Used to come here a lot ten years ago, and I know it's not as "popular" as it used to be, but it seems like the smartest people stayed. Really enjoying the commentary.
Name the Democrats Abramoff lobbied for. There aren't any.
You're probably thinking about the Indian tribes who *used* to give money to some Democrats before they got tied up with Abramoff, who told them to stop giving money to Democrats or he would do black magic for them.
The MSM tries to make you think this is a "bipartisan" scandal. It is not in the least.
Exactly true. The responses on this page show they've not read the Interview with Eoalas founder Michael Doyle. The 500 million may sound like a lot, but it's not money in the pocket by a long shot, and the lawsuit was intended to stop Microsoft dominance.
I guess Doyle really didn't expect to get a pile of cash. Perhaps he wanted to use the patent system to show how screwed up the patent system really is.
" Same goes for a 540MB 'router' install with Fedora - what the heck is running."
The point of using Linux is that you can find out, and the OS will deliver you an honest list, unlike Windows, where you can have a daemon not listed in the Task window.
It seems pretty obvious that the chorus of complaints about the "liberal media" are a right-wing ploy to make sure the media are anything but. The unprincipled air-heads who make up the majority of corporate media workers want to make everyone happy, the better to sell product.
Right wingers, long aware of the value of a well orchestrated campaign, endlessly scream and whine "liberal media!." In response the media goes right wing. Repeat ad nauseum for 20 years, and look at what we've got today: a national 24/7 advertisement for the RNC.
The whinefest about the Wellstone memorial was the latest highly effective intimidation campaign by the right-wing media. It worked like a charm.
Oh, and to stay on topic: Salon is great. Other then for Horowitz and Sullivan, I'm completely happy about spending $30 for a premium subscription.
It seems pretty obvious that the chorus of complaints about the "liberal media" are a right-wing ploy to make sure the media are anything but. The unprincipled air-heads who make up the majority of corporate media workers want to make everyone happy, the better to sell product.
Right wingers, long aware of the value of a well orchestrated campaign, endlessly scream and whine "liberal media!." In response the media goes right wing. Repeat ad nauseum for 20 years, and look at what we've got today: a national 24/7 advertisement for the RNC.
The whinefest about the Wellstone memorial was the latest highly effective intimidation campaign by the right-wing media. It worked like a charm.
Would you like some Certs with your Whine ?
on
Resume Tips For Jobs
·
· Score: 1
My only beef about Certs ( MCSEs specifically, ) is how they get in the way when you need to fix something, defensivly spouting nonsense.
>Technology companies must carefully balance individual rights and corporate interests, says Bruce Schneier, cryptography expert and chief technology officer at Counterpane Internet Security, a network monitoring firm
Here's my careful balance: Individual rights come first, Corporate interests come dead last!
Your attitude is part of the problem.
on
Lessig @ OSCON
·
· Score: 1
>but *something* has to put food on the table
Is that a problem that we simply must have Government issued monopolies to solve ? I think not.
>I hope his arguments before the Supreme Court are less radical
This whole topic is fundamentally radical. You can't escape this fact. But by the "if you're explaining, you're losing," hueristic, I'll leave it at that.
You do need copyright law if your goal is to be another Bill Gates. For most lesser goals, it's not neccesary. But it's tough to explain that to people who have been conditioned in the job-dependant corporate consumerist group-think, so I won't bother. ( there's that hueristic again:)
My suspicions were pretty surface, thanks for the detail.
My college exposure to economics left me deeply unimpressed. They make major unwarrented assumptions about human behaviour. My professor waved away my objections by appealing to the law of large numbers. The theories might be worth something if humans were linear elements, but we are not. Economics seems to be useless for predictions, so it's not really science, but they appropriate the language of science to gain credibility.
-which take advantage of more recent developments in the mathematics of non-linear systems.
Given that economics seems to have a shallow grasp of linear system dynamics, how much of this new book's useage of non-linear systems is really tough scientific thinking, and how much is appropriation of new buzz to get attention?
Check out Liebowitz's papers on lock-in. This kind of cheap debunking is what corporate shills are using to bolster their weak arguments. ( Junkscience.com being a prime example ) His web-site has testimonials that make me strongly suspicious that what we have here is some MS "astroturf."
Much of Microsoft's "technical superiority" vis a vis other products like Lotus are due to withholding of API info from competitors and may even be due to intentional code alterations to screw up competitors products. Comparisons to the QWERTY keyboard or the Beta/VHS battle are specious and irrelevant.
It's highly usual for a real academic to have so many product endorsements on their school website.
A theory: for Micro$oft he made a big public argument that lock-in is a myth, and then did a bit of shilling for the RIAA that peer-to-peer hurts record sales, and then noticed the logical contradiction and is now backpedaling.
Remember, even Phil Gramm got a PHD in economics, and he boasted about flunking the 4th grade.
A kill -9 is not a signal, it destroys the process w/o any niceties. That's why it's the kill of last resort.
A regular kill will call the signal handler which *will* do cleanup, resets etc....
Missing Dividends makes for Ponzai Market.
on
Alan Cox Interview
·
· Score: 1
Lately I've been thinking that owning stock which pays no dividends is really just like participating in a Ponzai scheme or a chain letter game. If the only real value of stock that you "own" is determined by what someone else will pay for it, and likewise for them, then the stock is intrinsically worthless.
I looked on the web for some economist or other deep thinking financial expert to make a similar point, but found nothing except for some people complaining about how few stocks these days pay dividends. Microsoft appararantly prefers to sit on it's huge pile of cash ( something near $100 billion I understand, ) rather then pay anyone *any* dividends.
Then I read this Cox interview, and he makes a passing reference to the "question now raised in the US about whether business practices of not paying dividends are in fact allowable or an illicit tax haven there are several chances for justice to be done."
Son of a gun! Count on an uber-Hacker to notice things that important economists seem to ignore.
Any ideas on how this tax shelter game works ? I assume it has something to do with paying stock options rather then cash.
Slashdot Mirror
Used to come here a lot ten years ago, and I know it's not as "popular" as it used to be, but it seems like the smartest people stayed. Really enjoying the commentary.
One doesn't have to believe in extreme conspiracy theories to smell fear mongering.
Non specific stories like these are not credible. Pity so many people just accept them with no critical thought.
The Indian Tribes were screwed by Abramoff. They gave money to Reid *before* getting tied up with Abramoff.
Try again.
America hasn't suffered the way most of the rest of the world has. It's a sort of "let them eat cake" cruelty.
People who've been through prison or who come from other places don't find these jokes funny at all.
Name the Democrats Abramoff lobbied for. There aren't any.
You're probably thinking about the Indian tribes who *used* to give money
to some Democrats before they got tied up with Abramoff, who told them to
stop giving money to Democrats or he would do black magic for them.
The MSM tries to make you think this is a "bipartisan" scandal. It is not in the least.
Your post makes me question whether my quest for a more sophisticated perspective is motivated by love of wisdom or emotional protectionism.
oh, and ignore the previous poster. How I hate Godwin Nazis !
Exactly true. The responses on this page show they've not read the Interview with Eoalas founder Michael Doyle. The 500 million may sound like a lot, but it's not money in the pocket by a long shot, and the lawsuit was intended to stop Microsoft dominance.
I guess Doyle really didn't expect to get a pile of cash. Perhaps he wanted to use the patent system to show how screwed up the patent system really is.
Exactly true.
It's only flamebait if it starts a fire.
You see more then the crowd. Don't be surprised that they ignore your warnings. Besides, the outcome is not at all certain.
Thom Hartman is on this topic.
How many people would still write viruses and worms if nearly all computors ran open source OSes?
There would still be some. How many?
" Same goes for a 540MB 'router' install with Fedora - what the heck is running."
The point of using Linux is that you can find out, and the OS will deliver you an honest list, unlike Windows, where you can have a daemon not listed in the Task window.
For Fedora: ps -A should do the trick.
Does anyone have anything intellegent to say about my little observation/theory? Other then to mod it a troll?
Ya know, Socrates was a troll. But sometimes, a troll *is* just a troll.
It seems pretty obvious that the chorus of complaints about the "liberal media" are a right-wing ploy to make sure the media are anything but. The unprincipled air-heads who make up the majority of corporate media workers want to make everyone happy, the better to sell product.
Right wingers, long aware of the value of a well orchestrated campaign, endlessly scream and whine "liberal media!." In response the media goes right wing. Repeat ad nauseum for 20 years, and look at what we've got today: a national 24/7 advertisement for the RNC.
The whinefest about the Wellstone memorial was the latest highly effective intimidation campaign by the right-wing media. It worked like a charm.
Oh, and to stay on topic: Salon is great. Other then for Horowitz and Sullivan, I'm completely happy about spending $30 for a premium subscription.
It seems pretty obvious that the chorus of complaints about the "liberal media" are a right-wing ploy to make sure the media are anything but. The unprincipled air-heads who make up the majority of corporate media workers want to make everyone happy, the better to sell product.
Right wingers, long aware of the value of a well orchestrated campaign, endlessly scream and whine "liberal media!." In response the media goes right wing. Repeat ad nauseum for 20 years, and look at what we've got today: a national 24/7 advertisement for the RNC.
The whinefest about the Wellstone memorial was the latest highly effective intimidation campaign by the right-wing media. It worked like a charm.
My only beef about Certs ( MCSEs specifically, ) is how they get in the way when you need to fix something, defensivly spouting nonsense.
>Technology companies must carefully balance individual rights and corporate interests, says Bruce Schneier, cryptography expert and chief technology officer at Counterpane Internet Security, a network monitoring firm
Here's my careful balance: Individual rights come first, Corporate interests come dead last!
>but *something* has to put food on the table
Is that a problem that we simply must have Government issued monopolies to solve ? I think not.
>I hope his arguments before the Supreme Court are less radical
This whole topic is fundamentally radical. You can't escape this fact. But by the "if you're explaining, you're losing," hueristic, I'll leave it at that.
You do need copyright law if your goal is to be another Bill Gates. For most lesser goals, it's not neccesary. But it's tough to explain that to people who have been conditioned in the job-dependant corporate consumerist group-think, so I won't bother. ( there's that hueristic again:)
It really amazes me how many Slashdotters have been brainwashed into thinking that sharing files of copywritten material is a kind of theft.
Sharing copies.
I guess that knowing something about computors and math doesn't make you immune to muddy thinking.
>the worst sources are the ones that seem to be "fair," because they tend to make you less alert to the bias that inevitably exists.
My vote for this category would be "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer."
Fair and balanced == corporate milquetoast
My suspicions were pretty surface, thanks for the detail.
My college exposure to economics left me deeply unimpressed. They make major unwarrented assumptions about human behaviour. My professor waved away my objections by appealing to the law of large numbers.
The theories might be worth something if humans were linear elements, but we are not. Economics seems to be useless for predictions, so it's not really science, but they appropriate the language of science to gain credibility.
-which take advantage of more recent developments in the mathematics of non-linear systems.
Given that economics seems to have a shallow grasp of linear system dynamics, how much of this new book's useage of non-linear systems is really tough scientific thinking, and how much is appropriation of new buzz to get attention?
Check out Liebowitz's papers on lock-in. This kind of cheap debunking is what corporate shills are using to bolster their weak arguments. ( Junkscience.com being a prime example ) His web-site has testimonials that make me strongly suspicious that what we have here is some MS "astroturf."
Much of Microsoft's "technical superiority" vis a vis other products like Lotus are due to withholding of API info from competitors and may even be due to intentional code alterations to screw up competitors products. Comparisons to the QWERTY keyboard or the Beta/VHS battle are specious and irrelevant.
It's highly usual for a real academic to have so many product endorsements on their school website.
A theory: for Micro$oft he made a big public argument that lock-in is a myth, and then did a bit of shilling for the RIAA that peer-to-peer hurts record sales, and then noticed the logical contradiction and is now backpedaling.
Remember, even Phil Gramm got a PHD in economics, and he boasted about flunking the 4th grade.
A kill -9 is not a signal, it destroys the process w/o any niceties. That's why it's the kill of last resort.
A regular kill will call the signal handler which *will* do cleanup, resets etc....
Lately I've been thinking that owning stock which pays no dividends is really just like participating in a Ponzai scheme or a chain letter game. If the only real value of stock that you "own" is determined by what someone else will pay for it, and likewise for them, then the stock is intrinsically worthless.
I looked on the web for some economist or other deep thinking financial expert to make a similar point, but found nothing except for some people complaining about how few stocks these days pay dividends. Microsoft appararantly prefers to sit on it's huge pile of cash ( something near $100 billion I understand, ) rather then pay anyone *any* dividends.
Then I read this Cox interview, and he makes a passing reference to the "question now raised in the US about whether business practices of not paying dividends are in fact allowable or an illicit tax haven there are several chances for justice to be done."
Son of a gun! Count on an uber-Hacker to notice things that important economists seem to ignore.
Any ideas on how this tax shelter game works ? I assume it has something to do with paying stock options rather then cash.
Paul Allen's company Ticket Master is jacking up the prices of tickets through high "service charges."
It's pretty insidious.
That's what I'm wondering; isn't it a little late for someone to get rich quick with an vapourware IPO ?
What the heck else is the technobabble B.S. good for ?