to whom it may concern
Kent Paul Dolan
<quote>
In brief The European Parliament has voted by a massive majority to
reject the software patents directive, formally known as the Directive
on the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions. The vote to
scrap the bill was passed by a margin of 648 votes to 14, with 18
abstentions.
</quote>
Yippie!
How come the US doesn't have this much good sense? Especially since
"algorithms" were originally forbidden from being patented?
FYI
xanthian.
Linønut
> <quote>
> In brief The European Parliament has voted by a massive majority to
> reject the software patents directive, formally known as the Directive
> on the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions. The vote to
> scrap the bill was passed by a margin of 648 votes to 14, with 18
> abstentions.
> </quote>
>
> Yippie!
>
> How come the US doesn't have this much good sense? Especially since
> "algorithms" were originally forbidden from being patented?
Because we worship mainly money here. If you aren't a soldier or a
biznizzman (and sports stars count as businessmen), you ain't sheet.
"No businessman left behind."
--
Tux rox!
NoStop
to say:
> How come the US doesn't have this much good sense?
One just has to look at the political system in the US (bought, paid for and
owned by the corporations) and the STUPID people that vote for these
assholes to see why there is so little good sense to be found there. In
every way possible the US and at least half of its population are the most
politically backwards in the world. Probably comes about by spending too
much time walking the aisles of WalMart.
--
Still running XP (The Toy Operating System eXPerience)?
Kiddies, don't forget to defrag your hard drive & update your virus
definitions. And NEVER connect to the Internet!
http://w-3productions.com/more.jpg
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
The US position on software patentability is just an extension of the
overall problems with US patents in general (like patents for
entertaining cats with laser pointers or patents for trivially obvious
hardware devices). Its just easier to sit down, hack out a bit of
software bad upon commonly known algorithms and get a patent for it
(like representing digital data in numerical bases other than base 10),
particularly if you are a large company, enjoy monopoly profits and can
afford to fund thousands of software engineers whose job it is to flood
the patent office with garbage.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
During the next two hours, the system will be going up and down several
times, often with lin~po_~{po ~poz~ppo\~{ o n~po_~{o[po ~y oodsou>#w4ko
Linønut
> After sticking his head out from his XP firewall, Kent Paul Dolan had this
> to say:
>
>> How come the US doesn't have this much good sense?
>
> One just has to look at the political system in the US (bought, paid for and
> owned by the corporations) and the STUPID people that vote for these
> assholes to see why there is so little good sense to be found there. In
> every way possible the US and at least half of its population are the most
> politically backwards in the world. Probably comes about by spending too
> much time walking the aisles of WalMart.
I wouldn't just apply that blanket to Americans:
Google for other "sniper club" links.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/comments.php?id=328
First rule about Sniper Club: Do NOT talk about Sniper Club!
--
Tux rox!
Liam Slider
Ok, what does my right to bear arms have to do with software patents (the
subject of the thread) now?
Phil Da Lick!
Right. Firstly, the situation hasn't actually changed at all. There are
50,000+ software related patents already granted by the EPO. And the
mega corps will continue to apply for, and be granted patents in this area.
What has changed is that we are no longer about to have these patents
legitimized in law. So the situation actually is that there are software
patents out there that aren't legally enforceable in a court of law.
Don't expect the pro patent lobby to sit still for this for long.
Linønut
I was simply agreeing with NoStop that some Americans are kooks.
And also indicating that kookhood is not limited to Americans.
Now go back to making bullets in your garage.
--
Tux rox!
Scott Dorsey
><quote>
>In brief The European Parliament has voted by a massive majority to
>reject the software patents directive, formally known as the Directive
>on the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions. The vote to
>scrap the bill was passed by a margin of 648 votes to 14, with 18
>abstentions.
></quote>
>
>Yippie!
>
>How come the US doesn't have this much good sense? Especially since
>"algorithms" were originally forbidden from being patented?
Because patenting algorithms _is_ a good idea, and it encourages
innovation and protects folks who invent new ways of doing things
so they can benefit from their invention.
The US software patent system is totally broken and is managed by
morons who allow Microsoft to patent data structures like ring buffers
which have been in use since the early 1960s. But this is purely
an implementation issue and does not reflect on the value of software
patents.
If you submit a patent for a mechanical device, it is reviewed by someone
with a mechanical engineering background and a basic knowledge of the art.
For software patents to be useful, they must also be reviewed in the same
way by inspectors with the same skills.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Liam Slider
> Liam Slider poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:48:32 -0500, Linønutlinønut wrote:
>>
>>> NoStop poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>>
>>>>> How come the US doesn't have this much good sense?
>>>>
>>>> One just has to look at the political system in the US (bought, paid
>>>> for and owned by the corporations) and the STUPID people that vote for
>>>> these assholes to see why there is so little good sense to be found
>>>> there. In every way possible the US and at least half of its
>>>> population are the most politically backwards in the world. Probably
>>>> comes about by spending too much time walking the aisles of WalMart.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't just apply that blanket to Americans:
>>>
>>> http://www.sniperclub.org/
>>>
>>> Google for other "sniper club" links.
>>>
>>> http://www.rightwingnews.com/comments.php?id=328
>>>
>>> First rule about Sniper Club: Do NOT talk about Sniper Club!
>>
>> Ok, what does my right to bear arms have to do with software patents
>> (the subject of the thread) now?
>
> I was simply agreeing with NoStop that some Americans are kooks.
>
> And also indicating that kookhood is not limited to Americans.
>
> Now go back to making bullets in your garage.
Ok, what does guns have to do with kookhood? Both websites have something
to do with guns (although appairently airsoft in the first place). But how
does liking guns, or standing up for one's civil rights, make one a kook?
I'd say there are plenty of better examples of people who are far bigger
kooks. Like flat-earthers, or people who worship Elvis as a god...
Phil Da Lick!
> Because patenting algorithms _is_ a good idea, and it encourages
> innovation and protects folks who invent new ways of doing things
> so they can benefit from their invention.
I cant agree with this. The problem with software is that next year's
new thing is based upon this year's new thing. Development is an
evolutionary process rather than revolutionary. Control this year's new
thing and you've got control for a long time to come. Whoever comes up
with next year's new thing has no choice but to play ball.
Patenting software in any form by itself is a bad idea. Patenting
software *as part of a physical invention* such as a mobile phone or abs
system is fair play IMO.
Roy. Just Roy.
Aside from stirring pasta, guns have one purpose - to kill. Liking guns
= liking the act of killing. (Or of stirring pasta).
Let me give you an analogy. I like taking my morning constitutional.
It's peaceful, it's quiet, and there's no boss or wife yelling in your
ear. But, unlike gun owners, I don't "like" my toilet. I don't spend
hours upon hours cleaning my toilet for the off chance that I might
have to use it. I don't memorize the EXACT specifications of my toilet,
its manufacturer, the year of its creation, and the size of the exit
barrel down to the exact millimeter. I don't drive 100 miles to go to a
home improvement expo, just so I can look at bigger, shinier models of
toilets. If the john breaks, and I have to wait 3 days for Home Depot
to restock, I don't bitch and moan and write my congressman that my
constitutional rights are being trampled on. I don't create a toilet
club so I can meet with other guys to talk about what kind of toilet I
have.
And I don't buy a toilet large enough to flush a half ton of elephant
crap, on the off chance that a passing family of bears might stop by.
It's JUST a tool I use. That's all.
> I'd say there are plenty of better examples of people who are far bigger
> kooks. Like flat-earthers, or people who worship Elvis as a god...
Yeah, but flat-earthers and Elvis worshippers are significantly less
likely to snap and put two in the chest and one in the brain for taking
a parking spot.
/Roy
Liam Slider
> Aside from stirring pasta, guns have one purpose - to kill. Liking guns =
> liking the act of killing. (Or of stirring pasta).
Guns have many purposes. Guns can be decorative. Guns can be used in
different competitive sports (some of which are respected olympic sports
I might add) involving non-living targets. Guns can be used for pest
control, racoons and opossums can be rather nasty pest animals and there
isn't much else that can be used in some cases. Guns can be used for
putting dinner on the table, through hunting...which is also a sport. It's
even a *professional* sport. It can be used to scare off (without killing)
an intruder or attacker. And yes, it can be used to kill in self defense.
Most importantly (but most rarely) civilian guns can be a check on
government power, and a means of national defense.
And most important, owning a gun is a basic civil right, the same as Free
Speech, the same as Free Press, the same as freedom from unreasonable
searches and seizures, the same as Freedom of Religion. If not wanting a
certain political group to come and completely take away one of your
rights, just as they have already been infringing on it for years...and
not being happy with international pressure for our government to *violate
the basic, fundamental rights of it's people* makes me a kook, then I
guess I'm a kook.
By the way, fuck you. Have a nice day.
Linønut
> Ok, what does guns have to do with kookhood?
Guns per se? Nothing. Sniper club? That's a different story.
> Both websites have something
> to do with guns (although appairently airsoft in the first place). But how
> does liking guns, or standing up for one's civil rights, make one a kook?
Neither makes one a kook.
> I'd say there are plenty of better examples of people who are far bigger
> kooks. Like flat-earthers, or people who worship Elvis as a god...
Sniper clubbers would seem a bit kooky to me. Unless, of course, such a
club was merely a slightly more serious variant of paintball.
--
Tux rox!
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On 12 Jul 2005 08:47:14 -0700,
Roy. Just Roy. <deld...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> But how does liking guns ... make one a kook?
>
> Aside from stirring pasta, guns have one purpose - to kill. Liking guns
>= liking the act of killing. (Or of stirring pasta).
>
Funny, of the dozen or so firearms I and my wife own, none, have killed
a person, and only one, has ever been used in hunting.
Yet between us, we have fired in excess of 100,000 rounds through them
in the last 10+ years.
Guess my target pistols must be defective...
> Let me give you an analogy. I like taking my morning constitutional.
> It's peaceful, it's quiet, and there's no boss or wife yelling in your
> ear. But, unlike gun owners, I don't "like" my toilet. I don't spend
hey, don't project, I don't "like" your toilet either.
> hours upon hours cleaning my toilet for the off chance that I might
> have to use it. I don't memorize the EXACT specifications of my toilet,
> its manufacturer, the year of its creation, and the size of the exit
> barrel down to the exact millimeter. I don't drive 100 miles to go to a
> home improvement expo, just so I can look at bigger, shinier models of
> toilets. If the john breaks, and I have to wait 3 days for Home Depot
> to restock, I don't bitch and moan and write my congressman that my
> constitutional rights are being trampled on. I don't create a toilet
> club so I can meet with other guys to talk about what kind of toilet I
> have.
>
> And I don't buy a toilet large enough to flush a half ton of elephant
> crap, on the off chance that a passing family of bears might stop by.
> It's JUST a tool I use. That's all.
>
I am having difficulty understanding the relevence of the above
diatribe.
>> I'd say there are plenty of better examples of people who are far bigger
>> kooks. Like flat-earthers, or people who worship Elvis as a god...
>
> Yeah, but flat-earthers and Elvis worshippers are significantly less
> likely to snap and put two in the chest and one in the brain for taking
> a parking spot.
Are you under the impression that such an event is likely or even
slightly common with "gun owners" ? Care to give examples?
Take for example CPL holders (concealed pistol liceneses, some 33 states
have shall issue laws, which anyone who meets the specs, can get. )
there are some 200,000 CPL holders in Washington from last numbers I
looked at, in a population of 11 million, that's only a couple of
percent, but it's a pretty big overall number.
wanna guess how many murders they have commited with those guns? c'mon!
it's an easy round number.
Zero.
In fact, there have been more unjustified homicides (murder,
manslaughter, etc) commited by police officers, than CPL holders.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC1AXhd90bcYOAWPYRAkOjAKDIqXY9hderrQBenHP8/JLhkj3WegCbBrLr
mNVAZuwuZgZ8Ke0M0qiFkRI=
=u/Ih
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Those who live by the sword are shot by those who don't.
kevindotcar
Liam Slider wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:28:34 -0500, Linønutlinønut wrote:
>
> > Liam Slider poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
> >
[---]
> Ok, what does guns have to do with kookhood? Both websites have something
> to do with guns (although appairently airsoft in the first place). But how
> does liking guns, or standing up for one's civil rights, make one a kook?
> I'd say there are plenty of better examples of people who are far bigger
> kooks. Like flat-earthers, or people who worship Elvis as a god...
Guns are a good, fast and cheap way of acquiring more personal power
than you deserve or need- which is is usually the province of kooks.
Example of my response to Liam sans gun:
Liam, you are a kook.
Example of my response to Liam with gun:
Liam, you are a genius- here are the keys to my car- here, take
them.
The 2nd Amendment was written for times when we had to protect
ourselves from kooks that usually lived 5 miles away in abandoned
shacks not burned down by the British-
Since then, it's been discovered that kook-genes have a stronger
biological imperative to survive (because they're more driven by
survival than happiness) and therefore the kooks propagate faster.
Further, because of kooks biological imperative to survive, they are
more driven to possess a gun.
Now kooks have moved out of the shacks and they're everywhere- we have
dozens of labels for them; from Schizoid to "manic-episodic sufferers"-
In fact, nearly 40% of America is married to one, and nearly 100% of
them own guns.
ps
this is all true
kDot
kevindotcar
Phil Da Lick! wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Because patenting algorithms _is_ a good idea, and it encourages
> > innovation and protects folks who invent new ways of doing things
> > so they can benefit from their invention.
>
> I cant agree with this. The problem with software is that next year's
> new thing is based upon this year's new thing. Development is an
> evolutionary process rather than revolutionary. Control this year's new
> thing and you've got control for a long time to come. Whoever comes up
> with next year's new thing has no choice but to play ball.
>
I can't agree with either of you- because all patents have that same
issue; proving they are unique.
I agree that Microsoft has the most bogus of all patents that I've seen
so far- I mean come on- back in the eighties they patented the
frickin' CRT cursor, for Ghod's sake.
Personally, I think the vast majority of patents have evolved into
contrivances for lawyers to make money...
kDot
Roy. Just Roy.
Actually, no, it isn't. Read the second Amendment again, it
SPECIFICALLY states for what purpose a person can keep a gun. I shall
capitalize it:
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.
It says nothing in there about decoration, sports, target practice,
pest control, hunting or personal defense. You have no right to keep it
to guard against government abuse. You have only 1 protected purpose
under the Constitution for keeping a gun - to serve in a well regulated
militia. Which militia are you in, Liam?
Of course, it's not the people who only own 1 gun that scare me.
They've usually got a handle on ownership, it's not an addiction to
them. They usually clean it once a month, keep the trigger locks on and
the ammo out of the chamber. It's the REAL wackos that own a dozen
guns, stashing them around the house like a Counterstrike video game,
that really scare me.
Oh, uh, hi Jim.
/Roy
Liam Slider
>> And most important, owning a gun is a basic civil right.
>
> Actually, no, it isn't.
Actually, yes it is.
> Read the second Amendment again, it SPECIFICALLY
> states for what purpose a person can keep a gun. I shall capitalize it:
>
> A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free state,
This part is the justification clause, that is true. It explains why
the government has an interest in protecting the right. You must however,
place it in it's proper historical context. "Well regulated" meaning "well
functioning" in that time, and the militia is simply every able bodied man
willing to come to the defense of his country. This last part has *always
* been the case, but you can also find the *legal* definition on file in
US government records. However, this clause is not as important as the
next part, legally speaking.
Still, all this clause says is that the militia is important to the
security of a free state.
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This part describes what the right is. The right of the People to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say, "the right of the Military to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed." Nor does it say, "the right of the Militia to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed" (because that would be rather silly anyway,
but it would imply only military use and weapons were proper and legal).
It says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
Furthermore, the Founding Fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights also
wrote other documents, documents which do clarify their positions,
including on armed citizens.
>
> It says nothing in there about decoration, sports, target practice, pest
> control, hunting or personal defense.
It doesn't have to. I have a right to bear it (for whatever reason), it
shall not be infringed.
> You have no right to keep it to
> guard against government abuse.
The government has no right to say I do not.
>You have only 1 protected purpose under
> the Constitution for keeping a gun - to serve in a well regulated
> militia. Which militia are you in, Liam?
The Militia, which consists of all men capable of carrying arms and
willing to use them. But militia aside....the government has zero right to
infringe on the People's right to bear arms.
>
> Of course, it's not the people who only own 1 gun that scare me.
>
It's people like you that want to violate people's rights that scare me.
>They've usually got a handle on ownership, it's not an addiction to
> them. They usually clean it once a month, keep the trigger locks on and
> the ammo out of the chamber. It's the REAL wackos that own a dozen guns,
> stashing them around the house like a Counterstrike video game, that
> really scare me.
So one can't have different kinds of guns for different purposes? You're
silly.
Roy. Just Roy.
> government has zero right to
> infringe on the People's right to
> bear arms.
Fine ... convert one of your rifles to fully automatic and walk onto a
school playground shouting, "I Don't Like Mondays". When SWAT shows up,
debate constitutionality with them.
Or better yet, walk in front of the White House carrying a sniper
rifle.
I can see I'm not going to get you to throw down your guns. You have
your big, shiny steel penis, and by God, you'll use it until they pry
it from your cold, dead fingers. Just don't come crying to me when
little Liam Jr. blows his head off cuz you fell asleep in front of the
TV and forgot to lock the trigger guard. I'll be one of the posters
over in alt.tasteless commenting on how big a squick-hole he made from
the coroner's photos.
/Roy
tab
>owned by the corporations) and the STUPID people that vote for these
>assholes to see why there is so little good sense to be found there. In
>every way possible the US and at least half of its population are the most
>politically backwards in the world. Probably comes about by spending too
>much time walking the aisles of WalMart.
As soon as I get back from WalMart, I got something to say about this.
Be back in 4 hours. Lots of isles to walk.
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Because patenting algorithms _is_ a good idea, and it encourages
>> innovation and protects folks who invent new ways of doing things
>> so they can benefit from their invention.
>
>I cant agree with this. The problem with software is that next year's
>new thing is based upon this year's new thing. Development is an
>evolutionary process rather than revolutionary. Control this year's new
>thing and you've got control for a long time to come.
That is the case with _all_ technology. Everything is built on something
else. The only different is that the software development cycle is
very fast, which means that software patents should be of shorter duration.
>Whoever comes up
>with next year's new thing has no choice but to play ball.
Right, and they pay a reasonable royalty for use of a patented
process. If I want to use a tire-manufacturing innovation from
Goodyear, for instance, I have to pay them a fee for the use of
their patent, until such time as the patent expires.
>Patenting software in any form by itself is a bad idea. Patenting
>software *as part of a physical invention* such as a mobile phone or abs
>system is fair play IMO.
Patenting _software_ is different than patenting _algorithms_. That is
another important distinction. If I figure out a better way of sorting
an array than Knuth knows, I should be able to patent it and get some
money for it. If I put the stop button on the left and the go button on
the right, that's _not_ an algorithm and should not be patentable.
Liam Slider
>> But militia aside....the
>> government has zero right to
>> infringe on the People's right to
>> bear arms.
>
> Fine ... convert one of your rifles to fully automatic and walk onto a
> school playground shouting, "I Don't Like Mondays". When SWAT shows up,
> debate constitutionality with them.
In that case one is behaving like a threat, with a weapon, in a
public place....they have every right to shoot you. That doesn't mean you
don't have a right to own that weapon in the first place.
>
> Or better yet, walk in front of the White House carrying a sniper rifle.
Again...
>
> I can see I'm not going to get you to throw down your guns. You have
> your big, shiny steel penis, and by God, you'll use it until they pry it
> from your cold, dead fingers. Just don't come crying to me when little
> Liam Jr. blows his head off cuz you fell asleep in front of the TV and
> forgot to lock the trigger guard. I'll be one of the posters over in
> alt.tasteless commenting on how big a squick-hole he made from the
> coroner's photos.
1) I don't have any children nor do I intend to.
2) Trigger locks are insanely easy to break open, and yes, even children
can get around them. If a kid wants to play around with that gun they'll
find a way. On the other hand, in an emergency situation, it does take
time and concentration that would better be taken *aiming the weapon* to
fiddle with the damn thing to unlock it.
3) There are far more children killed accidentally by home swimming pools,
or accidents with household chemicals, or bicyle accidents, or practically
anything else that kills kids...statistically, than guns.
kevindotcar
[---]
> Patenting _software_ is different than patenting _algorithms_. That is
> another important distinction. If I figure out a better way of sorting
> an array than Knuth knows, I should be able to patent it and get some
> money for it. If I put the stop button on the left and the go button on
> the right, that's _not_ an algorithm and should not be patentable.
And just what are you patenting? Code and formulas tend to be "forms
of art" rather than devices-
To a patent attorney, this: ...
10 FOR I = 1 to 100
20 FOR J= I+1 TO 100
30 IF A[J] > A[I] THEN
40 TMP = A[I]
50 A[I] = A[J]
60 A[J] = TMP
70 ENDIF
90 NEXT J
100 NEXT I
...Is no different than this:
It was a dark and stormy night.
ps
I didn't check my BASIC code- I gotta run off to a meeting :-)
kDot
Roedy Green
<li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote or quoted :
>
>Ok, what does guns have to do with kookhood?
I take it you have never seen Bowling For Columbine, particularly
Terry Nichol's brother. See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/bowling.html
--
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
Roedy Green
<li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote or quoted :
>Guns can be used in
>different competitive sports
And they can be used by the lies of cheney and Scalia who went to a
hunting lodge and butchered 80 domestic birds in a mockery of
'hunting'.
look up the etymology of "stool pigeon" or "clay pigeon".
--
Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
Christopher Barber
>>the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
>
>
> This part describes what the right is. The right of the People to keep and
> bear arms, shall not be infringed.
>
> It doesn't say, "the right of the Military to keep and bear arms shall not
> be infringed." Nor does it say, "the right of the Militia to keep and bear
> arms shall not be infringed" (because that would be rather silly anyway,
> but it would imply only military use and weapons were proper and legal).
> It says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed."
It also clearly says "arms" and not "guns", which would seem to include bombs,
tanks, missiles, nukes, etc. Very few would say that we have a
constitutional right to own nuclear weapons, so unless you are one of those
people, you have to believe that there is some limit implied here. Given an
implied limit, then how do you know where exactly to draw the line? The
supreme court has consistently upheld laws that restrict and regulate gun
ownership in various ways, and it is the real arbiter of what the constitution
actually means.
[BTW, I am not arguing that personal gun ownership is either good or bad.]
- Christopher
SCARECROW
Christopher Barber wrote:
> [BTW, I am not arguing that personal gun ownership is either good or bad.]
I think it is sad that this needed to be in the constitution. I
understand the empowerment it gives the people, but for there to need
to be that empowerment is disturbing. I mean, can't we devise a
government sufficiently accepted by the people that there needn't be
escape clauses. I don't think this is naive, I think that government
needs to undergo research, development and inspection on a regular
basis, with a willingness to scrap what has come before for the
prospect of something better to come.
Julian
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 09:19 AM, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) said:
>Right, and they pay a reasonable royalty for use of a patented
>process. If I want to use a tire-manufacturing innovation from
>Goodyear, for instance, I have to pay them a fee for the use of their
>patent, until such time as the patent expires.
Yes, even if Goodrich was doing it twenty years earlier but the patent
examiner was unaware of that. The problem is not the principle of
patents, the problem is a system that allows patents for things that
are prior art[1] or are obvious to a practitioner in the field.
[1] In the common sense meaning that people have been doing it all
along, not in the artificial sense[2] that they published it.
[2] Not that the examiners do a good job checking even their wierd
definition of prior art.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Scott Dorsey
>
>It also clearly says "arms" and not "guns", which would seem to include bombs,
>tanks, missiles, nukes, etc. Very few would say that we have a
>constitutional right to own nuclear weapons, so unless you are one of those
>people, you have to believe that there is some limit implied here.
By a strict reading, there would not be any limit required. This is the
inherent contradiction of a constitution that was drawn up by revolutionaries
being used in a comparatively stable and conservative society.
In fact, that clause exists specifically so people can arm themselves and
overthrow the government if needed. And as such, it should specifically
protect _only_ the weapons needed for overthrowing the government.
Given that reading, private ownership of nuclear weapons should be _more_
strongly protected than, for instance, handguns. Handguns are of limited
usefulness in staging a coup, whereas a privately-owned fleet of B-2s
would be of much greater utility.
>Given an
>implied limit, then how do you know where exactly to draw the line? The
>supreme court has consistently upheld laws that restrict and regulate gun
>ownership in various ways, and it is the real arbiter of what the constitution
>actually means.
Yes, but again the Supreme Court is biased in favor of retaining the
existing government. So am I for that matter, but folks like Jefferson
and Washington were much more willing to discard existing governments.
Liam Slider
> I take it you have never seen Bowling For Columbine
I'm not really into propaganda films.
Funny how he makes the point that some people have plenty of guns but not
the "problems" the US has....he mainly puts it all down as a "culture of
fear"...after spending the whole movie making Americans look like violent,
drunken, stupid, rednecks....while of course the Canadians are
responsable, enlightened, intelligent gun owners.
In short, the one thing that was really shown in Bowling for Columbine, is
how much of an ignorant, fact twisting for his own agenda, asshole
Michael Moore is.
Liam Slider
> Given that reading, private ownership of nuclear weapons should be _more_
> strongly protected than, for instance, handguns. Handguns are of limited
> usefulness in staging a coup, whereas a privately-owned fleet of B-2s
> would be of much greater utility.
But they seem to be pretty good for assassination. Lincoln was
assassinated with a pistol. Reagan was very nearly killed by a pistol
packing assassin, etc...
Furthermore, pistols *are* military weapons, they are commonly carried as
sidearms for backup purposes, and military police carry them as standard
issue.
If it's to protect military capable weapons, the pistol stays. Ironically,
so does the hunting rifle...the only difference between a hunting rifle
and a military sniper rifle is that military sniper rifles have cooler
names, and a slightly different look. But they function in a very similar
fashion, use very similar ammunition, and take down targets at similar
ranges using similar high powered scopes. So the hunting rifles stay
too....as they are makeshift sniper rifles. Those are also quite useful in
a situation such as you describe, or in the case of foreign invasion (the
other reason for the Amendment).
Liam Slider
>
> I think it is sad that this needed to be in the constitution. I understand
> the empowerment it gives the people, but for there to need to be that
> empowerment is disturbing.
No, no, you have that wrong. The people already have the power, as
sovereign individuals, the constitution does not give it to them. What it
does is say that the government cannot take that power away from the
people.
Too many people do not understand the American concept of rights, many of
them even Americans these days sadly. The government does *not* grant
rights. The people simply have them, and tell the government it has no
right to step on those rights. I understand that people in other countries
view rights as something different, something granted by tradition and
royal degree, or by a democratic process in which the government grants
certain limited rights. While under the American system, people have a
truely *vast* system of rights and powers, as fully sovereign entities,
and have contracted together to form a collective government, which they
have told may do certain things so long as it doesn't infringe upon
certain rights they consider important.
>I mean, can't we devise a government
> sufficiently accepted by the people that there needn't be escape clauses.
> I don't think this is naive, I think that government needs to undergo
> research, development and inspection on a regular basis, with a
> willingness to scrap what has come before for the prospect of something
> better to come.
It's not an escape clause. The People ultimately have the final say in
their government, and the final solution of removing it if it no longer
suits them. Just as, in theory, the soverign of the UK may do so to her
government, so may the sovereigns of the US government. In our case, this
may require firepower. Also, the right exists so we may ultimately
*defend* our chosen government, from either domestic, *or* foreign
usurpers. The People of the United States are it's last line of defense,
it's *other* Army...in addition to the Army (and Air Force, and Navy) of
the United States, and the various National Guards (State Armys, and Air
Forces)....and we are a force that dwarfs the rest. And you'll find
millions of well trained snipers, millions of people trained in close
quarters combat with small arms, millions of well drilled users of
military grade "assault weapons"...all willing and able to defend the
country if push came to shove.
This is a *good* thing. Civilizations that are not capable of protecting
themselves are tend to quickly fall. Rome fell, as in it's final days it
no longer had an army capable of defending it's vast stretches of borders
from Germanic barbarians. Byzantine fell, because their Empire's defenses
slowly weakened....and finally the Arabs collapsed their empire after the
Persians had nearly finished what little there was of them.
Roy Culley
<pan.2005.07.13....@nospam.liamslider.com>,
Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> writes:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:28:21 -0700, Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
>
>> I can see I'm not going to get you to throw down your guns. You have
>> your big, shiny steel penis, and by God, you'll use it until they pry it
>> from your cold, dead fingers. Just don't come crying to me when little
>> Liam Jr. blows his head off cuz you fell asleep in front of the TV and
>> forgot to lock the trigger guard. I'll be one of the posters over in
>> alt.tasteless commenting on how big a squick-hole he made from the
>> coroner's photos.
>
>
> 1) I don't have any children nor do I intend to.
This no doubt explains your flippancy towards causes of child deaths
in 3 below. I was the same until I became a father.
> 2) Trigger locks are insanely easy to break open, and yes, even
> children can get around them. If a kid wants to play around with
> that gun they'll find a way. On the other hand, in an emergency
> situation, it does take time and concentration that would better be
> taken *aiming the weapon* to fiddle with the damn thing to unlock
> it.
>
> 3) There are far more children killed accidentally by home swimming
> pools, or accidents with household chemicals, or bicyle accidents,
> or practically anything else that kills kids...statistically, than
> guns.
So let me get this staight, you are happy to accept that some children
are killed because guns are in their homes simply because the number
of these deaths are small compared to other reasons for children being
killed in the home. Have I got that right?
Anything that can reduce child deaths is a good thing. If banning guns
in the home only saves one child per year then that is a good thing.
Do you disagree with that?
If people want to play with guns then let them join gun clubs where
their weapons are securely stored. Guns were invented to kill people.
That is a fact. I agree there are other reasons for people using guns
these days: recreation, farmers to protect their stock from predators,
culling under certain circumstances, etc. Farmers in the UK are
allowed to have shotguns to protect their stock for example. I can't
think of any other reason why anyone should have a gun in their home.
Just because the US constitution states that you have the right to
have arms doesn't mean it is correct. I'm sure things are a lot
different today than they were there over 200 hundred years ago.
It is very sad Liam, that people who think like you find it acceptable
for some children to die every year just because guns are allowed in
the home.
Liam Slider
<snip>
> So let me get this staight, you are happy to accept that some children are
> killed because guns are in their homes simply because the number of these
> deaths are small compared to other reasons for children being killed in
> the home. Have I got that right?
The number of children killed in gun accidents every year in the US is
miniscule, hell, even adding in *all* gun accidents you still have a very
tiny number, compared to child deaths by any other simple household
accident.
>
> Anything that can reduce child deaths is a good thing. If banning guns
> in the home only saves one child per year then that is a good thing. Do
> you disagree with that?
Yes. Because how about those lives saved every year....because of private
ownership of guns? Hell, in my own neighborhood there was one little old
grandmother who had an intruder in her home one night, she woke up to see
someone creeping around towards her bedroom with a flashlight, she
whipped out her pistol and shot that flashlight out, and the creep took
off and never bothered her again, although he wasn't ever found. Would
you have rather had her raped (I have heard of it happening to little old
ladies, sick as that is...not that isn't sick enough anyway), or murdered
because she didn't have that gun? People often use guns in self defense
situations, not necessarily with lethal results, that *save their lives*
and *you* would deny them that right merely to stop a couple accidents.
Furthermore, people have used guns to defend themselves from dangerous
animals that have attacked them. And no, not just farmers defending their
livestock, but regular people, hikers, campers, etc... attacked by
bears, cougars, and other dangerous animals. Guns save those people's
lives.
Hell, you may as well ban home swimming pools, you'll save a *lot*
more children's lives that way without endangering other people's.
Also, plenty of poorer families actually count on hunting as part of their
food budget every year. A license is cheap, and a good gun can last a
*long* time...even be handed down for generations. Food can be expensive
for a larger family on a small budget, especially meat. Hunting is a good
way for them to feed their family inexpensively. You'd take that away from
them. Let them starve....it's for the children.
>
> If people want to play with guns then let them join gun clubs where
> their weapons are securely stored.
Play? Guns aren't toys.
> Guns were invented to kill people.
And animals.
> That is a fact. I agree there are other reasons for people using guns
> these days: recreation, farmers to protect their stock from predators,
> culling under certain circumstances, etc.
Pest control, self defense, providing food for the family, protecting
your rights, etc...
> Farmers in the UK are allowed
> to have shotguns to protect their stock for example.
"Allowed" yes....horrible violation of their basic rights.
> I can't think of
> any other reason why anyone should have a gun in their home.
Then you are a fool.
>
> Just because the US constitution states that you have the right to have
> arms doesn't mean it is correct. I'm sure things are a lot different
> today than they were there over 200 hundred years ago.
No, the reason that Amendment was put into place then is still valid
today. It was a check on government power. The people's right to bear arms
shall not be infringed, because they may need to use those arms to protect
their nation, to protect their rights, or to overthrow their own
government should it become tyrannical. That was the intention of the
Founding Fathers. It's still a valid reason today. An armed populace is
the last level of check and balances put upon our governmental system.
Remove it, and you've given our government *way* too much authority.
>
> It is very sad Liam, that people who think like you find it acceptable
> for some children to die every year just because guns are allowed in the
> home.
It's very sad that you would have people killed by thugs, strip our nation
of one of it's vital defense components, violate the rights of it's
citizens, and starve people of food all for "the (classic Big
Government rallying cry) good of the children."
GreyCloud
>
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:57:33 -0700, SCARECROW wrote:
>
> >
> > I think it is sad that this needed to be in the constitution. I understand
> > the empowerment it gives the people, but for there to need to be that
> > empowerment is disturbing.
>
> No, no, you have that wrong. The people already have the power, as
> sovereign individuals, the constitution does not give it to them. What it
> does is say that the government cannot take that power away from the
> people.
>
> Too many people do not understand the American concept of rights, many of
> them even Americans these days sadly. The government does *not* grant
> rights. The people simply have them, and tell the government it has no
> right to step on those rights. I understand that people in other countries
> view rights as something different, something granted by tradition and
> royal degree, or by a democratic process in which the government grants
> certain limited rights. While under the American system, people have a
> truely *vast* system of rights and powers, as fully sovereign entities,
> and have contracted together to form a collective government, which they
> have told may do certain things so long as it doesn't infringe upon
> certain rights they consider important.
>
That's why these rights are called 'inalienable rights'.
The rest of the world hasn't seemed to have grasped that
concept yet.
GreyCloud
The odd part of Columbine wasn't guns, which were really
ancilliary to the event,...
it was the psychiatric drugs prescribed for their mental
problems as perceived by the education system.
And what pushed these kids over the edge was the never
ending barage of violence from the media that Michael Moore
is a part of.
Liam Slider
> And what pushed these kids over the
> edge was the never ending barage of violence from the media that Michael
> Moore is a part of.
I'd blame....high school kids.
SCARECROW
GreyCloud wrote:
> That's why these rights are called 'inalienable rights'.
> The rest of the world hasn't seemed to have grasped that
> concept yet.
That's because they're aliens.
--
Julian
GreyCloud
Yep, and they watch movies created by Hollywood.
I've never seen any of their violence on any city streets...
just from their minds made into movies.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 09:48 AM, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) said:
>By a strict reading, there would not be any limit required.
Be sure to include "well regulated" in your strict reading.
Liam Slider
> begin In <db8es2$s86$1...@panix2.panix.com>, on 07/15/2005
> at 09:48 AM, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) said:
>
>>By a strict reading, there would not be any limit required.
>
> Be sure to include "well regulated" in your strict reading.
With a careful mind as to what "well regulated" meant at the time.
Liam Slider
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:32:24 GMT, Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Be sure to include "well regulated" in your strict reading.
>>
>>
>>With a careful mind as to what "well regulated" meant at the time.
>
> And perhaps a nod to the fact that this pro-gun nut/anti-gun nut
> bitchfight has nothing whatsoever to do with Linux or Java.
I mentioned that when it *started* but the thread was dragged kicking and
screaming into it, so I figured I might as well at least put up a valid
argument.
SCARECROW
Noel wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:32:24 GMT, Liam Slider
> <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
> >> Be sure to include "well regulated" in your strict reading.
> >
> >
> >With a careful mind as to what "well regulated" meant at the time.
>
> And perhaps a nod to the fact that this pro-gun nut/anti-gun nut
> bitchfight has nothing whatsoever to do with Linux or Java.
A Linux user goes down to the market and shoots up the people in a mad
gun carrying swath. He takes special care to put bullets through the
eyeballs when he gets the chance because he likes the noise and image
it creates.
The mechanoid that the government is developing uses rifles trained by
software written in Java.
--
Julian
Liam Slider
> A Linux user goes down to the market and shoots up the people in a mad gun
> carrying swath.
Only if it's Gates and Ballmer.
Scott Dorsey
>On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:32:24 GMT, Liam Slider
><li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>With a careful mind as to what "well regulated" meant at the time.
>
>bitchfight has nothing whatsoever to do with Linux or Java.
I don't know. I just discovered that on a Fedora Core 2 machine,
even though the man page for 'hostname' indicates that the /etc/hostname
file is used at boot time to set the hostname, in fact it is ignored
and the actual hostname is set in /etc/sysconfig/network.
And I seriously considered application of small calibre weapons to
the machine, or more likely to the documentation crew.
If you cannot believe the man pages, what CAN you believe?
Kent Paul Dolan
> Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote:
> >How come the US doesn't have this much good sense? Especially since
> >"algorithms" were originally forbidden from being patented?
> Because patenting algorithms _is_ a good idea, and it encourages
> innovation and protects folks who invent new ways of doing things
> so they can benefit from their invention.
Nah. You and I _both_ know that software cobbling is just a matter
of cutting and pasting what the last guy did, plus 10% of your own
effort, at most.
Allowing that to be patented is the equivalent of allowing every
toddler to get patents on new arrangements of those oversized Legos
made for the inherently low on motor skills.
Software cobbling is an intensely _unskilled_ occupation, but if you
let patents put all the obvious ways to do things out of the reach
of we feebs who do software, suddenly making software becomes much
less unskilled, horribly more expensive, and full of legal risks too
arcane to be added to the learning load of software cobblers, already
required to stuff themselves overflowing with arcanae to do a days
work.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
> > And most important, owning a gun is a basic civil right.
>
> Actually, no, it isn't. Read the second Amendment again, it
> SPECIFICALLY states for what purpose a person can keep a gun. I shall
> capitalize it:
>
> A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
> infringed.
>
> It says nothing in there about decoration, sports, target practice,
> pest control, hunting or personal defense. You have no right to keep it
> to guard against government abuse. You have only 1 protected purpose
> under the Constitution for keeping a gun - to serve in a well regulated
> militia. Which militia are you in, Liam?
More proof of illiteracy?
Why do you think we needed that?
The portion your capitalized is a _preamble_,
it explains, not a limitation on the purposes
allowable for gun ownership, but a reason so
important for every citizen (at the time, free,
white, males, but let's don't go there) to be
able to own and learn expertise with a long gun,
that gun ownership is a necessary evil to exist
without any government interference. The right
to own guns, despite curent trampling by courts
and legislatures, was meant to be _absolute_: no
licenses, no taxes, no "semi-automatic only".
Not that I own guns now, but I've used them with
lethal force, against animals, and carried them
with intent to use them with lethal force against
humans, if necessary, in the past, and feel no
current guilt for either.
The second amendment, like the fourth amendment,
is long gutted by the government, in fear of its
citizens. Which is exactly the attitude the second
amendment was meant to promote, that those intending
tyranny over those they govern would be too afraid
of an armed citizenry to chance turning intent to
action.
Today, we have George W. Bush, to prove by example
that tyranny is no longer held in check by the
second amendment to the US Constitution.
In my expert opinion.
xanthian.
lqu...@uku.co.uk
> is long gutted by the government, in fear of its
> citizens. Which is exactly the attitude the second
> amendment was meant to promote, that those intending
> tyranny over those they govern would be too afraid
> of an armed citizenry to chance turning intent to
> action.
As a gun owner I too am a supporter of the 2nd ammendment. But what it
meant to "bear arms" 200+ years ago no longer has the same meaning in
todays society. You can own all the pistols and semi-auto rifles you
want. But unless you get the right to bear nuclear submarines, aircraft
carriers, cruise missles and stealth bombers citizens will never stand
a chance of "turning intent into action."
> In my expert opinion.
I'll grant you have an opinion. It's the "expert" part that remains to
be proven.
Liam Slider
>> The second amendment, like the fourth amendment, is long gutted by the
>> government, in fear of its citizens. Which is exactly the attitude the
>> second amendment was meant to promote, that those intending tyranny over
>> those they govern would be too afraid of an armed citizenry to chance
>> turning intent to action.
>
>
> As a gun owner I too am a supporter of the 2nd ammendment. But what it
> meant to "bear arms" 200+ years ago no longer has the same meaning in
> todays society. You can own all the pistols and semi-auto rifles you want.
> But unless you get the right to bear nuclear submarines, aircraft
> carriers, cruise missles and stealth bombers citizens will never stand a
> chance of "turning intent into action."
Are you sure? Modern militaries have had their asses handed to them by
opponents that do not have such resources before. It all depends on the
style of warfare. The People of the United States of America....vastly
outnumber the military might of the United States of America. Even just
the ones with guns. Many of them possess weapons similar in capability to
military sniper rifles, and are trained to shoot distant targets from
hidden positions under heavy cover.
A significant number possess military style hardware like M-16s, AK-47s,
or lighter military assault weapons. Quite legally, even under our current
licensing. You don't think that millions of these weapons in the hands of
people that know how to use them is an effective force? The number who own
these legally outnumber the number of people in the US military.
Also consider....most of our military is made up of State, rather than
Federal forces, and are volunteers. Many would probably join the People if
it came down to it.
And the United States is a rather huge territory, our government finds
itself stretched fighting a little insurgency, that doesn't even have
popular support, in a country the size of California...
>
>
>
>> In my expert opinion.
>
> I'll grant you have an opinion. It's the "expert" part that remains to
> be proven.
Well one thing is for sure, *you* are sure as hell no expert yourself.
kevindotcar
Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
[---]
> Software cobbling is an intensely _unskilled_ occupation, but if you
Hmmm- not unskilled, but highly overrated.
> let patents put all the obvious ways to do things out of the reach
> of we feebs who do software, suddenly making software becomes much
> less unskilled, horribly more expensive, and full of legal risks too
> arcane to be added to the learning load of software cobblers, already
> required to stuff themselves overflowing with arcanae to do a days
> work.
>
Do they still teach CS majors the old exercise of writing
floating-point 4-banger calculators using just load, store, shift
instructions?
Just curious, 'cuz I was pretty good at it (30 yrs ago)- Someday soon
I may be able to put that 'skill' back into play :-)
kDot
Scott Dorsey
>
>Nah. You and I _both_ know that software cobbling is just a matter
>of cutting and pasting what the last guy did, plus 10% of your own
>effort, at most.
All good engineering is that way.
It's not limited to software design.
kevindotcar
> Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote:
> >
> >Nah. You and I _both_ know that software cobbling is just a matter
> >of cutting and pasting what the last guy did, plus 10% of your own
> >effort, at most.
>
> All good engineering is that way.
> It's not limited to software design.
> --scott
A computer programmer is no more of an engineering than a plumber who
says (s)he is a "hydraulic engineer" - In fact programmers are very
close to plumbers... Just look at the tools programmers use;
"sockets", "pipes", "handles" ;)
...And seriously, I can make a point (although tenuous at best) that
the downfall of the U.S. programming industry came when the profession
seriously began to *believe* that they were "engineers" -
First, it pissed off all the real engineers, and second, it pissed off
businesspeople who saw that programmers were taking themselves too
seriously; mainly by virtually blackmailing business owners into paying
them wheelbarrows full of money, thereby pissing off everybody further.
If you're a programmer (as I am), you are just another service-provider
in a service industry being employed to install logical 'pipes' in a
building... Just remember to whistle while you work and do the best you
can and not take yourself too seriously.
kDot
Kent Paul Dolan
> Patenting _software_ is different than patenting _algorithms_. That is
> another important distinction. If I figure out a better way of sorting
> an array than Knuth knows, I should be able to patent it and get some
> money for it.
Ummm. Nope. Sorting is a _perfect_ example of _an algorithm_; the
software is merely the implementation of the underlying algorithm.
Philosophically, that immaterial _algorithm_ existed since the
beginning of time, waiting to be noticed. Knuth merely _encountered_
it, as, surely did lots of mathematicians in lots of galaxies in this
wide, wide universe, in the course of abstract thought about sorting,
then zillions of us, in zillions of programming languages, implemented
it. If we were nice people, we credited Knuth as the god he is,
somewhere in our implementation.
Larry Qualig
"Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.19...@nospam.liamslider.com...
In theory yes. But in practicality it is nearly impossible to organize
something on the scale where millions of citizens will revolt against the
goverment. MOST people don't bother taking the time or effort to vote. Good
luck organizing these same people into a militia to invade Washington DC and
overthrow the goverment.
>>> In my expert opinion.
>>
>> I'll grant you have an opinion. It's the "expert" part that remains to
>> be proven.
>
> Well one thing is for sure, *you* are sure as hell no expert yourself.
I am NOT an expert. The difference is that unlike the original poster, I
NEVER claimed to be an expert.
Liam Slider
>
> In theory yes. But in practicality it is nearly impossible to organize
> something on the scale where millions of citizens will revolt against the
> goverment. MOST people don't bother taking the time or effort to vote.
> Good luck organizing these same people into a militia to invade Washington
> DC and overthrow the goverment.
Here you make the same mistake your anscestors did, thinking that the
Capitol is the state. D.C. itself doesn't matter. Never did matter. We
aren't like you. The U.S. didn't fall apart when you captured Philidelphia
during the Revolutionary War....if anything, our Capitol captured you. Nor
did you reconquer us, or even win, when you *destroyed* Washington D.C.
in the War of 1812. "Take the capitol, win the war" is traditional
European tactical thinking. It doesn't work with a nation like the United
States.
As for the "most people won't bother" argument....most people didn't
bother to fight during the Revolutionary War. Hell, a full 1/3 were
Tories. It won't matter if most people won't fight....if it came down to
truely oppressive government, enough would. There are hundreds of millions
of people in the U.S.A. and I'm sure you'd get at least a few *million*
willing to fight for their freedom.
Larry Qualig
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:49:38 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
>>
>> In theory yes. But in practicality it is nearly impossible to organize
>> something on the scale where millions of citizens will revolt against the
>> goverment. MOST people don't bother taking the time or effort to vote.
>> Good luck organizing these same people into a militia to invade
>> Washington
>> DC and overthrow the goverment.
>
> Here you make the same mistake your anscestors did, thinking that the
> Capitol is the state. D.C. itself doesn't matter. Never did matter. We
> aren't like you. The U.S. didn't fall apart when you captured Philidelphia
> during the Revolutionary War....if anything, our Capitol captured you. Nor
> did you reconquer us, or even win, when you *destroyed* Washington D.C.
> in the War of 1812. "Take the capitol, win the war" is traditional
> European tactical thinking. It doesn't work with a nation like the United
> States.
When you say "we aren't like you" who exactly is "we" and how is that
different from the "you" which was used to refer to me?
> There are hundreds of millions of people in the U.S.A.
> and I'm sure you'd get at least a few *million*
> willing to fight for their freedom.
And I'm sure that you couldn't get a more than a few hundred together before
the government catches wind of this and locks you up. Don't forget... the
same government with the nuclear subs and stealth bombers also has access to
wire-taps, spy satellites and espionage/surveillance equipment that you
can't begin to compete with.
Liam Slider
>
> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.07.20....@nospam.liamslider.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:49:38 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In theory yes. But in practicality it is nearly impossible to organize
>>> something on the scale where millions of citizens will revolt against
>>> the goverment. MOST people don't bother taking the time or effort to
>>> vote. Good luck organizing these same people into a militia to invade
>>> Washington
>>> DC and overthrow the goverment.
>>
>> Here you make the same mistake your anscestors did, thinking that the
>> Capitol is the state. D.C. itself doesn't matter. Never did matter. We
>> aren't like you. The U.S. didn't fall apart when you captured
>> Philidelphia during the Revolutionary War....if anything, our Capitol
>> captured you. Nor did you reconquer us, or even win, when you
>> *destroyed* Washington D.C. in the War of 1812. "Take the capitol, win
>> the war" is traditional European tactical thinking. It doesn't work with
>> a nation like the United States.
>
>
> When you say "we aren't like you" who exactly is "we" and how is that
> different from the "you" which was used to refer to me?
Well, your headers seem to suggest UK, so "you" would be "The British" and
"we" would be "The Americans."
>
>
>
>> There are hundreds of millions of people in the U.S.A. and I'm sure
>> you'd get at least a few *million* willing to fight for their freedom.
>
> And I'm sure that you couldn't get a more than a few hundred together
> before the government catches wind of this and locks you up.
One group maybe, but do you think anything like this would be organised in
a fashion like that of a traditional army? You're talking about basically
a civil war here.
> Don't
> forget... the same government with the nuclear subs and stealth bombers
> also has access to wire-taps, spy satellites and espionage/surveillance
> equipment that you can't begin to compete with.
Actually, you seem to be underestimating the capabilities that modern
technology have given the common people.
Larry Qualig
"Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.20....@nospam.liamslider.com...
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:52:15 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>
>>
>> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.07.20....@nospam.liamslider.com...
>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:49:38 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In theory yes. But in practicality it is nearly impossible to organize
>>>> something on the scale where millions of citizens will revolt against
>>>> the goverment. MOST people don't bother taking the time or effort to
>>>> vote. Good luck organizing these same people into a militia to invade
>>>> Washington
>>>> DC and overthrow the goverment.
>>>
>>> Here you make the same mistake your anscestors did, thinking that the
>>> Capitol is the state. D.C. itself doesn't matter. Never did matter. We
>>> aren't like you. The U.S. didn't fall apart when you captured
>>> Philidelphia during the Revolutionary War....if anything, our Capitol
>>> captured you. Nor did you reconquer us, or even win, when you
>>> *destroyed* Washington D.C. in the War of 1812. "Take the capitol, win
>>> the war" is traditional European tactical thinking. It doesn't work with
>>> a nation like the United States.
>>
>>
>> When you say "we aren't like you" who exactly is "we" and how is that
>> different from the "you" which was used to refer to me?
>
> Well, your headers seem to suggest UK, so "you" would be "The British" and
> "we" would be "The Americans."
For the 100th time... I live in BOSTON. As in the same BOSTON that's on the
east coast 150 miles north of New York City. I got my email address when my
employer sent me to England for a few months to work on a customer project.
I needed an ISP so I picked one up out there and this is the email address I
use for general stuff.
>>
>>> There are hundreds of millions of people in the U.S.A. and I'm sure
>>> you'd get at least a few *million* willing to fight for their freedom.
>>
>> And I'm sure that you couldn't get a more than a few hundred together
>> before the government catches wind of this and locks you up.
>
> One group maybe, but do you think anything like this would be organised in
> a fashion like that of a traditional army? You're talking about basically
> a civil war here.
>
There still needs to be some form of organization. Remember that the
government has managed to infiltrate and crack-down on militia groups that
are a fraction of the size you are proposing.
>> Don't
>> forget... the same government with the nuclear subs and stealth bombers
>> also has access to wire-taps, spy satellites and espionage/surveillance
>> equipment that you can't begin to compete with.
>
>
> Actually, you seem to be underestimating the capabilities that modern
> technology have given the common people.
>
And you are grossly underestimating what the government has at it's
disposal. Anything that some rag-tag militia has you can count on the
government having something that is a few generations newer, better and more
advanced.
pcbutts1
shit-head who everybody hates; heshe boygirl", chin wagged:
> For the 100th time.
For a while there, I was afraid my career was in a stall like yours.
> I live in BOSTON.
You can't have it today. You have to wait until tomorrow like everybody
else.
> As in the same BOSTON that's on the east coast 150 miles north of New
> York City.
That's what happens.
> I got my email address when my employer sent me to England for a few
> months to work on a customer project.
You can only give help to someone who doesn't need help.
> I needed an ISP so I picked one up out there and this is the email
> address I use for general stuff.
You don't, by any chance, have a tape recorder?
> There still needs to be some form of organization.
Some people can't hit bottom.
> Remember that the government has managed to infiltrate and crack-down on
> militia groups that are a fraction of the size you are proposing.
I'm not as sensitive as you.
> And you are grossly underestimating what the government has at it's
> disposal.
What, allegedly, is 'has at it's', Qualig? Having spelling problems again?
Do you know why you can't spell, Qualig? Lack of both brains and education,
perhaps?
> Anything that some rag-tag militia has you can count on the government
> having something that is a few generations newer, better and more
> advanced.
Can I really count on the government having something that is a few
generations newer?
Larry Qualig
"pcbutts1" <pcbu...@y00haww.org> wrote in message
news:4e23e9d12ed44ede9a25a80dde27d810@erollscom...
>
> You don't, by any chance, have a tape recorder?
>
No. But I do own a shovel. I also own several high powered rifles and I'm
very proficient in using them. Capisce?
pcbutts1
fifty a day; enjoys getting piss mouthful from old men; likes to call his
penis his 'lust sword'", yearned:
> But I do own a shovel.
Oh really?
> I also own several high powered rifles and I'm very proficient in using
> them.
Don't tell me you are very proficient in using them, I don't believe it.
> Capisce?
Sporca Madonna
Larry Qualig
> Larry Qualig, <removethis...@uku.co.uk>, whose name means "smokes
> fifty a day; enjoys getting piss mouthful from old men; likes to call his
> penis his 'lust sword'", yearned:
>
>
>> them.
>
> Don't tell me you are very proficient in using them, I don't believe it.
>
I could give you a list of references but the people on my list are no
longer available to answer questions :)
Liam Slider
>
> There still needs to be some form of organization. Remember that the
> government has managed to infiltrate and crack-down on militia groups that
> are a fraction of the size you are proposing.
They have managed to infiltrate and crack down on groups committing
*illegal* activity.
Larry Qualig
"Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.20....@nospam.liamslider.com...
Since the government decides what is legal and what isn't I guess you'll
have no problem. Unlike the militia groups that were raided in Waco,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Montana and etc.
Liam Slider
A few tiny groups. What I'm talking about is an entirely different scale,
more along the lines of "America gets pushed too far" rather than tiny
little rebellious groups. Might as well add the whiskey rebellion as your
proof...and it was right around when the government was founded.
Kate Orman
> ... I don't "like" my toilet. I don't spend
> hours upon hours cleaning my toilet for the off chance that I might
> have to use it. I don't memorize the EXACT specifications of my toilet,
> its manufacturer, the year of its creation, and the size of the exit
> barrel down to the exact millimeter. I don't drive 100 miles to go to a
> home improvement expo, just so I can look at bigger, shinier models of
> toilets. If the john breaks, and I have to wait 3 days for Home Depot
> to restock, I don't bitch and moan and write my congressman that my
> constitutional rights are being trampled on. I don't create a toilet
> club so I can meet with other guys to talk about what kind of toilet I
> have.
This line of thought leads us unstoppably to TOILET FANFIC.
- Kate
Kate Orman
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:47:14 -0700, Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
>
> > Aside from stirring pasta, guns have one purpose - to kill.
> Guns have many purposes. [...] Guns can be used for
> putting dinner on the table
Neat segue!
- Kate
Larry Qualig
> scale...
Sounds more like something on the scale of a Hollywood movie. Post a message
to the group when this happens. I just don't see this happening. Ever.
Liam Slider
> Sounds more like something on the scale of a Hollywood movie. Post a
> message to the group when this happens. I just don't see this happening.
> Ever.
It did in 1776. And something very much like it happened in 1861, in a
little incident called the Civil War. You may remember it was the single
bloodiest conflict in the history of the United States. True, the South
lost, and rightfully so, but they put up a damn good fight and lost only
due to lack of industrial resources and lower population. And yes, their
armies were put together mainly by people deciding to defend what they saw
as their homeland, grabbing their rifles, and banding together into local
groups. The Confederate forces were not all that well organised on the
troop level, and were more along the lines of "drawn from the Militia."
lqu...@uku.co.uk
So basically it's happened twice... before the advent of electricity,
telephones, cars, planes, computers and etc. In todays civilization I
just don't see it happening. For starters I don't see anything that
upsetting to people that is going to motivate them to start a rebellion
to overthrow the government. Unless this rebellion has a "better
government" to put in place what is the point? Please tell me that the
reason for this "next revolution" isn't somehow related to Microsoft.
Scott Dorsey
Not that I've noticed. Sheesh, if they'd just get rid of the meth
lab down the street, I'd be happy.
Larry Qualig
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dbmd22$239$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> >On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:13:06 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>>
>>> There still needs to be some form of organization. Remember that the
>>> government has managed to infiltrate and crack-down on militia groups
>>> that
>>> are a fraction of the size you are proposing.
>>
>>They have managed to infiltrate and crack down on groups committing
>>*illegal* activity.
>
> Not that I've noticed. Sheesh, if they'd just get rid of the meth
> lab down the street, I'd be happy.
What I do in my own basement is none of your business :)
nikolai kingsley
>>Guns have many purposes. [...] Guns can be used for
>>putting dinner on the table
>
> Neat segue!
where the hell is that little drip, Adric?
Liam Slider
> For starters I don't see anything that
> upsetting to people that is going to motivate them to start a rebellion to
> overthrow the government. Unless this rebellion has a "better government"
> to put in place what is the point?
The point wouldn't be to overthrow the legitimate government, but to
overthrow an illegitimate tyranny and reinstate the original form.
Larry Qualig
Not that this could ever happen but the according to the Constitution of the
United States the elected government we have in office today IS the
legitimate government. The group doing the overthrowing and reinstating is
by definition the illegitimate entity. When captured, they would be tried
and convicted of treason.
Kate Orman
- Kate
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
even if they had to make up said "illegal" action...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC4UbMd90bcYOAWPYRApKhAKC8NmfYFuCHRuIUYs3XWnFj/Yst/wCgktBy
164Xju0WdQ2qvlFofhz9PYo=
=MkgL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If I want to hear the pitter patter of little feet, I'll
put shoes on the ferret.
Liam Slider
> Not that this could ever happen but the according to the Constitution of
> the United States the elected government we have in office today IS the
> legitimate government.
So long as it obeys the rules, yes it is. The government's authority and
legitimacy only exists at the whim of the States and the People. It is
they who are sovereign here, the Federal government is *our* bitch. We
make the rules, we give it it's power, and we can *damn well* take it away!
kevindotcar
Wow- That's some kinda statement.
Since George Senior, the U.S. Gov't is the whole world's bitch...
>From Bahrain to Beijing- The whole world's got a piece of the action,
and the action is *you*.
--
kDot
From Dallas Texas all the way to Mars
With Silver disks and blacked-out cars
Green paper and golden bars
Our minds are theirs, they are not ours
-Chrome Locust
Kent Paul Dolan
> The point wouldn't be to overthrow the legitimate government, but to
> overthrow an illegitimate tyranny and reinstate the original form.
For some reason, I'm nearly sure replacing Dubya with George III is
going to undergo some difficulties when attempted to be put into
practice.
xanthian, like identifying which of them is the more braindead, e.g.
The Ghost In The Machine
<xant...@well.com>
wrote
on 28 Jul 2005 15:18:38 -0700
<1122589118....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Dumb question. Which of George & Laura's daughters is named George? :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Kent Paul Dolan
[Kent forgot to put "King" in front of "George III".]
> Dumb question.
> Which of George & Laura's daughters is named George? :-)
Probably the cute, bearded one they keep chained in the
White House Cellar, in mistaken impression she's a pit bull bitch.
Compare and contrast, was it Rosemary? The Kennedy "less competent
child" who spent much of her life in a "home".
xanthian.
Thomas G. Marshall
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Kent Paul Dolan <xant...@well.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Nah. You and I _both_ know that software cobbling is just a matter
>>> of cutting and pasting what the last guy did, plus 10% of your own
>>> effort, at most.
>>
>> All good engineering is that way.
>> It's not limited to software design.
>> --scott
>
> A computer programmer is no more of an engineering than a plumber who
> says (s)he is a "hydraulic engineer" - In fact programmers are very
> close to plumbers... Just look at the tools programmers use;
> "sockets", "pipes", "handles" ;)
forks, pools, streams... :)
> ...And seriously, I can make a point (although tenuous at best) that
> the downfall of the U.S. programming industry came when the profession
> seriously began to *believe* that they were "engineers" -
Nah. Programmers *are* engineers. The very /notion/ that there is a
disparate set of intuitions, training, and abilities comes in and goes out
of vogue faster than the phase of the moon. It is largely from a broadening
and narrowing of the term programmer to start with. Once in a while you'll
get someone equating programmer with a typing monkey. Actually, I prefer to
use the term "code grunt". :)
> First, it pissed off all the real engineers,
Been in the industry for 20 years (sounds like you have too), but I haven't
seen much of that. Heard a *lot* of claim that there is a lot of it, but
haven't seen it personally.
> and second, it pissed off
> businesspeople who saw that programmers were taking themselves too
> seriously; mainly by virtually blackmailing business owners into
> paying them wheelbarrows full of money,\
1. That has nothing to do with what they called themselves.
2. Blackmailing? I disagree. It is all based upon the supply/demand curve.
No one was paid more than they were worth, since what they were worth is, by
definition, what they could be paid.
> thereby pissing off everybody
> further.
>
> If you're a programmer (as I am), you are just another
> service-provider in a service industry being employed to install
> logical 'pipes' in a building
Well, IMO, a plumber does not usually decide how to flow-manage all the
water in a large building. Nor does he design the pumps. Software
engineers / programmers do design the analog of such things.
...[rip]...
--
If I can ever figure out how, I hope that someday I'll
succeed in my lifetime goal of creating a signature
that ends with the word "blarphoogy".
kevindotcar
Thomas G. Marshall argues: [---]
>
> > First, it pissed off all the real engineers,
>
> Been in the industry for 20 years (sounds like you have too), but I haven't
> seen much of that. Heard a *lot* of claim that there is a lot of it, but
> haven't seen it personally.
>
"engineering" typically involves physical mechanics of some kind-
Exploring *that* for a minute;
If I write an I/O driver to operate a strain-gauge on a fighter jet;
that is not "engineering"- I didn't *design* the mechanical device;
I'm a *user* of the mechanical device- Just like if I write a program
to download songs onto my MP3 player while I'm asleep.... Granted, one
sounds more *important* than the other, but they're basically the same
thing.
>
> > and second, it pissed off
> > businesspeople who saw that programmers were taking themselves too
> > seriously; mainly by virtually blackmailing business owners into
> > paying them wheelbarrows full of money,\
>
[---]
>
> 2. Blackmailing? I disagree. It is all based upon the supply/demand curve.
> No one was paid more than they were worth, since what they were worth is, by
> definition, what they could be paid.
>
And I think you're either wrong, or not looking at what is happening
around you correctly. Firstly, CMM models (SEI I think is the
biggest), which were basically invented by programmers, have been
installed in most larger companies; These 'systems' involve hundreds
of pages of needless paperwork to get the smallest unit of work done.
Typical examples (that I've seen) are four months of FTE time to simply
change the name of an HTTP anchor on a web page, or to schedule a job
to simply *transfer* a file from one machine to another (essentially
one line in an FTP script).
I mean, come on... If *you* were a business manager, how long would you
let *your* IT department get away with this crap, until you found a
workable alternative; namely, hiring a roomful of offshore programmers
who could do the job in one day flat- no questions asked.
...And I believe it all goes back to programmers narcissistically
trying to prove how hard and important their job is; and in truth,
anyone of reasonable intelligence can learn a computer language and be
productive in a matter of weeks- just like a plumber.
>
> > thereby pissing off everybody
> > further.
> >
> > If you're a programmer (as I am), you are just another
> > service-provider in a service industry being employed to install
> > logical 'pipes' in a building
>
> Well, IMO, a plumber does not usually decide how to flow-manage all the
> water in a large building. Nor does he design the pumps. Software
> engineers / programmers do design the analog of such things.
>
Well, that's a good point, and something that I didn't really address;
The job that is analogous to the 'flow management' you speak of, is a
different job title; its called "manager".
Which is a segue to another rant of mine;
Business managers don't know (or don't *want* to know) anything about
IT, so they delegate to "IT architects", who couldn't architect their
way out of a paper bag. Well, more precisely, they (the IT
architects) know they have the most tenuous position on the corporate
flowchart, and as such, are scared out of their pants to put balls (or
any other body-parts) behind any decision of any gravity, and
consequently tend to become "yes men" to some higher-up on the business
food-chain.
kDot
Thomas G. Marshall
> Thomas G. Marshall argues:
>> kevindotcar coughed up:
...[rip]...
[kevindotcar says]
> "engineering" typically involves physical mechanics of some kind-
No. See below.
> Exploring *that* for a minute;
> If I write an I/O driver to operate a strain-gauge on a fighter jet;
> that is not "engineering"- I didn't *design* the mechanical device;
Now you're attempting to use words *your* way.
Let's look at 1. what the word means, and 2. where it came from:
(MEANING)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=engineering
en·gi·neer·ing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nj-nîrng)
n.
1a. The application of scientific and mathematical
principles to practical ends such as the design,
manufacture, and operation of efficient and
economical structures, machines, processes,
and systems.
1b. The profession of or the work performed by an
engineer.
2. Skillful maneuvering or direction: geopolitical
engineering; social engineering.
Note these words: "economical structures", "processes", "maneuvering or
direction".
It does mention machines and other tangibles, but it does not confine itself
to that. You're using the word "engineering" *incorrectly*!!!!!!
(ORIGIN)
[Middle English /enginour/, from Old French
/engigneor/, from Medieval Latin /ingenitor/,
contriver, from /ingenire/, to contrive, from
Latin /ingenium/, ability. See engine.]
Again note: "contriver", "to contrive", and "ability". No confining to the
tangibles. So regardless to common usage, it's very ORIGINS *also* show
your assumptions to its meaning to be incorrect.
...[rip]...
[kevindotcar says]
>>> and second, it pissed off
>>> businesspeople who saw that programmers were taking themselves too
>>> seriously; mainly by virtually blackmailing business owners into
>>> paying them wheelbarrows full of money,\
...[rip]...
[Thomas G. Marshall says]
>> 2. Blackmailing? I disagree. It is all based upon the
>> supply/demand curve. No one was paid more than they were worth,
>> since what they were worth is, by definition, what they could be
>> paid.
>>
> And I think you're either wrong, or not looking at what is happening
> around you correctly. Firstly, CMM models (SEI I think is the
> biggest), which were basically invented by programmers, have been
> installed in most larger companies; These 'systems' involve hundreds
> of pages of needless paperwork to get the smallest unit of work done.
> Typical examples (that I've seen) are four months of FTE time to
> simply change the name of an HTTP anchor on a web page, or to
> schedule a job to simply *transfer* a file from one machine to
> another (essentially one line in an FTP script).
>
> I mean, come on... If *you* were a business manager, how long would
> you let *your* IT department get away with this crap, until you found
> a workable alternative; namely, hiring a roomful of offshore
> programmers who could do the job in one day flat- no questions asked.
Right. So whether or not there is an alternative, it costs $X per engineer
per year because that's what the market would bear. That is simply not
"blackmailing".
...[angry rant snipped]...
--
"Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity!
Two weeks from everywhere!"
Kent Paul Dolan
> First, it pissed off all the real engineers, and
> second, it pissed off businesspeople who saw that
> programmers were taking themselves too seriously;
> mainly by virtually blackmailing business owners
> into paying them wheelbarrows full of money,
> thereby pissing off everybody further.
Ah how strange history looks after the revisionists
get done with it. You missed your best opportunity
to follow your calling when Joe Stalin died.
At the time of the runup of software technician
payscales (Unix contract sysadmins were at one time
of exceptional demand hauling down $300K in the
SF-Bay area), the projected growth in the need for
such jobholders had a near term intersection with
the projected growth of the ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION
of planet Earth.
Training classes could not turn out the "product" of
competent programmers fast enough to meet the need,
so the rest got hired, too, feeding the "get rich
quick" mentality to enroll even more CS majors from
a population with no talent for logic or craft.
The Econ 101 consequences of demand rising (much)
faster than supply should not be characterized as
"blackmailing".
Like all curves showing exponential growth, however,
that demand curve proved to be a sigmoid (logistics)
curve instead, as the base of "software already
written" proved sufficient to meet the needs of the
bulk of those earlier clamoring for "more, newer,
better" software. Thus, for over half the MS-Windows
users, Win98SE or even something grottier, is so
"good enough" they refuse to upgrade, and suddenly
M$ is having "issues".
[Let's avoid the mention of their attempts in
their latest release of Windows Media Player to
decide on their customers' behalf just which
software those customers have a right to run.
Hubris is nothing new at M$, but total business
collapse sure will be. They seem to have missed
the tiny datum that the media content providers
don't pay their rent, the OS/Productivity-tool
buyers do.]
And a third of a million surplus programmers the
schools finally produced just in time to hit the dot
com downturn got blindsided like the 1929 stock
investors: the curve _doesnt_ rise at an ever
increasing rate "forever".
xanthian, former programmer looking for scut work,
and not finding even that.
On a contrary note, however, M$ OSen have a strange
mix of bi-directional and mono-directional sets of
execution experiences; they either go "down" or they
go "down fast", and not much else. After M$ BSoD
many times a day, it is _so_ nice to have a Linux
box that hasn't crashed _once_ since I started using
it. Funny how that works. I just ran a single job that
took five days, and abused the fool out of the rest of
the box while that job churned happily away with "root"
privileges -- no OS-level problems at all, though I did
crash The GIMP quite regularly, but it has the reputation,
deservedly, of being tender as all heck. But under the
SPLATnix family of OSen, failed application != failed OSen.
Ah, joy.
Thomas G. Marshall
Holy crap (!) what a way with words :)
I can only concur with the most econo-techno jargon I can muster here: Yep.
However, I must continue to maintain that developing a software product for
pay that a posse of FSF-ists show up to whittle down to $0 profit, is a
pretty bad feeling. Hence my mixed emotions concerning linux.
--
Sometimes life just sucks and then you live.
kent Paul Dolan
> Holy crap (!) what a way with words :) I can only
> concur with the most econo-techno jargon I can
> muster here: Yep.
All that kind of talk does is get you immortalized
in my siggie generator file, a fate best avoided.
> However, I must continue to maintain that
> developing a software product for pay that a posse
> of FSF-ists show up to whittle down to $0 profit,
> is a pretty bad feeling. Hence my mixed emotions
> concerning linux.
Strangely enough I'm currently embroiled in a tirade
by the author of DogWaffle, who fails to understand
the difference between software you write from love,
and software you write to earn a living.
It is well to understand that both types exist, and
can exist for the very same person.
The alternative to Stallman's approach was for the
world to go on inventing the very same wheel until
the end of eternity, and we in the software
community need to get past that habit and on to the
habit of doing _new stuff_, else we'll be stuck with
MS-Windows into _another_ millennium.
There are perfectly workable ways to get rich doing
software you give away; the folks who maintain the
Ada programming language are thriving in that mode,
and have been for over a decade now.
It just takes that little paradigm shift to realize
that even if the customer has your source code in
hand, so that "doing the job myself" is at least
possible in concept, s/he doesn't have your intense
familiarity with the code, and is usually better off
to hire you to add a desired improvement, even if
you put that same improvement into the code you give
away to everyone, not just that one customer, than
to attempt the fix himself/herself.
The _point_ of open source software isn't to exclude
a profit by the original author, it is to protect
the customer in the case the original author goes
missing, and let the customer avoid having a
business depend for its continued existence on a
software product over which the customer has no
control whatever.
The fringe benefit of a horde of customers _giving_
you free improvements to the code by which you make
_your_ living may or may not have been anticipated
by the FSF or anyone else, though I'm sure Eric
Raymond will strut forth to claim credit if provoked.
xanthian.
===== selected quote by or about this author =====
Holy crap (!) what a way with words :)
I can only concur with the most econo-techno
jargon I can muster here: Yep.
-- Thomas G. Marshall, tgm...@hotmail.com
Thomas G. Marshall
...[rip]...
> ===== selected quote by or about this author =====
>
> Holy crap (!) what a way with words :)
> I can only concur with the most econo-techno
> jargon I can muster here: Yep.
> -- Thomas G. Marshall, tgm...@hotmail.com
And so immortalized I am. Actually, however, I was serious----I felt that
you *do* have a way with words, that is fairly impressive. I certainly
meant no slight.
You need to understand however, that you should *never* put someone's email
address into usenet without their permission. I had obfuscated it for a
reason, and it is particularly rude to broadcast it decrypted.
tgm1024 unobfuscated does exist elsewhere in usenet, and that makes it less
of an issue, and it is my spam-ok address, but had it not been, you would
have needlessly and thoughtlessly ruined my email address, and you need to
be aware that that is unacceptable behavior.
--
Unix users who vehemently argue that the "ln" command has its arguments
reversed do not understand much about the design of the utilities. "ln
arg1 arg2" sets the arguments in the same order as "mv arg1 arg2".
Existing file argument to non-existing argument. And in fact, mv
itself is implemented as a link followed by an unlink.
kevindotcar
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> kevindotcar coughed up:
> > Thomas G. Marshall argues:
> >> kevindotcar coughed up:
>
> ...[rip]...
>
> [kevindotcar says]
> > "engineering" typically involves physical mechanics of some kind-
>
> No. See below.
>
> > Exploring *that* for a minute;
> > If I write an I/O driver to operate a strain-gauge on a fighter jet;
> > that is not "engineering"- I didn't *design* the mechanical device;
>
> Now you're attempting to use words *your* way.
>
> Let's look at 1. what the word means, and 2. where it came from:
>
> (MEANING)
>
[stuff from dictionary deleted]
> Note these words: "economical structures", "processes", "maneuvering or
> direction".
>
> It does mention machines and other tangibles, but it does not confine itself
> to that. You're using the word "engineering" *incorrectly*!!!!!!
>
Sure,
...And by those very same definitions a janitor is a "Sanitation
Engineer", a housewife is a "Domestic Engineer", a salesman is a
"Customer relationship engineer", and so on and so forth.
...It's a *joke", Thomas; and everyone seems to get it but you- but
that's another jest unto itself.
kDot
Thomas G. Marshall
Nice try. 1. if it was indeed a "joke" then you did it poorly, and I doubt
anyone is laughing or hardly anyone got it. 2. I doubt it was a joke, it
went on too long; you were just caught making a mistake and cannot admit it.
kevindotcar
Thomas,
If you want call yourself the "Grand Wazoo Engineer of Software" then
by all means do it- I don't care. I simply do not liken what we do to
the same craft of building bridges (I know bridge builders; they're
called Civil Engineers), Aircraft, Microchips, and such. Enginerring
(in this sense) is very much bound by the actual rules of physics and
tangible materials.
I liken my Programming self as more akin to painting or creative
writing-
It's a *creative* activity... *not* an *engineering* activity, even if
what we're doing is controlling materials and physical laws; I go back
to what I said earlier; we're *users* of those things.
...And I seriously believe someday history will write that the downfall
of the American software industry was because it didn't know what the
actual services were that it provided; *That* is the joke that I
eluded to.
kDot
kevindotcar
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> kent Paul Dolan coughed up:
>
> ...[rip]...
>
> > ===== selected quote by or about this author =====
> >
> > Holy crap (!) what a way with words :)
> > I can only concur with the most econo-techno
> > jargon I can muster here: Yep.
> > -- Thomas G. Marshall, tgm...@hotmail.com
>
>
> And so immortalized I am. Actually, however, I was serious----I felt that
> you *do* have a way with words, that is fairly impressive. I certainly
> meant no slight.
>
[---]
You two need to go get a room.
kDot
julian waldby
kevindotcar wrote:
> I liken my Programming self as more akin to painting or creative
> writing-
> It's a *creative* activity... *not* an *engineering* activity, even if
> what we're doing is controlling materials and physical laws; I go back
> to what I said earlier; we're *users* of those things.
Some programming is like fingerpainting as you've said; however, the
opportunity is there to conduct software engineering. There *are*
resources to handle and hurdles to leap over. It is engineering to
design programs to meet certain specs, and it is very basic engineering
perhaps to conduct the fingerpainting sessions that you partake in.
Consider it an introductory problem that you are solving, something
akin to building a bridge out of popsicle sticks to withstand
non-trivial weights.
> ...And I seriously believe someday history will write that the downfall
> of the American software industry was because it didn't know what the
> actual services were that it provided; *That* is the joke that I
> eluded to.
You are angry because the programs you are writing tend to be obvious
and do not require you to twist or turn. I find Kent's writing more
swaying, that America recognized a need for programmers some ten or
twenty years ago, but now appears to be content to remain in the
"obsidian" age, neither moving ahead nor going backwards, but
stagnating in terms of programming advance.
Thomas G. Marshall
> kevindotcar wrote:
>
>> I liken my Programming self as more akin to painting or creative
>> writing-
>> It's a *creative* activity... *not* an *engineering* activity, even
>> if what we're doing is controlling materials and physical laws; I
>> go back to what I said earlier; we're *users* of those things.
>
> Some programming is like fingerpainting as you've said; however, the
> opportunity is there to conduct software engineering. There *are*
> resources to handle and hurdles to leap over. It is engineering to
> design programs to meet certain specs, and it is very basic
> engineering perhaps to conduct the fingerpainting sessions that you
> partake in.
Yes. However I'd like to caution you to something. The minute you mention
"hurdles" (to leap over), you open a debate of:
programming vs. /difficult/ programming
and potentially leave engineering out to dry altogether.
This is as opposed to the (I believe sensible):
programming == software engineering
difficult programming == difficult software engineering
silly programming == silly software engineering
That is, the spectrum of engineering at one end might just be finger
painting that pretty bridge you mention.
> Consider it an introductory problem that you are solving,
> something akin to building a bridge out of popsicle sticks to
> withstand non-trivial weights.
>
>> ...And I seriously believe someday history will write that the
>> downfall of the American software industry was because it didn't
>> know what the actual services were that it provided; *That* is
>> the joke that I eluded to.
>
> You are angry because the programs you are writing tend to be obvious
> and do not require you to twist or turn.
Perhaps he's just angry.
> I find Kent's writing more
> swaying, that America recognized a need for programmers some ten or
> twenty years ago, but now appears to be content to remain in the
> "obsidian" age, neither moving ahead nor going backwards, but
> stagnating in terms of programming advance.
--
Forgetthesong,I'dratherhavethefrontallobotomy...
* BLACK BOX OF FROGS
kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> The fringe benefit of a horde of customers _giving_
> you free improvements to the code by which you make
> _your_ living may or may not have been anticipated
> by the FSF or anyone else, though I'm sure Eric
> Raymond will strut forth to claim credit if provoked.
(I haven't told you I loved you yet this year, have I?)
kevindotcar
Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> julian waldby coughed up:
> > kevindotcar wrote:
> >
> >> I liken my Programming self as more akin to painting or creative
> >> writing-
> >> It's a *creative* activity... *not* an *engineering* activity, even
> >> if what we're doing is controlling materials and physical laws; I
> >> go back to what I said earlier; we're *users* of those things.
> >
> > Some programming is like fingerpainting as you've said; however, the
> > opportunity is there to conduct software engineering. There *are*
> > resources to handle and hurdles to leap over. It is engineering to
> > design programs to meet certain specs, and it is very basic
> > engineering perhaps to conduct the fingerpainting sessions that you
> > partake in.
>
> Yes. However I'd like to caution you to something. The minute you mention
> "hurdles" (to leap over), you open a debate of:
>
> programming vs. /difficult/ programming
>
> and potentially leave engineering out to dry altogether.
>
> This is as opposed to the (I believe sensible):
>
> programming == software engineering
> difficult programming == difficult software engineering
> silly programming == silly software engineering
>
> That is, the spectrum of engineering at one end might just be finger
> painting that pretty bridge you mention.
>
>
> Perhaps he's just angry.
>
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Thomas,
I don't know if you know who or what you're responding to, but
here's a hint;
Okay, okay- I'm okay now; I give up... I mean I *give* it up to the
team of Julian and Thomas- my new two best friends :-)
kDot
julian waldby
kevindotcar wrote:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> > Perhaps he's just angry.
> >
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
> Thomas,
>
> I don't know if you know who or what you're responding to, but
> here's a hint;
>
> http://tinyurl.com/d9s7h
>
> Okay, okay- I'm okay now; I give up... I mean I *give* it up to the
> team of Julian and Thomas- my new two best friends :-)
>
> kDot
Thomas, I don't know if you know who kDot is but here is a website with
a picture of him: http://members.tripod.com/~babygirlm/
He has everything he needs and wants, is starring in several current
movies, and is dating Angelina Jolie. Gee, what a guy.