But MAKING NEW TOOLS is also a worthy activity. Say you are making an object with Hammer and Anvil, and someone wants you to make five more. Do you now start using the Hydraulic press? How about some kind of new tool that is slightly more efficient than a hammer and anvil, so that a modest increment in production is possible. The point is that while the deciding factor is finding the best tool for the job, jobs change, and tools can change too. That's what the flexibility of the computer is for.
The saddest thing in the world is to hear someone use a perfectly good argument that is persuasive one way and use it to persuade people some orthogonal direction.
Everything you have said is TRUE. The computer is a tool and we should use the best tool for the job.
On the other hand, refining a tool to be better, stretching and subsuming the functionality of one tool into another is another skill-set that is worth every bit as much as getting the job done competently. Neither should be at the expense of the other.
It is a *compromise*. A way to see a movie, but not contribute to their earnings. It's exactly as Richard Stallman had said - if you decide only to see a movie because of quality, or becuase it would be something you'd like to see, but not see as a matter of default - then you've mnimized the amount of money you gave them. Got that?
That sounds exactly like what a horny teenage guy would say to a girl to get laid. Promise the moon, promise to rock her world, but in reality, all he wanted was just a screw.
You are right, but consider what GPLing your music means. This means that other people can change the nuances of opinion that you worked to get in there, and publish it under your name, with the same title. Perhaps just to apeease you, they could add their name too.
This is a scenario of confusion and disaster. Artistic integrity distinction is a very important aspect of artistic works. This is something that you should not erode the artist of. Of course, that the artist borrowed from others, and plain to see.
Actually you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with the principle, but what you are irritated by, is that you CAN'T SEE what seems to be a simpler explanation. Either ask, or flame the supposition that it is simpler. Don't blame anything on Good Ol' Occam, or the invocation of it. It's good that people are invoking it, and good that they can disagree with you.
Yes, the BSD kernel is very impressive, stability wise. As for your wise-ass remark about just turning a computer on, why don't you try something known as an AVERAGE run-time, and ask if it is determined by human whim, hardware failure or software failures.
This solves nothing. In general, trust is not transitive. My friend's friend need not be my friend. My enemy's enemy need not be my friend.
All it takes for to spoil is the scheme is for the RIAA to set up two servers. One legitimate one, which you trust, and another spoof one, which the legitimate one trusts. Good luck fighting this unwinnable war.
Yes it is. While I sleep, the computer can be downloading stuff, doing it's housecleaning, and scheduling things that I told it to. You may not have use of this feature now, but having this feature enables other technologists to dream of what they could do with it. This is called improvement.
Why is this insightful? Having a long uptime is not just a measure of penis size. Consider a program that is meant to be run 24/7, like say a sendmail daemon. Having the ability to TEST this is important. To test this means the underlying OS HAS to be MORE STABLE, LESS ERROR-PRONE, than the daemon. And so on, for the the user program that ingteract with the daemon.
Whether you actually need to run a computer 24/7, is quite different from the QUALITY ISSUE. Morons.
And the computer, phone line, etc all exist as consumer items. Expensive, but not beyond the reach of anyone with a decent job. The next step in this development would simply to make it more ubiquitious, and cheaper.
Your ring's no good, for I shall cast into into the flames of MY Hitachi. And you shall learn the truth: What one Panasonic can make, another Hitachi can unmake.
on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.' (from "The HitchHiker's Gyuide to the Galaxy")
Before one goes and accuses McAfee of manufactoring viruses, I suggest the authors provide solid evidence and proof that they actually did this. Becuase if one wants to accuse anyone of unprofessional conduct, it would only be ethical to proceed in this order. First proof, then accuse. Got that?
That's why you should be paying for software, for the insurance that someone will update the software for the next generation of technology.
To put it explicitly, you should be paying someone to maintaining that software that you rely on. You can choose not to, but then in that case, do it yourself.
If I make a movie about a great story in space where some guy has the ability to use "The power" he ends up doing battle with someone named "Dark Power" who, it turns out, is the first guys father, I'm pretty sure I'm in a mountain of trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
But MAKING NEW TOOLS is also a worthy activity. Say you are making an object with Hammer and Anvil, and someone wants you to make five more. Do you now start using the Hydraulic press? How about some kind of new tool that is slightly more efficient than a hammer and anvil, so that a modest increment in production is possible. The point is that while the deciding factor is finding the best tool for the job, jobs change, and tools can change too. That's what the flexibility of the computer is for.
Everything you have said is TRUE. The computer is a tool and we should use the best tool for the job.
On the other hand, refining a tool to be better, stretching and subsuming the functionality of one tool into another is another skill-set that is worth every bit as much as getting the job done competently. Neither should be at the expense of the other.
Whether the RIAA site was truly DDoS'ed or not was not the point. The point is: it is now. THIS WAS THE EVIL PLAN!
It is a *compromise*. A way to see a movie, but not contribute to their earnings. It's exactly as Richard Stallman had said - if you decide only to see a movie because of quality, or becuase it would be something you'd like to see, but not see as a matter of default - then you've mnimized the amount of money you gave them. Got that?
This ia a good idea that should be pursued by the FSF. Make the contribution tax-deductable!
That sounds exactly like what a horny teenage guy would say to a girl to get laid. Promise the moon, promise to rock her world, but in reality, all he wanted was just a screw.
This is a scenario of confusion and disaster. Artistic integrity distinction is a very important aspect of artistic works. This is something that you should not erode the artist of. Of course, that the artist borrowed from others, and plain to see.
It's amazing what you can do with a little turtle graphics. ...
With that many agents running around, don't you think neuralyzation happens often? OH wait - wrong movie ...
Eliminate the middleman! They come in your house and take your stuff, than then sell it on Ebay.
Actually you are wrong. There is nothing wrong with the principle, but what you are irritated by, is that you CAN'T SEE what seems to be a simpler explanation. Either ask, or flame the supposition that it is simpler. Don't blame anything on Good Ol' Occam, or the invocation of it. It's good that people are invoking it, and good that they can disagree with you.
Yes, the BSD kernel is very impressive, stability wise. As for your wise-ass remark about just turning a computer on, why don't you try something known as an AVERAGE run-time, and ask if it is determined by human whim, hardware failure or software failures.
All it takes for to spoil is the scheme is for the RIAA to set up two servers. One legitimate one, which you trust, and another spoof one, which the legitimate one trusts. Good luck fighting this unwinnable war.
Yes it is. While I sleep, the computer can be downloading stuff, doing it's housecleaning, and scheduling things that I told it to. You may not have use of this feature now, but having this feature enables other technologists to dream of what they could do with it. This is called improvement.
Whether you actually need to run a computer 24/7, is quite different from the QUALITY ISSUE. Morons.
And the computer, phone line, etc all exist as consumer items. Expensive, but not beyond the reach of anyone with a decent job. The next step in this development would simply to make it more ubiquitious, and cheaper.
Your ring's no good, for I shall cast into into the flames of MY Hitachi. And you shall learn the truth: What one Panasonic can make, another Hitachi can unmake.
on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'
(from "The HitchHiker's Gyuide to the Galaxy")
Before one goes and accuses McAfee of manufactoring viruses, I suggest the authors provide solid evidence and proof that they actually did this. Becuase if one wants to accuse anyone of unprofessional conduct, it would only be ethical to proceed in this order. First proof, then accuse. Got that?
You should look at India's Bollywood then. Amazingly derivative, yet not illegal. Wait - why look at Bollywood when there's American sit coms?
To put it explicitly, you should be paying someone to maintaining that software that you rely on. You can choose not to, but then in that case, do it yourself.
You mean like this? Parodies are acceptable.
Those strips of cloth are called nooses!
That's called slashdotting a small town, physically.