I'm planning on designing and producing a sports car for the very same market that are enviously eyeing this 61-incher. How does the Compensator XL sound?
A monitor is perhaps one of the few areas in life where it's not the size that matters (well, so long as it's not tiny), but what you can do with it. In this case, you have a huge monitor, but can't do jack for resolution with it. And that's what I really need: a pixel as big as a frickin' beachball.
Don't be ridiculous. Not only is this not a meaningful reply (my point wasn't that C++ is a good OO language, but that Java is worse on that scale), but it's foolish.
Claiming C++ is not an OO language because of '#include' is, well, stupid. From the programmer's point of view, "#include" is not much different than Java's "import" excepting for partial inclusions (that is, inclusions of classes). While it's not very pretty to use a preprocessor for these things, whether or not you can include a single entity from a file does not an OO language make or break. In fact, it has nothing to do with OO at all: that's entirely part of the module paradigm.
And then the "static compilation" thing is even more inane. Java supports static compilation. What do you think JIT compilation is? JIT is done at run-time, true, but it doesn't make use of run-time information and thus is static compilation. Now if you care to explain how having an efficient compilation scheme breaks OO, I'm all ears. In fact, if you care to explain what dynamic compilation has to do with OO at all, I'd be thrilled. Or, even more, why you think dynamic compilation precludes static compilation (mind you, these things are usually done together in systems that support dynamic comp., since it'd be inefficient to do at run-time what could be done at compile-time).
As it stands, I fail to see how your reply (1) proves Java is a "real" OO language, (2) is more of an OO language than C++, (3) shows C++ is not an OO language, (4) explains what the hell you're talking about, at all.
Yeah. That "real" object orientation. I mean, Java's builtin types are objects unlike C++'s, right? (A wrapper class doesn't count. I can wrap primitives in C++, too.) And it has an enumeration type so that we don't have to represent these as integer constants, right? And it has generic programming, right? And what about multiple inheritence? (Says the Java programmer: We have multiple interface inheritence and no-one really needs the rest. -- A lot of people disagree because MI offers the best way to represent their object relationships.)
Java has some advantages. For instance, it's a cleaner language (because it doesn't bother with the same backwards compatability and speed-concept tradeoffs that C++ offers). One of them is not that it is a "real" OO language. Compared to C++, Java is a significant step backwards, and C++ ain't that high up on the scale of OO languages.
Modules exist for exactly this reason and have been around for quite a while in Linux. You're only technically right. I don't know the numbers for sure (any more than you do), but I can say from personal experience that none of my recent hardware purchases have required me to recompile the kernel and hence reboot.
The change in the license is a clarification. Whether or not it applies retroactively is a moot point (FWIW, I have difficulty believing it does). That no mention to modification or creation of derivative works was ever made in the original license is what matters. Since, unless he otherwise states that he does not reserve his rights, he implicitly reserves all rights to his work, the fact is, you have never had the right to distribute modified or derivative works without the explicit permission of the author.
Whether or not we like this, this is the way it is. The author has his rights. He created a license that gave users certain rights. The lack of statement on other rights (distribution of derivative works) does not (and cannot, for licensing to be a sane process) imply granting of those rights.
... he liked Knight's Tale for a lot of the same reasons he seemed to hate Mummy Returns...
That's not unusual. The same elements are often central to two movies, but one is clearly the worse. In the case of Mummy Returns, Katz's review explains exactly why he didn't like it. Even though he suspected it was being intentionally silly, it didn't come off right. The movie, rather than setting that mood, expected you to come in with it. The context that frames your perception of the movie is probably the most important aspect. Whereas Katz sees A Knight's Tale as setting the mood immediately, he didn't see Mummy Returns as doing anything to establish itself as an intentionally silly romp. Read his reviews again. He doesn't have to explain here why he liked Knight's Tale even though it shares elements with Mummy Returns. The individual reviews spell out what he liked and disliked.
Also, the factual error regarding Heath Ledger's first American appearance...
He said, "Introduced to American audiences in..." and not, "Heath Ledger first appeared in..." There is a difference and he's absolutely correct in stating that Heath Ledger's role in The Patriot did introduce him to the American audience as a whole. His previous American movies were not mainstream, so his role in a major blockbuster alongside a superstar certainly did put him into the mainstream.
Re:Little Known DOOM Feature
on
PanQuake
·
· Score: 1
Naturally, the presence of the information at Doom meets precludes it from being little known. Who hasn't been to a Doom meet?
Re:What other MS-compatable alternatives are there
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 2
This is a stupid argument. There's a reason it's called "copyright" -- it says the author of the original has the rights over the copies, thus taking a copy is legally identical to taking the original.
Steal, v. - to take another person's property without right or permission.
Now, since one takes a copy of the original and the author of the original owns the copy, hasn't one just stolen something? Here's a good hint: the answer is three letters long and begins with the letters Y-e-s.
Re:MS-compatable alternatives: Opera
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 2
You don't never even need to take your hand off your mouse while browsing.
Microsoft's dominance in the software arena is clear cut in many regards. However, don't overestimate their ability to introduce trends. For every one trend Microsoft has started, there are at least 10 failures. People point out that Microsoft is greedy, which is undeniably true (it's a company, what did you expect?), and then say this is proof it's going to push for this.
Fact is, Microsoft is so greedy that it's entirely noncommital to all ideas: both the good and bad. It's such a profit-driven business that negative press has a discernable effect. Microsoft has backed off on a lot of things recently: the web-integrated desktop (_web_ and _desktop_, not _browser_ and _OS_, which MS did push for), excessive use of analogues for UI (MS Bob), cute little animated agents that pop up when you're trying to work (good riddance, Clippy), the list goes on and on and on. Simply put: Microsoft is not a trend-setter and it never has been. It follows trends and through whatever cunning tactics necessary (even those bad for the industry or against the law), ends up in domination.
So don't overestimate Microsoft's ability to force users into anything. IMHO: Microsoft is an evil company. But the PR department still hasn't perfected mass hypnosis, so it keeps its ear tuned to the users. If Microsoft thinks users will reject this notion in favor of more traditional models, it won't make the move because then competitors can sneak into the cracks.
Well, this shows network admins and programmers, but it doesn't show the average user. Anyway, my point wasn't that there aren't plenty of examples to give, but that attacking Microsoft with what can easily be dismissed as FUD makes it easy for the average person to dismiss the entire article, regardless of whether the rest is perfectly valid analysis.
Re:The Eventual Downfall of Every Man
on
Coder on the Cross
·
· Score: 2
A lion is not evil when it kills an antelope; that just the way it is.
Well, there are a few differences between fair lion and fair man. When Lion takes down an antelope and eats it, he does not care whether it was good or evil. When Man makes a buck to feed himself or his kids, he may worry over good or evil. Man thinks himself above Lion. Not because Man has intelligence or reason or adaptability, but because Man has a "soul" and has the capability to be humane. Yet, we define our compassion by playing through a system that we have specifically designed to create the lower class, the impoverished, and those less fortunate.
I don't argue against this system. I do argue that all too often we blindly follow it. Things'll probably turn out okay for you if you run blindly for the cheese at the end of the maze. At least you have ambition, of a sort. The problem is many people don't realize they're running the maze.
It's not that man is cosmically evil, it's just that man is not as good as he would have himself believe.
It seems that it's just about the right time for Microsoft to pull out the BS parade. One thing's certain when Microsoft opens its maw to bemoan the terrors of open source: it's going to be raining dung over New York by tomorrow evening. ESR is more than probably right about what to expect. Microsoft is going to imply open source means no intellectual property rights (hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the Microsoftie simply says, "Open Source not only denies you your copyrights and profits, it'll also take away your house, your car, and your children!"); it is going to misrepresent the GPL for the 1 billionth time in the history of the world; it is going to talk about how.NET is really "cross platform" and C# went off to become an "open" standard and whatever else they can throw in there. So I won't be surprised, ESR won't be surprised...
Still, I have to wonder if ESR is being effective in getting out the message that these things are going to come and that they're so detached from reality, so manipulative in their core, that they should be completely ignored. The problem I see with ESR's write-up is that it's easily construed as an open attack on Microsoft. While he talks about Microsoft's deplorable tactics, it's easy to make a case that he's employing FUD. The image of Microsoft as wanting to steal your data appears at least twice, references to it wanting to keep its greedy hands on its monipoly that is slowly destroying the software industry come about a few times, too. These things all might be true. The fraud accusations may also prove true. Microsoft is a monopoly, and it has been hurting the software industry.
The problem is that most users don't see it that way. Most users don't understand how things were prior to Microsoft's grip and they don't see why Microsoft's hold is such a bad thing (while we're pointing at the lack of good competing products within the commercial space to Microsoft's stuff as demonstrative of how thoroughly Microsoft has damaged the industry, they're pointing at the lack of good alternatives as a good reason for Microsoft to continue). Okay, that's not the problem -- it's more of a cause of the real problem: telling the users how we see it ("how it is") won't change their minds. They will openly and honestly reject your arguments simply because it doesn't mesh with the view from their perspective.
The proper way, of course, is to show them what competition gives them. Show, rather than tell. Telling does nothing, even when your article is specifically about the evils of Microsoft. There's simply not a convicing enough case to be made when the users are wrapped in the cloud of FUD and complacency. Not with words, anyway. So if they're going to reject even the best made attack on Microsoft as it stands alone, what happens to this article? The point of the article was to clue people in on what was going to happen, not attack Microsoft. In the eyes of the commoner (journalists included) not open to the evils of Microsoft, this makes it just another baseless attack on MS.
So while ESR does a good job playing prophet and countering the likely topics of tomorrow's speech, he lets so many people off-the-hook: they don't need to acknowledge these things because they have an easy out--he gives them a convenient way to dismiss the article without thinking about it.
It seems to me that the most natural assumption one can have about life is that there are highs and lows. It's a cliché, I know, but that doesn't make it any less true: what goes up must come down. No-one ever thinks that far ahead, though. Everyone thinks he can milk it for more. The smart ones get out when they should get out. But we never hear about them except when the company experiences yet another meteoric rise afterwards -- then they're the stupid ones that could've been even more rich.
I fancy myself a scientist, so I don't believe in karma in any honest respect. But I think it has an uncanny way of working out. Greed never accomplishes much of anything. It's astounding to me that it's so often seen, so commonly cherished. In terms of money, past a certain point, you really don't have use for more. Why do people want to live in luxury? Comfort is enough for me. Money can get you that, but not peace of mind (the red tape of modernity is driving me insane). People that live in luxury, even, want something more. They want paradise. And those that can afford paradise? They still want more.
People often tout money. They say, happily, "You can never have enough." And use it as an excuse to seek more. That doesn't make sense to me. If you can never have enough, what value is more? Part of the problem with modern society is that we have hundreds of billions of dollars locked up in the hands of a few people that aren't putting it back into the economy. There are people starving, of course, but I need to have the closest thing to the Garden of Eden that has ever existed in my backyard.
Enough is enough. It's time we start to learn that money isn't everything, it's not the only thing, and it's not the most important thing. It's just more red-tape. I'm not against Capitalism, I don't argue against the foundations of our economy, but after a while, you begin to see that it's all just exo-structure built to obscure that we're all greedy and no-good. Hobbes was right, I guess, in that respect. We need to make society so complex we can fool ourselves into thinking we're doing something good. 99.999% of us aren't. Me included.
Sometime down the line, I'm hoping, we can see the fractal nature of our life, how it's neatly reflected in sport and art to such a high degree. It's the NBA playoffs and I've seen a lot of teams down by 3-6 points as the game is coming to an end. They have time to do things the right way, to build it up, make solid moves, and win the game. But they go for the dagger, the deathblow, the dramatic rise to heroism and victory. Their hopes rise with the desperation shot that they didn't need to take. And the fall from that emotional high is swift and hard. So often they end their hopes by placing it all in one place, everything on one shot, and when it rims out, it's game over. You can see the same in art just as well. And in other sports. Life is full of microcosms we choose to ignore. We're an amazingly reflective society, but astoudingly blind to the messages we're sending ourselves.
Maybe I won't be a millionaire in my lifetime. But I won't die trying to be one.
Wrong! Remember that the Internet is nothing but a collection of networks, in order for this message to be posted into/. and in order for people ot read it,...
Yeah. And they let that happen. Not everyone does. I'm connected 24 hours a day. I don't let people route their traffic through my computer. Do you through yours? I've worked for a local ISP and I didn't let non-customers route their packets through our servers.
Sure, they can restrict IM traffic coming through their servers as they wish, but they are running against the philosophy of sharing that has made the 'Net what it is today.
No. The philosophy of which you speak (and it's sort of a dubious assertion that it even exists) is what makes it possible for you to reach AOL servers. It's not against the philosophy if they don't let you use them for whatever purpose you want to.
The burden of proof lies with you to prove the existence and proliferation of this modern, all-encompassing sex slavery. You're arguing not only that it exists, but that it's never been publicized, that the US Government chooses to ignore it (even when Republicans are in office, mind you: they certainly do crack on porn, but on the distributors because of 'indecency' and never for criminal charges for forcing women ("and children" you say) into porn), and that it's even possible to get away with without the media or government noticing it. Sorry, you're just spouting ridiculous conspiracy theories about things you have no concept and no clue. The vast majority of porn in existence is the mainstream stuff manufactured by large corporations in the US. Surely as a conservative, you must recognize that Big Business would never do what you're accusing them of!
This is the most ridiculous explanation I've seen yet. The argument isn't that they have no right to AOL's servers, but that they have only limited rights to those servers. Everyone is given access to the AIM servers under the conditions that AOL gives us this access. Saying, "AOL releasing TOC and an open source client means that they have to let us do whatever we want with their servers," is the lamest argument I have heard as of yet. But this is exactly what this guy is saying.
And why is it that every disagreeing viewpoint these days is "ill-informed" or "downright wrong?" That's almost a more moronic standpoint than the one espoused here. In this case, both sides seem fairly well informed. Just one side seems to think that AOL preventing them from doing whatever they want with AOL's servers is indefensibly wrong. Sorry. I don't agree with what AOL is doing. But I don't disagree with it nearly as much as I disagree with people that decide AOL not giving them permission to do what they want justifies them trying to sneak around AOL but still use their servers.
The difference, of course, is that AOL lets you do one, but not the other. And it's their servers, so they have every right to make those restrictions. If you think being on the Internet means that anyone, be they AOL, Slashdot, Microsoft, a university, you, or me, has to let others use their servers, you've got a seriously warped view of things.
I can't understand why everyone is always mad about AOL for what they're doing with AIM. It sucks, yeah, because I would like to use whatever client I want. But, guess what, it's their network. The advertisements are part of AOL's plan for making money off of having an instant messaging system that is accessable to even those not signed up with AOL, the ISP/BBS. AOL knows a few things: (i) It's their network; (ii) they want to support their network in some way that allows them to keep it cost-free and fully operational; (iii) they benefit from having instant messaging work with a broader audience than just AOL users. Reason (iii) is why they want it cost-free: they get to give broader connectivity to their users. That's the sole reason for AIM's existence. And it's a damn good reason. The side-effect, of course, is what we're mainly concerned with: we get AIM. Seems like a pretty good upshot for both parties. AOL, however, realizes that the operation of the AIM network has its own costs and that because AIM is now out there for everyone, it's not attracting users to AOL. Their (be it half-baked, stupid, or ill-conceived) idea for how to support the network without costing them profits elsewhere is to run advertisements on the thing.
As a user, that seems like a small price to pay for something that benefits the Internet as a whole. The attacks on AOL and the concerted effort to subvert their attempts to make the AIM network self-supporting are mean-spirited and misdirected. This is a good, free service. It's a damn shame that people are preventing AOL from making the network self-supporting.
Now, admittedly, AOL is no angel. And I don't like their tactics or choices any more than the next guy. But it is their network and they not only have every right to do what they've been doing, but they are right to be doing it. If the open source community doesn't like how AOL is running things, the alternative is not to use their network without their permission and against their wishes. The alternative is to create our own.
In spite of millions of dollars spent, NO EVIDENCE has been found in the whole universe.
Wow, we've looked in the whole universe? We've processed all of the signal data that we've collected? Millions of dollars is enough to look for signs of life in the whole universe when it's taken billions to learn as much as we have about the Moon, and we still don't have all the answers? That we haven't seen it in the very narrow amount of time and very narrow amount of sky we're sweeping for signals with our very narrow computational bandwidth and with the very narrow place that Earth occupies in the entire Universe isn't indicative of anything but that we have a very daunting task if we're going to prove or disprove that non-Human sentient beings exist.
Without knowing for sure since I don't use the product in question, I would imagine that it is possible to configure the software to display document revision histories automatically. A business user might have such an option turned on. That seems to me to be the simplest explanation: someone opened the document with the revision history already visible. If that's not possible with Word, another option would be that there's some sort of display--whether on the status bar, a document information box, or menu options that are normally greyed out but were not in this case. In short, I don't think it'd require that someone went downloading every old Word document around, checking for revision histories all of the time. Of course, there very well might be people that go around doing that.
They've already demonstrated their total lack of respect for women.
Says you. I like people who take "logical leaps" and come to such conclusions. Ask the women that appear in pornography whether they feel like they're being disrespected. They chose to join the profession -- it's not as if they had no other choice and it's not as if they're being forced into it. They're choosing to enter the profession. The only person showing a lack of respect for women is you: you are arguing that these women are incapable of making such decisions by themselves and that they need your protection. You're arguing for nothing less than the disempowerment of women on the grounds that you know better about what they should do, than they know.
If you're going to be preaching a Christian fundamentalist male-dominated society -- and you are -- at least have the decency not to lie to everyone and pass it off as you protecting women.
From the perspective of a KDE developer (the primary uses of QT fwik)...
Don't be stupid. QT is a portable GUI toolkit. It's not part of the KDE project and it's use is not limited to KDE. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by simply noting that most users of Qt aren't from the KDE camp and that Qt should not be saddled by its increasing popularity because of KDE. Arguing that a cross-platform GUI toolkit should be restricted in its functionality by the existence of similar tools provided by a platform-specific client of the library is inherently flawed and incalculably short-sighted.
Slashdot Mirror
A monitor is perhaps one of the few areas in life where it's not the size that matters (well, so long as it's not tiny), but what you can do with it. In this case, you have a huge monitor, but can't do jack for resolution with it. And that's what I really need: a pixel as big as a frickin' beachball.
Claiming C++ is not an OO language because of '#include' is, well, stupid. From the programmer's point of view, "#include" is not much different than Java's "import" excepting for partial inclusions (that is, inclusions of classes). While it's not very pretty to use a preprocessor for these things, whether or not you can include a single entity from a file does not an OO language make or break. In fact, it has nothing to do with OO at all: that's entirely part of the module paradigm.
And then the "static compilation" thing is even more inane. Java supports static compilation. What do you think JIT compilation is? JIT is done at run-time, true, but it doesn't make use of run-time information and thus is static compilation. Now if you care to explain how having an efficient compilation scheme breaks OO, I'm all ears. In fact, if you care to explain what dynamic compilation has to do with OO at all, I'd be thrilled. Or, even more, why you think dynamic compilation precludes static compilation (mind you, these things are usually done together in systems that support dynamic comp., since it'd be inefficient to do at run-time what could be done at compile-time).
As it stands, I fail to see how your reply (1) proves Java is a "real" OO language, (2) is more of an OO language than C++, (3) shows C++ is not an OO language, (4) explains what the hell you're talking about, at all.
Java has some advantages. For instance, it's a cleaner language (because it doesn't bother with the same backwards compatability and speed-concept tradeoffs that C++ offers). One of them is not that it is a "real" OO language. Compared to C++, Java is a significant step backwards, and C++ ain't that high up on the scale of OO languages.
Modules exist for exactly this reason and have been around for quite a while in Linux. You're only technically right. I don't know the numbers for sure (any more than you do), but I can say from personal experience that none of my recent hardware purchases have required me to recompile the kernel and hence reboot.
Whether or not we like this, this is the way it is. The author has his rights. He created a license that gave users certain rights. The lack of statement on other rights (distribution of derivative works) does not (and cannot, for licensing to be a sane process) imply granting of those rights.
That's not unusual. The same elements are often central to two movies, but one is clearly the worse. In the case of Mummy Returns, Katz's review explains exactly why he didn't like it. Even though he suspected it was being intentionally silly, it didn't come off right. The movie, rather than setting that mood, expected you to come in with it. The context that frames your perception of the movie is probably the most important aspect. Whereas Katz sees A Knight's Tale as setting the mood immediately, he didn't see Mummy Returns as doing anything to establish itself as an intentionally silly romp. Read his reviews again. He doesn't have to explain here why he liked Knight's Tale even though it shares elements with Mummy Returns. The individual reviews spell out what he liked and disliked.
He said, "Introduced to American audiences in..." and not, "Heath Ledger first appeared in..." There is a difference and he's absolutely correct in stating that Heath Ledger's role in The Patriot did introduce him to the American audience as a whole. His previous American movies were not mainstream, so his role in a major blockbuster alongside a superstar certainly did put him into the mainstream.
Naturally, the presence of the information at Doom meets precludes it from being little known. Who hasn't been to a Doom meet?
Steal, v. - to take another person's property without right or permission.
Now, since one takes a copy of the original and the author of the original owns the copy, hasn't one just stolen something? Here's a good hint: the answer is three letters long and begins with the letters Y-e-s.
You had to before?!
Fact is, Microsoft is so greedy that it's entirely noncommital to all ideas: both the good and bad. It's such a profit-driven business that negative press has a discernable effect. Microsoft has backed off on a lot of things recently: the web-integrated desktop (_web_ and _desktop_, not _browser_ and _OS_, which MS did push for), excessive use of analogues for UI (MS Bob), cute little animated agents that pop up when you're trying to work (good riddance, Clippy), the list goes on and on and on. Simply put: Microsoft is not a trend-setter and it never has been. It follows trends and through whatever cunning tactics necessary (even those bad for the industry or against the law), ends up in domination.
So don't overestimate Microsoft's ability to force users into anything. IMHO: Microsoft is an evil company. But the PR department still hasn't perfected mass hypnosis, so it keeps its ear tuned to the users. If Microsoft thinks users will reject this notion in favor of more traditional models, it won't make the move because then competitors can sneak into the cracks.
Well, this shows network admins and programmers, but it doesn't show the average user. Anyway, my point wasn't that there aren't plenty of examples to give, but that attacking Microsoft with what can easily be dismissed as FUD makes it easy for the average person to dismiss the entire article, regardless of whether the rest is perfectly valid analysis.
Well, there are a few differences between fair lion and fair man. When Lion takes down an antelope and eats it, he does not care whether it was good or evil. When Man makes a buck to feed himself or his kids, he may worry over good or evil. Man thinks himself above Lion. Not because Man has intelligence or reason or adaptability, but because Man has a "soul" and has the capability to be humane. Yet, we define our compassion by playing through a system that we have specifically designed to create the lower class, the impoverished, and those less fortunate.
I don't argue against this system. I do argue that all too often we blindly follow it. Things'll probably turn out okay for you if you run blindly for the cheese at the end of the maze. At least you have ambition, of a sort. The problem is many people don't realize they're running the maze.
It's not that man is cosmically evil, it's just that man is not as good as he would have himself believe.
Still, I have to wonder if ESR is being effective in getting out the message that these things are going to come and that they're so detached from reality, so manipulative in their core, that they should be completely ignored. The problem I see with ESR's write-up is that it's easily construed as an open attack on Microsoft. While he talks about Microsoft's deplorable tactics, it's easy to make a case that he's employing FUD. The image of Microsoft as wanting to steal your data appears at least twice, references to it wanting to keep its greedy hands on its monipoly that is slowly destroying the software industry come about a few times, too. These things all might be true. The fraud accusations may also prove true. Microsoft is a monopoly, and it has been hurting the software industry.
The problem is that most users don't see it that way. Most users don't understand how things were prior to Microsoft's grip and they don't see why Microsoft's hold is such a bad thing (while we're pointing at the lack of good competing products within the commercial space to Microsoft's stuff as demonstrative of how thoroughly Microsoft has damaged the industry, they're pointing at the lack of good alternatives as a good reason for Microsoft to continue). Okay, that's not the problem -- it's more of a cause of the real problem: telling the users how we see it ("how it is") won't change their minds. They will openly and honestly reject your arguments simply because it doesn't mesh with the view from their perspective.
The proper way, of course, is to show them what competition gives them. Show, rather than tell. Telling does nothing, even when your article is specifically about the evils of Microsoft. There's simply not a convicing enough case to be made when the users are wrapped in the cloud of FUD and complacency. Not with words, anyway. So if they're going to reject even the best made attack on Microsoft as it stands alone, what happens to this article? The point of the article was to clue people in on what was going to happen, not attack Microsoft. In the eyes of the commoner (journalists included) not open to the evils of Microsoft, this makes it just another baseless attack on MS.
So while ESR does a good job playing prophet and countering the likely topics of tomorrow's speech, he lets so many people off-the-hook: they don't need to acknowledge these things because they have an easy out--he gives them a convenient way to dismiss the article without thinking about it.
It seems to me that the most natural assumption one can have about life is that there are highs and lows. It's a cliché, I know, but that doesn't make it any less true: what goes up must come down. No-one ever thinks that far ahead, though. Everyone thinks he can milk it for more. The smart ones get out when they should get out. But we never hear about them except when the company experiences yet another meteoric rise afterwards -- then they're the stupid ones that could've been even more rich.
I fancy myself a scientist, so I don't believe in karma in any honest respect. But I think it has an uncanny way of working out. Greed never accomplishes much of anything. It's astounding to me that it's so often seen, so commonly cherished. In terms of money, past a certain point, you really don't have use for more. Why do people want to live in luxury? Comfort is enough for me. Money can get you that, but not peace of mind (the red tape of modernity is driving me insane). People that live in luxury, even, want something more. They want paradise. And those that can afford paradise? They still want more.
People often tout money. They say, happily, "You can never have enough." And use it as an excuse to seek more. That doesn't make sense to me. If you can never have enough, what value is more? Part of the problem with modern society is that we have hundreds of billions of dollars locked up in the hands of a few people that aren't putting it back into the economy. There are people starving, of course, but I need to have the closest thing to the Garden of Eden that has ever existed in my backyard.
Enough is enough. It's time we start to learn that money isn't everything, it's not the only thing, and it's not the most important thing. It's just more red-tape. I'm not against Capitalism, I don't argue against the foundations of our economy, but after a while, you begin to see that it's all just exo-structure built to obscure that we're all greedy and no-good. Hobbes was right, I guess, in that respect. We need to make society so complex we can fool ourselves into thinking we're doing something good. 99.999% of us aren't. Me included.
Sometime down the line, I'm hoping, we can see the fractal nature of our life, how it's neatly reflected in sport and art to such a high degree. It's the NBA playoffs and I've seen a lot of teams down by 3-6 points as the game is coming to an end. They have time to do things the right way, to build it up, make solid moves, and win the game. But they go for the dagger, the deathblow, the dramatic rise to heroism and victory. Their hopes rise with the desperation shot that they didn't need to take. And the fall from that emotional high is swift and hard. So often they end their hopes by placing it all in one place, everything on one shot, and when it rims out, it's game over. You can see the same in art just as well. And in other sports. Life is full of microcosms we choose to ignore. We're an amazingly reflective society, but astoudingly blind to the messages we're sending ourselves.
Maybe I won't be a millionaire in my lifetime. But I won't die trying to be one.
Nah. Innovation happens regardless of trend. That's why it's innovation, you see.
Is it me or is 'secsh' the perfect option for geek pick-up lines? "Hey, baby, wanna' have secsh?"
Yeah. And they let that happen. Not everyone does. I'm connected 24 hours a day. I don't let people route their traffic through my computer. Do you through yours? I've worked for a local ISP and I didn't let non-customers route their packets through our servers.
No. The philosophy of which you speak (and it's sort of a dubious assertion that it even exists) is what makes it possible for you to reach AOL servers. It's not against the philosophy if they don't let you use them for whatever purpose you want to.
The burden of proof lies with you to prove the existence and proliferation of this modern, all-encompassing sex slavery. You're arguing not only that it exists, but that it's never been publicized, that the US Government chooses to ignore it (even when Republicans are in office, mind you: they certainly do crack on porn, but on the distributors because of 'indecency' and never for criminal charges for forcing women ("and children" you say) into porn), and that it's even possible to get away with without the media or government noticing it. Sorry, you're just spouting ridiculous conspiracy theories about things you have no concept and no clue. The vast majority of porn in existence is the mainstream stuff manufactured by large corporations in the US. Surely as a conservative, you must recognize that Big Business would never do what you're accusing them of!
And why is it that every disagreeing viewpoint these days is "ill-informed" or "downright wrong?" That's almost a more moronic standpoint than the one espoused here. In this case, both sides seem fairly well informed. Just one side seems to think that AOL preventing them from doing whatever they want with AOL's servers is indefensibly wrong. Sorry. I don't agree with what AOL is doing. But I don't disagree with it nearly as much as I disagree with people that decide AOL not giving them permission to do what they want justifies them trying to sneak around AOL but still use their servers.
The difference, of course, is that AOL lets you do one, but not the other. And it's their servers, so they have every right to make those restrictions. If you think being on the Internet means that anyone, be they AOL, Slashdot, Microsoft, a university, you, or me, has to let others use their servers, you've got a seriously warped view of things.
As a user, that seems like a small price to pay for something that benefits the Internet as a whole. The attacks on AOL and the concerted effort to subvert their attempts to make the AIM network self-supporting are mean-spirited and misdirected. This is a good, free service. It's a damn shame that people are preventing AOL from making the network self-supporting.
Now, admittedly, AOL is no angel. And I don't like their tactics or choices any more than the next guy. But it is their network and they not only have every right to do what they've been doing, but they are right to be doing it. If the open source community doesn't like how AOL is running things, the alternative is not to use their network without their permission and against their wishes. The alternative is to create our own.
Wow, we've looked in the whole universe? We've processed all of the signal data that we've collected? Millions of dollars is enough to look for signs of life in the whole universe when it's taken billions to learn as much as we have about the Moon, and we still don't have all the answers? That we haven't seen it in the very narrow amount of time and very narrow amount of sky we're sweeping for signals with our very narrow computational bandwidth and with the very narrow place that Earth occupies in the entire Universe isn't indicative of anything but that we have a very daunting task if we're going to prove or disprove that non-Human sentient beings exist.
Without knowing for sure since I don't use the product in question, I would imagine that it is possible to configure the software to display document revision histories automatically. A business user might have such an option turned on. That seems to me to be the simplest explanation: someone opened the document with the revision history already visible. If that's not possible with Word, another option would be that there's some sort of display--whether on the status bar, a document information box, or menu options that are normally greyed out but were not in this case. In short, I don't think it'd require that someone went downloading every old Word document around, checking for revision histories all of the time. Of course, there very well might be people that go around doing that.
Says you. I like people who take "logical leaps" and come to such conclusions. Ask the women that appear in pornography whether they feel like they're being disrespected. They chose to join the profession -- it's not as if they had no other choice and it's not as if they're being forced into it. They're choosing to enter the profession. The only person showing a lack of respect for women is you: you are arguing that these women are incapable of making such decisions by themselves and that they need your protection. You're arguing for nothing less than the disempowerment of women on the grounds that you know better about what they should do, than they know.
If you're going to be preaching a Christian fundamentalist male-dominated society -- and you are -- at least have the decency not to lie to everyone and pass it off as you protecting women.
Don't be stupid. QT is a portable GUI toolkit. It's not part of the KDE project and it's use is not limited to KDE. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by simply noting that most users of Qt aren't from the KDE camp and that Qt should not be saddled by its increasing popularity because of KDE. Arguing that a cross-platform GUI toolkit should be restricted in its functionality by the existence of similar tools provided by a platform-specific client of the library is inherently flawed and incalculably short-sighted.