Another difference that you fail to mention is that we (the US) have been meddling in Cuba's affairs for damn near 100 years, including dozens of documented attempts to assassinate their head of state. For some reason, Cubans find this behavior objectionable, and the idea of seized assets dating before most of them were born being the justification for this conduct is laughable.
God knows I'm not saying the Castros are happy little fuzzy angels who never did no wrong, but it's indisputable that they're a damn sight better than some of the thugs we happily deal with in the rest of the world. It's ridiculous and childish to blame everything on them, but it plays well in certain areas of south Florida which hold disproportionate power come election time.
They're not "terrorists" anymore if they're the legitimately chosen democratic government of a body of people. They're a government that we don't happen to like very much, similar to North Korea or Iran.
Now instead of childishly insisting that they're Terrorists and therefore not worth acknowledging, it might be smart to admit their legitimacy in the eyes of their own people and find some way to coexist without killing each other. Of course, that would make you look weak to the ignorant rednecks you gin up for your elections, so can't have that.
A rather large hole in your argument is that Washington does not have a state income tax. So that's a LOT of money we're missing out on.
Re:"[Open-source project] owes you nothing" argume
on
Rails May Not Suck
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You should think of the "X owes you nothing" argument as a response to certain not-named-here jackoffs who have some sort of trouble with an OS project, get pissed off, and post indignant messages to mailing lists or forums. "I can't figure out X! You guys suck for not making X more clear! Fix it now or my company will never use X!"
The only proper response to this is that X owes you nothing.
So if someone says "Rails doesn't scale/Rails is too slow/Rails isn't easy enough for me, fix it right now!" then the response is clear.
In your case, filing a bug against windows GIMP and calmly explaining why you think it's broken is much more likely to get a serious appraisal at some point -- while some asshole (not you) who just complains about it feels an unearned sense of entitlement and should simply be ignored.
Be serious. He was polling 2.3%, which put him ahead of jokes like Kucinich and Gravel (and serious candidates like Dodd) but far behind Obama and Edwards.
You're being retarded. For $45 (counting the $5 off preorder), you get Episode 2, Portal, and TF2. That's, say, 15 hours of single-player game and god knows how many hours of TF2 (at least 24 over the life of the game). Plus they throw in a 10-level Peggle, which is actually pretty damn fun and is even more awesome for being free. $45 for all that is a hell of a value, especially since Bioshock costs $50 for 10 hours of single-player. (Really awesome single-player, yes, but kinda short, and no multiplayer at all.)
And you get a free HL2 and Episode 1 to give to someone.
How is Valve screwing you again?
(Disclaimer: I just ordered it a few minutes ago and am thrilled.)
You have every *legal* right to license it out for a fee or under any other terms you choose. Do whatever you want and more power to you. Doesn't mean I have to approve of your choice. Unlike some others, however, I won't lift a finger to stop you from doing so.
Your example sucks if only because I can't think of a company that only makes engines. Epic makes Unreal et al., Valve makes Half-Life, id makes Doom and Quake. Other companies either license those engines or write their own. What use is an engine if the people who made it -- the experts -- can't even be bothered to create a game with it?
Maybe you should try reading a little more carefully. Read the part about "degrees of evil". Sell your code for as much as you can. If it's free software, more power to you.
Again, no one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use a free software license.
If you're talking about games, there are several ways you can do a free software game. You release the engine as free software and then assert copyright on the artistic assets like textures, sound, music, character design, etc. You would be charging for your ideas, not for your software, if that makes sense, and users would not be able to freely distribute the artistic assets. I think that's a fine compromise between making money and being moral. In fact, if your game is any good and becomes popular, users will fix your engine's bugs, port it to new platforms, and start thriving mod communities around it, all while talking you up as the Awesome Guy who wrote the free software engine that made it all possible. It's not that different from what id has been doing, but Carmack's been keeping the engine proprietary for a few years to make money from licensing and then it gets GPL'ed. I have zero problem with that.
As far as being evil for writing non-free software? Well, yes, it is evil. There are different degrees of evil; if I don't want to buy your game because it's nonfree, then I don't have to. But if you write software that blocks DVDs from being played on machines you don't like, that's a lot more evil. And if you were to, say, extort people for money to fix bugs in your mission-critical software, that's about as evil as you can get in software. For those of us who believe it to be a moral issue, not acting morally is evil. Personally I'm more of a realist than some people I could name, and I respect the individual's right to make his own choices. I've even written proprietary software before, and I'll probably write more in the future, but doing so is always wrong to some degree, and I have to choose if it's far enough over the line that I won't participate.
Oh! Almost forgot! I heard from a friend of my brother's ex-wife's next-door neighbor, who knows a guy who works at Sony, that they're about to drop the price of the PS3 all the way to 50 cents!
I hope you're not serious; if you are, I'm never letting you near any code I'm responsible for.
By definition, the app crashing is a denial of service. It's no different than sending a Christmas tree packet to an ancient unpatched router: it goes boom, shuts down the network, no network service. Word crashes: boom, document maybe lost, no use of Word.
A program must be able to recognize invalid input and take appropriate action. Allowing (or forcing) a crash is NOT acceptable.
No one thing is killing the PS3. Sony has screwed up on multiple fronts:
* no games. Can anyone who doesn't have a PS3 name two games currently available for it not available anywhere else? * halfhearted online/multiplayer. The 360, MS device or no, has set the bar, and whether or not you think it's high enough, the PS3 doesn't come close to it. * bad word of mouth. Hardcore gamers are turned off due to the lack of games and crappy multiplayer. * marketing. What the HELL is with the PS3 ads? Sony thinks no one will ever use the full power of the console? Even to non-gamers, they sound clueless. * nothing new. While the PS3 is technically the same generation as the 360 and Wii, what is it offering that they don't? The 360 does HD (which doesn't only mean 1080p, so don't start) and has solid online chops. The Wii is retro, uses a new controller scheme, and is accessible for non-gamers. The only thing the PS3 does well so far is HD, and the difference between it and the 360's HD is practically subjective.
The price, frankly, is retardedly high. Without anything new or awesome games, a console that's 50% higher than its nearest competitor isn't going to sell.
However, this isn't necessarily how it's always going to be. Sony can still save their baby by correcting these screwups, and gamers want the PS3 to be cool because they want awesome games. Maybe in two years we'll all own PS3s and laugh at the thought that one day we openly scorned the chunky thing.
It's really comforting to know that there are such men as this -- such utter, bigbrained geniuses who deign to drop us mortals a few crumbs of the great bread of awesome.
Sarcasm aside: I am sick to death of people going, "I want this for my computer, therefore everybody else wants it too, and therefore the only rational course is what I say." Have you considered asking the users what they wanted? Instead of assuming that "the users" want "full-featured desktop apps", do you think it might be worthwhile to check with them if that's true? Maybe they're already using gmail and love it. Maybe they don't even know about Google Calendar. Maybe they haven't ever heard of Zimbra.
Why should I, as J. Random Developer, bust my hump porting Evolution to Windows (which I couldn't do anyway as I know zip about Windows programming) just because this clown says what's good for him is good for everyone else?
Your data is out of date. Updated figures for the mass of Uranus and Neptune were provided by Voyager 2. There are no significant unexplained perturbations in Neptune's orbit.
Remember that, when the language syntax was designed, the idea was that every conforming C program would also be a conforming "C With Classes" program. Identifiers like "abstract" and "interface" were already in use as user variables, types, functions, etc.
And we've been paying for that decision for 20 years.
Sometimes backward compatibility isn't worth the trouble. Is it worth being able to (almost) run a C program through a C++ compiler at the expense of giving keywords three or four distinct meanings?
Okay, I'll buy that. However, nothing prevents you from creating your own ImmutableList wrapper around a List instance and not exposing any mutators.
You could make an argument that the standard library should be designed that way, maybe with a root List interface and then a MutableList subinterface, but you could also make the argument that going that way doubles the number of classes in your collections API. Matter of taste, perhaps.
Just seems, though, like you're focusing on one thing that isn't perfect and using that as an indictment of the entire library. I remind you that Java does it about 80-85% right and 5-10% sorta right, which isn't bad for a real language.
So the language is responsible for the perversions that retarded coders put it through?
If you use instanceof more than once every, say, 10000 lines of code, I will fight you. That's no lie. It's a sop, and we, the loyal Java programmers of the world, know it's a sop. People who don't know what they're doing can turn it into a crutch. But those of us who DO know what we're doing know that using instanceof should be an automatic hint to rethink the design.
As for MethodNotSupportedException -- yes, it's kind of a hack. But the thing is, perfect designs don't translate to reality very well, and Java, for all its good points, isn't perfect. That exception lets you know when you're breaking an API contract -- though a List may have add() methods, if you want that List to be immutable, is it preferable to throw an exception from a mutator or remove the mutator from the subclass completely? Or should we just take add() out of the List interface? Point is, it's a hack, but it's a lot better than the alternatives. And what it DOES do very well is say, "Look, genius, you're saying two different things about this object. Figure out what you mean and then say it."
I could read stupid C++/D/C/Ruby/whatever code and then blame the language too, you know.
Slashdot Mirror
Another difference that you fail to mention is that we (the US) have been meddling in Cuba's affairs for damn near 100 years, including dozens of documented attempts to assassinate their head of state. For some reason, Cubans find this behavior objectionable, and the idea of seized assets dating before most of them were born being the justification for this conduct is laughable.
God knows I'm not saying the Castros are happy little fuzzy angels who never did no wrong, but it's indisputable that they're a damn sight better than some of the thugs we happily deal with in the rest of the world. It's ridiculous and childish to blame everything on them, but it plays well in certain areas of south Florida which hold disproportionate power come election time.
They're not "terrorists" anymore if they're the legitimately chosen democratic government of a body of people. They're a government that we don't happen to like very much, similar to North Korea or Iran.
Now instead of childishly insisting that they're Terrorists and therefore not worth acknowledging, it might be smart to admit their legitimacy in the eyes of their own people and find some way to coexist without killing each other. Of course, that would make you look weak to the ignorant rednecks you gin up for your elections, so can't have that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book
Would it kill you to crack a book sometime?
A rather large hole in your argument is that Washington does not have a state income tax. So that's a LOT of money we're missing out on.
You should think of the "X owes you nothing" argument as a response to certain not-named-here jackoffs who have some sort of trouble with an OS project, get pissed off, and post indignant messages to mailing lists or forums. "I can't figure out X! You guys suck for not making X more clear! Fix it now or my company will never use X!"
The only proper response to this is that X owes you nothing.
So if someone says "Rails doesn't scale/Rails is too slow/Rails isn't easy enough for me, fix it right now!" then the response is clear.
In your case, filing a bug against windows GIMP and calmly explaining why you think it's broken is much more likely to get a serious appraisal at some point -- while some asshole (not you) who just complains about it feels an unearned sense of entitlement and should simply be ignored.
Be serious. He was polling 2.3%, which put him ahead of jokes like Kucinich and Gravel (and serious candidates like Dodd) but far behind Obama and Edwards.
So basically you got bit by the same Bioshock problems everyone else had at launch. These problems are Steam's fault.. why?
You're being retarded. For $45 (counting the $5 off preorder), you get Episode 2, Portal, and TF2. That's, say, 15 hours of single-player game and god knows how many hours of TF2 (at least 24 over the life of the game). Plus they throw in a 10-level Peggle, which is actually pretty damn fun and is even more awesome for being free. $45 for all that is a hell of a value, especially since Bioshock costs $50 for 10 hours of single-player. (Really awesome single-player, yes, but kinda short, and no multiplayer at all.)
And you get a free HL2 and Episode 1 to give to someone.
How is Valve screwing you again?
(Disclaimer: I just ordered it a few minutes ago and am thrilled.)
You have every *legal* right to license it out for a fee or under any other terms you choose. Do whatever you want and more power to you. Doesn't mean I have to approve of your choice. Unlike some others, however, I won't lift a finger to stop you from doing so.
Your example sucks if only because I can't think of a company that only makes engines. Epic makes Unreal et al., Valve makes Half-Life, id makes Doom and Quake. Other companies either license those engines or write their own. What use is an engine if the people who made it -- the experts -- can't even be bothered to create a game with it?
Maybe you should try reading a little more carefully. Read the part about "degrees of evil". Sell your code for as much as you can. If it's free software, more power to you.
Again, no one's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use a free software license.
If you're talking about games, there are several ways you can do a free software game. You release the engine as free software and then assert copyright on the artistic assets like textures, sound, music, character design, etc. You would be charging for your ideas, not for your software, if that makes sense, and users would not be able to freely distribute the artistic assets. I think that's a fine compromise between making money and being moral. In fact, if your game is any good and becomes popular, users will fix your engine's bugs, port it to new platforms, and start thriving mod communities around it, all while talking you up as the Awesome Guy who wrote the free software engine that made it all possible. It's not that different from what id has been doing, but Carmack's been keeping the engine proprietary for a few years to make money from licensing and then it gets GPL'ed. I have zero problem with that.
As far as being evil for writing non-free software? Well, yes, it is evil. There are different degrees of evil; if I don't want to buy your game because it's nonfree, then I don't have to. But if you write software that blocks DVDs from being played on machines you don't like, that's a lot more evil. And if you were to, say, extort people for money to fix bugs in your mission-critical software, that's about as evil as you can get in software. For those of us who believe it to be a moral issue, not acting morally is evil. Personally I'm more of a realist than some people I could name, and I respect the individual's right to make his own choices. I've even written proprietary software before, and I'll probably write more in the future, but doing so is always wrong to some degree, and I have to choose if it's far enough over the line that I won't participate.
Neither RMS nor the GPL nor the FSF says you CAN'T charge for your work; in fact they encourage you to charge as much as your customers will pay.
See here and here.
Oh! Almost forgot! I heard from a friend of my brother's ex-wife's next-door neighbor, who knows a guy who works at Sony, that they're about to drop the price of the PS3 all the way to 50 cents!
I still wouldn't buy one.
I hope you're not serious; if you are, I'm never letting you near any code I'm responsible for.
By definition, the app crashing is a denial of service. It's no different than sending a Christmas tree packet to an ancient unpatched router: it goes boom, shuts down the network, no network service. Word crashes: boom, document maybe lost, no use of Word.
A program must be able to recognize invalid input and take appropriate action. Allowing (or forcing) a crash is NOT acceptable.
Fight the good fight, brother. This deal stinks, and we need to let people know how much it stinks.
It's a gaming console, not a movie player. Even Sony says so.
I want games from my console. blu-ray is just a technical detail. It doesn't offer a new gaming experience in and of itself.
No one thing is killing the PS3. Sony has screwed up on multiple fronts:
* no games. Can anyone who doesn't have a PS3 name two games currently available for it not available anywhere else?
* halfhearted online/multiplayer. The 360, MS device or no, has set the bar, and whether or not you think it's high enough, the PS3 doesn't come close to it.
* bad word of mouth. Hardcore gamers are turned off due to the lack of games and crappy multiplayer.
* marketing. What the HELL is with the PS3 ads? Sony thinks no one will ever use the full power of the console? Even to non-gamers, they sound clueless.
* nothing new. While the PS3 is technically the same generation as the 360 and Wii, what is it offering that they don't? The 360 does HD (which doesn't only mean 1080p, so don't start) and has solid online chops. The Wii is retro, uses a new controller scheme, and is accessible for non-gamers. The only thing the PS3 does well so far is HD, and the difference between it and the 360's HD is practically subjective.
The price, frankly, is retardedly high. Without anything new or awesome games, a console that's 50% higher than its nearest competitor isn't going to sell.
However, this isn't necessarily how it's always going to be. Sony can still save their baby by correcting these screwups, and gamers want the PS3 to be cool because they want awesome games. Maybe in two years we'll all own PS3s and laugh at the thought that one day we openly scorned the chunky thing.
Well, as long as said zombies aren't gay. I mean, eating brains and voting Democrat are bad enough, but being GAY?!
It's really comforting to know that there are such men as this -- such utter, bigbrained geniuses who deign to drop us mortals a few crumbs of the great bread of awesome.
Sarcasm aside: I am sick to death of people going, "I want this for my computer, therefore everybody else wants it too, and therefore the only rational course is what I say." Have you considered asking the users what they wanted? Instead of assuming that "the users" want "full-featured desktop apps", do you think it might be worthwhile to check with them if that's true? Maybe they're already using gmail and love it. Maybe they don't even know about Google Calendar. Maybe they haven't ever heard of Zimbra.
Why should I, as J. Random Developer, bust my hump porting Evolution to Windows (which I couldn't do anyway as I know zip about Windows programming) just because this clown says what's good for him is good for everyone else?
Your data is out of date. Updated figures for the mass of Uranus and Neptune were provided by Voyager 2. There are no significant unexplained perturbations in Neptune's orbit.
Except that Jupiter isn't a star.
Remember that, when the language syntax was designed, the idea was that every conforming C program would also be a conforming "C With Classes" program. Identifiers like "abstract" and "interface" were already in use as user variables, types, functions, etc.
And we've been paying for that decision for 20 years.
Sometimes backward compatibility isn't worth the trouble. Is it worth being able to (almost) run a C program through a C++ compiler at the expense of giving keywords three or four distinct meanings?
*-operator overload applied to a list::iterator object that returns a reference to type T and promises not to screw with *this...
*runs away screaming*
Okay, I'll buy that. However, nothing prevents you from creating your own ImmutableList wrapper around a List instance and not exposing any mutators.
You could make an argument that the standard library should be designed that way, maybe with a root List interface and then a MutableList subinterface, but you could also make the argument that going that way doubles the number of classes in your collections API. Matter of taste, perhaps.
Just seems, though, like you're focusing on one thing that isn't perfect and using that as an indictment of the entire library. I remind you that Java does it about 80-85% right and 5-10% sorta right, which isn't bad for a real language.
So the language is responsible for the perversions that retarded coders put it through?
If you use instanceof more than once every, say, 10000 lines of code, I will fight you. That's no lie. It's a sop, and we, the loyal Java programmers of the world, know it's a sop. People who don't know what they're doing can turn it into a crutch. But those of us who DO know what we're doing know that using instanceof should be an automatic hint to rethink the design.
As for MethodNotSupportedException -- yes, it's kind of a hack. But the thing is, perfect designs don't translate to reality very well, and Java, for all its good points, isn't perfect. That exception lets you know when you're breaking an API contract -- though a List may have add() methods, if you want that List to be immutable, is it preferable to throw an exception from a mutator or remove the mutator from the subclass completely? Or should we just take add() out of the List interface? Point is, it's a hack, but it's a lot better than the alternatives. And what it DOES do very well is say, "Look, genius, you're saying two different things about this object. Figure out what you mean and then say it."
I could read stupid C++/D/C/Ruby/whatever code and then blame the language too, you know.
Movie's not even out yet and people are already complaining about a possible water dance thing?
Get a life, you pathetic nerds.