frankenscience" makes people uncomfortable. There is a strong pushback against GM crops because for all the benefits of them, the drawbacks are as yet unknown.
Should we plow ahead with these new technologies, or should we move as slowly as possible to delay unwanted contamination? We can create test groups and phased deployments of these new products, but there is no good plan for widespread deployment that takes into account both the safety of the product users as well as exposing them to potential dangers against their will. Either we sell technologically-improved products, or we don't.
But could they enforce a policy retroactively? If the FCC has suddenly decided that "open access and unregulated packet flow" is their new rule, how can they apply it in this case, and how can they apply it in any case without fair notice?
With Net Neutrality being a hotly debated issue at the moment, it seems a bit forward of Martin to act on either side of the issue. Comcast has not violated the law, and while it might be against Martin's view of the FCC's "principles", it cannot be held liable for actions that are not illegal.
If he goes ahead with this action and Net Neutrality is struck down, Comcast would have a good lawsuit to bring against the FCC and Martin personally.
You make fun of Christianity's aversion to homosexuality, but the fact of the matter is that the harsh restrictions on the lifestyles of Christians make the taboos such as homosexuality and miscegenation all the more attractive. Such extremes such as celibacy have forced even priests into the arms of pederasty.
Christianity and religion as a whole encourages the polarization of actions into "good" and "evil" and by forcing the pendulum to the "good" side makes the "evil" side more attractive than an a-moral philosophy can do.
We have just discovered that in administrative proceedings in Michigan, attacking it for engaging in the business of investigation without a license, MediaSentry has taken the exact opposite position, comparing itself to chemical engineers, surveyors, physicians, geologists, and other expert witnesses who rely on their technical expertise.
Perhaps you're just a bit on the slow side, so I put the part about PI licensing in boldface.
Slashdot Mirror
That would never catch on.
Real programmers don't care what language they need to write applications in. They write them in C.
Anyone remember back when it was Mandrake and it actually worked?
You mean back when they were just a rip off of RedHat?
Having taken a look at this latest release, I'm convinced that THIS IS THE YEAR that Linux will be the dominant desktop OS. Easy installation, advanced package manager, FREE!, and tons of community support; there's really no reason that it won't win the hearts and minds of users everywhere.
And with the cost of oil skyrocketing, people have less money to shell out to Microsoft, so a free OS is just what this ailing economy needs. It's surprising. Just a few months ago I was mentioning to someone just how good Linux was, but at that time he scoffed and said his grandmother still wouldn't be able to use it. However with this latest Mandriva Alpha (cool name) release, I think we're looking at a watershed moment here.
I'm looking forward to upgrading my systems post haste.
No, they don't bother people on cellphones because it is illegal. It has nothing to do with pricing.
1) Still opt-out style. Unless you add yourself to the list, you are fair game for callers
2) Still ineffective against pollsters, politicians, and fundraisers
It's better than nothing, but there are certainly ways to make it better.
Whether research is aimed at solving an immediate problem or a problem conjured up in the mind of a scientist, it is not the technical abilities that make research useful. Any project can come up with a solution, pretty much. Rather, it is the mindset that "we are doing research" that makes the activity so productive.
By opening your eyes to all possibilities and outcomes makes even mistakes useful, and having no penalty (relatively speaking, of course) when those mistakes arise frees researchers to create and build. Instead of creating a tailored solution, they can find various solutions and even branch out into more fruitful areas if the main branch turns cold.
Having overarching themes that you want to pursue, like HP and IBM have, makes it easy for researchers to focus. On the other hand, pure research as they do at MS allows the researchers to go off in any direction that seems fruitful, even if most of the projects end up as dead ends.
That doesn't explain the difference in opinion regarding GM foods among the populace, though.
No one in the US is clamoring for GM foods to be everywhere, but they aren't protesting in the streets about it either.
Is it any surprise that the most laid back particle evar was discovered in California?
Are you aware that you come off as a pompous git?
Yes. Does that change the risks associated with GM foods, though?
You don't buy:
steak,
chicken,
fish,
eggs,
milk,
fruits,
vegetables,
crackers,
taco shells,
bread,
pasta,
or cookies?
Do you ever eat at restaurants? Do you ever consume airplane food? Have you ever grabbed a quick snack at the coffee shop?
There are so many vectors for GM crops. Are you avoiding them all?
Take the politics and costs out of the equation for a second. The general attitude towards GM crops in the US ranges from ignorance to lukewarm acceptance. The general attitude towards them in the EU is outright rejection.
Do you think there is a conspiracy in the US to promote GM crops? Do you think there is a conspiracy elsewhere to promote rejection of GM crops? If the governments are complicit with their support or rejection of these technologies, is it likely that they are also using their power to "brainwash" the citizenry to support the corresponding ideology?
If not both, then one? Which one? Neither?
This is why I believe that there are only two choices. One to embrace technology and one to take a wait and see attitude. There is no way to embrace the new technologies without simultaneously exposing all the consumers of it to the risks, with disregard for their will, I might add. And there is no way to take a wait and see attitude without something to wait for. A wait and see attitude without taking any action results in deadlock, so it requires someone, somewhere deploy the technology.
The first choice propels science and technology, the second choice leads to stagnation. I still can't say which one is the better choice, considering the risks.
I didn't mention the IP ramifications of GM crops because they are completely irrelevant to their safety and not germane to this conversation.
There are only two choices when it comes to GM crops. The choice to use them or the choice to eschew them. At the consumer level, there is almost no chance to exercise choice at all since there is no way to determine whether a product contains GM components or not. The only possible leverage a consumer has is to purchase expensive organic products, but that is only possible for those who have extra disposable income (a group sadly shrinking in recent years).
So if you use GM crops in the production of a product, you reap the immediate benefits of higher margins due to cheaper ingredients, but you also have a huge unknown factor as to how those ingredients will affect your consumers in the long term. Maybe not at all, but maybe horrifically, maybe somewhere in between (Olestra?).
The choice boils down to risk management. For the immense gain in production, are we willing (as a citizenry) to accept that there are unknowns that may adversely affect us? In the US, the answer is yes. In many other industrialized countries, especially in Europe and some parts of Asia, the answer is no.
In the US, we all count on GM agriculture to provide us with cheap and plentiful fruits and vegetables as well as provide feed grain for our chemically-enhanced cows and chickens. Genetic manipulation provides us with our way of life and for the most part we are happily accepting of it.
In other parts of the world, this type of "frankenscience" makes people uncomfortable. There is a strong pushback against GM crops because for all the benefits of them, the drawbacks are as yet unknown.
Should we plow ahead with these new technologies, or should we move as slowly as possible to delay unwanted contamination? We can create test groups and phased deployments of these new products, but there is no good plan for widespread deployment that takes into account both the safety of the product users as well as exposing them to potential dangers against their will. Either we sell technologically-improved products, or we don't.
Which is the right mindset?
There are so many things that are unfair, fraudulent, and ridiculous. OOXML's ratification as an international standard is pretty low on the scale.
Ask Morgan Tsvangirai about unfair elections.
I'd be surprised if there were provisions in the contract that insinuated that Comcast wouldn't shape traffic.
Can you provide an excerpt that says as much?
But could they enforce a policy retroactively? If the FCC has suddenly decided that "open access and unregulated packet flow" is their new rule, how can they apply it in this case, and how can they apply it in any case without fair notice?
With Net Neutrality being a hotly debated issue at the moment, it seems a bit forward of Martin to act on either side of the issue. Comcast has not violated the law, and while it might be against Martin's view of the FCC's "principles", it cannot be held liable for actions that are not illegal.
If he goes ahead with this action and Net Neutrality is struck down, Comcast would have a good lawsuit to bring against the FCC and Martin personally.
why is it that shell fish are ok now, but homosexuality is not?
Shellfish taste great. Anal tastes like shit.
TAGGATTACACCT
Yo Yo I gots my GAT
rat a tat tat anotha nigga on his BAAACK
Steve W sucks cock! lol!!!1
16:04, 10 July 2008 86.75.30.9 (Talk) (3,808 bytes) (undo vandalism... maybe this shouldn't be a wiki)
You make fun of Christianity's aversion to homosexuality, but the fact of the matter is that the harsh restrictions on the lifestyles of Christians make the taboos such as homosexuality and miscegenation all the more attractive. Such extremes such as celibacy have forced even priests into the arms of pederasty.
Christianity and religion as a whole encourages the polarization of actions into "good" and "evil" and by forcing the pendulum to the "good" side makes the "evil" side more attractive than an a-moral philosophy can do.
From the summary:
We have just discovered that in administrative proceedings in Michigan, attacking it for engaging in the business of investigation without a license, MediaSentry has taken the exact opposite position, comparing itself to chemical engineers, surveyors, physicians, geologists, and other expert witnesses who rely on their technical expertise.
Perhaps you're just a bit on the slow side, so I put the part about PI licensing in boldface.
I see. Only the police should have investigative powers. Citizens should always trust them.
Right?
Why would I need a license to engage in gainful employment? Why should the government regulate investigative powers?
"Land of the Free" doesn't have much meaning when the government can stop anyone from performing their own police work.