Re:Where I come from it's called a failure...
on
GnuCash 1.9.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Come on... they've just done a major conversion, and now it's testing time. OF COURSE it's going to crash. Why not channel your criticism into more constructive uses of your time and help with the testing?
...there is no problem with the two co-existing so long as neither tries to intrude onto the others territory.
I see this as somewhat contradictory. Religion exists to explain that which cannot be explained. Where something cannot be explained scientifically, science often proposes a theory based on the best available evidence. However...what happens when science reveals an answer to something that religion deemed either without explanation, or to occur in an entirely different manner (think about the flat-earth proponents in the religious camps)? Wouldn't you consider this an intrusion by science?
What you say is true, except that often these things start out as a "solution without a problem". The real issue is that problems are then invented to accommodate the new technology.
why exactly do you feel that you have any right to conceal your actions from your employer
I don't think it's about concealing anything. I think it's more about the contempt that this kind of surveillance demonstrates toward employees. While on one hand, companies do need to be cognizant of those they hire, I do not believe that shoving everyone into a fishbowl is appropriate. At some point, the fact that employees are gasp human beings, and not animals, has to enter the picture. There was once this dynamic called mutual respect, where you could trust your employer not to be a complete asshat, and they could exercise the same level of trust with you. The more things move away from this model, the more it will simply be a matter of each party getting whatever it can walk away with, with less and less focus on meeting company objectives.
Since they didn't have case, I settled for a majority stake in the company. I then sold it all to one of their competitors who took all of their IP and fired all of the executives, including the asshole who did that to me.
This is quite a generalization. I think a skilled artist could fool this software quite easily. My inclination is to believe that it might compare things like lighting temperature, and overall color makeup between various components, but if you have someone that knows that they're doing, this isn't a big deal.
There seems to be one problem with your reasoning. None of the participants knew that they were given something any different than what they were told. For all they knew, a "hard" test would have been much harder than what they received, even if what they received was difficult. The same applies to those who received the easy tests. So, the results of the study are based on what the participants knew at the time of the study, not what we might attribute after the fact.
These games are played by a lot of teenagers. An important part of their growing up is assuming male/female roles.
Correction: An important part of them growing up is allowing them to assume a role that is compatible with who they are. A parent that can't allow this has no business parenting. Parenting isn't about ownership, nor is it about creating a mirror image of oneself.
Maybe some of us are just tired of gays pushing their immorality into our entertainment, and think it is time to push back.
Pusing their immorality? Could you elaborate on what is immoral about a homosexual orientation?
A lot of sexual taboos against things like S&M
What does this have to do with a homosexual orientation?
When creative bright people don't have children because they are gay
As opposed to creative, bright people who are straight but choose not to have children? A bit of a double standard, no?
Too many people lack the courage to say anything about it.
Most likely because there is nothing courageous about it. It's much harder to face the truth.
Could you please share with us, if you would, what measures you have taken to promote your views that heterosexuals, for whatever reason, should not be allowed to raise kids in a single-parent setting?
Jumping to the conclusion that (e.g.) children in a lesbian household do poorly because they won't have a male role model is a major jump to a conclusion, not a simple extrapolation.
It's not only jumping to a conclusion, it's a complete fallacy. People have become so conditioned to using this "two parents of opposite sex" argument they utterly fail to see reality. Reality is that kids are often raised in environments with either of the "opposite" gender missing. Interestingly (and thankfully), a child's family is not the only source of role models - I'd opine that they receive the majority of their ques from outside the family anyway. The family, however, is good for offering a solid foundation and a set of core values. Values like honesty, integrity, kindness, etc., are completely neutral when it comes to sexual orientation, and can be promoted equally well by members of either camp.
Having said this, I'm surprised that Blizzard is making such a fuss. I'd be far more worried about the kinds of people a kid of mine might come into contact with playing the game in general...I've seen some real morons- people who certainly wouldn't serve as a positive influence.
and we wind up with cows who have easily 50 times the milk production of medieval cows.
Unfortuanately, this production comes at a cost to those who consume it, as the cows are also often pumped full of steroids and other crap that a free-ranging cow would have no contact with. There are some remarkable similarities here, since RIAA artists tend to exhibit the same sense of "artificiality".
Money wins much of the time. I don't see this as an issue of forcing anything, but merely ensuring that the playing field remain somewhat hospitable to open source development. I think Linus' view might be appropriate for the process of development, but I think RMS is focused more on the environment in which that development takes place. In effect, Linus is asking that we place a great deal of trust in the commercial sector, trust which I'm tempted to think is entirely misplaced. There have undoubtedly been some shining stars, but these are the exception, not the rule. In essence, open source needs to protect itself against those who insist on playing in a more non-cooperative environment simply because it offers them greater advantage.
AOL may very well have a future if these large providers follow through with their "strategic" plan to tier the internet. I will have no problem moving back to dialup, though probably not with AOL. However, I'm sure others who are interested in stopping this madness may well consider AOL as an option.
I didn't know that Bungie was still around...I have somewhat fond memories of playing Marathon, since it was one of the first games I ever really played on a computer. So this isn't just any gaming company, it's Bungie.
Funny you should mention that...I think it would be a real wakeup call if many of those who currently use cable or other broadband would simply cancel, and go back to dialup. I don't think I'd have any problem doing this. If enough people did it, it wouldn't take long before the message was understood, loud and clear. Even the fattest pipes are worth $0,000,000,000.00 if nobody is using them.
Comcast, AT&T, et al, can take their tiered internet and shove it straight up their strategic bunghole.
As far as software is concerned, and perhaps some other idiotic types of IP (like copyright on the "appearance" of a building in a public location), is to ELIMINATE it. Their absence is what got us where we are, but for some reason, people feel like they have to squeeze every last bit of "value" from something that is often completely intangible. The only thing it's doing is slowing things down and increasing costs. I imagine that not too long from now, the "leaders" in the US government will be scratching something, wondering why the US continues to either lag behind, or give up ground to, other countries in important areas like science and technology. The current patent system has shackled and menacled our ability to remain agile, and I fear that we will pay dearly for that over the long term.
Even if you are only one person who decides to "vote with your wallet," you are doing the right thing.
That's enough for me- I don't need the approval of an entire herd in order to justify my objection to the manner in which a certain company does business.
I worked for a credit company some years ago, and even with terminals at every desk, there were still reports (some massive) that were delivered to various departments. I'm guessing it was because the storage requirements to manage all that data may have been something on the "very expensive" side. It may have also had to do with the software not being able to access it- companies typically produce reports that make sense to their particular operation. Accessing that same data online, however, is another matter entirely.
This experience leads him to realize that maybe Java is dying - or at least fading in certain areas.
It seems to me that this kind of "opinion leading" is part and parcel of the development game. Someone has to be in front, shedding light on alternative approaches. Granted, sometimes change is sorely needed, but other times I get the impression that it's little more than change for the sake of change. This seems particularly true when a certain market segment gets saturated, and a new direction is needed to help those who were at the forefront, well, *stay* at the forefront.
When I hear/read about stories related to failed projects, projects in trouble, or projects that didn't turn out as well as they might have, I wonder how much if it involves programmers that aren't as well-trained as they maybe should be, and managers and/or organizations that don't have a clue about the dynamics associated with software development. It then leads me to wonder how much certain criticisms like java "bloat" is due to factors that have nothing to do with the language itself.
Fast forward five more years- lather, rinse, repeat - except this time it may very well be Ruby on the chopping block.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on... they've just done a major conversion, and now it's testing time. OF COURSE it's going to crash. Why not channel your criticism into more constructive uses of your time and help with the testing?
...there is no problem with the two co-existing so long as neither tries to intrude onto the others territory.
I see this as somewhat contradictory. Religion exists to explain that which cannot be explained. Where something cannot be explained scientifically, science often proposes a theory based on the best available evidence. However...what happens when science reveals an answer to something that religion deemed either without explanation, or to occur in an entirely different manner (think about the flat-earth proponents in the religious camps)? Wouldn't you consider this an intrusion by science?
What you say is true, except that often these things start out as a "solution without a problem". The real issue is that problems are then invented to accommodate the new technology.
why exactly do you feel that you have any right to conceal your actions from your employer
I don't think it's about concealing anything. I think it's more about the contempt that this kind of surveillance demonstrates toward employees. While on one hand, companies do need to be cognizant of those they hire, I do not believe that shoving everyone into a fishbowl is appropriate. At some point, the fact that employees are gasp human beings, and not animals, has to enter the picture. There was once this dynamic called mutual respect, where you could trust your employer not to be a complete asshat, and they could exercise the same level of trust with you. The more things move away from this model, the more it will simply be a matter of each party getting whatever it can walk away with, with less and less focus on meeting company objectives.
Since they didn't have case, I settled for a majority stake in the company. I then sold it all to one of their competitors who took all of their IP and fired all of the executives, including the asshole who did that to me.
Poetic justicce. Awesome.
Don't you think it's a bit fallacious to suggest that offering the help you describe requires knowing when and where someone is every minute?
This is quite a generalization. I think a skilled artist could fool this software quite easily. My inclination is to believe that it might compare things like lighting temperature, and overall color makeup between various components, but if you have someone that knows that they're doing, this isn't a big deal.
I was going to mention MySpace as a comparison, but I figured it might not be fair. Kinda funny that someone else did. : )
There seems to be one problem with your reasoning. None of the participants knew that they were given something any different than what they were told. For all they knew, a "hard" test would have been much harder than what they received, even if what they received was difficult. The same applies to those who received the easy tests. So, the results of the study are based on what the participants knew at the time of the study, not what we might attribute after the fact.
I never understood what the big deal with Craigslist was- I've never seen it, and nothing I've heard about it has really inspired any interest.
In that case, it would behoove Google to respect some modicum of privacy. As I understood it, Google was the *least* conscious of all of them, and quite surprisingly, AOL the most (according to this: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?shttp://yro.sl ashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176244&op=Reply&thresho ld=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=14642454id=1762 44&op=Reply&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread& pid=14642454 )
These games are played by a lot of teenagers. An important part of their growing up is assuming male/female roles.
Correction: An important part of them growing up is allowing them to assume a role that is compatible with who they are. A parent that can't allow this has no business parenting. Parenting isn't about ownership, nor is it about creating a mirror image of oneself.
Maybe some of us are just tired of gays pushing their immorality into our entertainment, and think it is time to push back.
Pusing their immorality? Could you elaborate on what is immoral about a homosexual orientation?
A lot of sexual taboos against things like S&M
What does this have to do with a homosexual orientation?
When creative bright people don't have children because they are gay
As opposed to creative, bright people who are straight but choose not to have children? A bit of a double standard, no?
Too many people lack the courage to say anything about it.
Most likely because there is nothing courageous about it. It's much harder to face the truth.
Could you please share with us, if you would, what measures you have taken to promote your views that heterosexuals, for whatever reason, should not be allowed to raise kids in a single-parent setting?
Jumping to the conclusion that (e.g.) children in a lesbian household do poorly because they won't have a male role model is a major jump to a conclusion, not a simple extrapolation.
It's not only jumping to a conclusion, it's a complete fallacy. People have become so conditioned to using this "two parents of opposite sex" argument they utterly fail to see reality. Reality is that kids are often raised in environments with either of the "opposite" gender missing. Interestingly (and thankfully), a child's family is not the only source of role models - I'd opine that they receive the majority of their ques from outside the family anyway. The family, however, is good for offering a solid foundation and a set of core values. Values like honesty, integrity, kindness, etc., are completely neutral when it comes to sexual orientation, and can be promoted equally well by members of either camp.
Having said this, I'm surprised that Blizzard is making such a fuss. I'd be far more worried about the kinds of people a kid of mine might come into contact with playing the game in general...I've seen some real morons- people who certainly wouldn't serve as a positive influence.
and we wind up with cows who have easily 50 times the milk production of medieval cows.
Unfortuanately, this production comes at a cost to those who consume it, as the cows are also often pumped full of steroids and other crap that a free-ranging cow would have no contact with. There are some remarkable similarities here, since RIAA artists tend to exhibit the same sense of "artificiality".
Money wins much of the time. I don't see this as an issue of forcing anything, but merely ensuring that the playing field remain somewhat hospitable to open source development. I think Linus' view might be appropriate for the process of development, but I think RMS is focused more on the environment in which that development takes place. In effect, Linus is asking that we place a great deal of trust in the commercial sector, trust which I'm tempted to think is entirely misplaced. There have undoubtedly been some shining stars, but these are the exception, not the rule. In essence, open source needs to protect itself against those who insist on playing in a more non-cooperative environment simply because it offers them greater advantage.
AOL may very well have a future if these large providers follow through with their "strategic" plan to tier the internet. I will have no problem moving back to dialup, though probably not with AOL. However, I'm sure others who are interested in stopping this madness may well consider AOL as an option.
I didn't know that Bungie was still around...I have somewhat fond memories of playing Marathon, since it was one of the first games I ever really played on a computer. So this isn't just any gaming company, it's Bungie.
Funny you should mention that...I think it would be a real wakeup call if many of those who currently use cable or other broadband would simply cancel, and go back to dialup. I don't think I'd have any problem doing this. If enough people did it, it wouldn't take long before the message was understood, loud and clear. Even the fattest pipes are worth $0,000,000,000.00 if nobody is using them.
Comcast, AT&T, et al, can take their tiered internet and shove it straight up their strategic bunghole.
I'm guessing that every major content provider would be against it, as it limits their potential revenue.
It means that EA's CEO gets to keep his salary, bonuses and other perks intact.
As far as software is concerned, and perhaps some other idiotic types of IP (like copyright on the "appearance" of a building in a public location), is to ELIMINATE it. Their absence is what got us where we are, but for some reason, people feel like they have to squeeze every last bit of "value" from something that is often completely intangible. The only thing it's doing is slowing things down and increasing costs. I imagine that not too long from now, the "leaders" in the US government will be scratching something, wondering why the US continues to either lag behind, or give up ground to, other countries in important areas like science and technology. The current patent system has shackled and menacled our ability to remain agile, and I fear that we will pay dearly for that over the long term.
Even if you are only one person who decides to "vote with your wallet," you are doing the right thing.
That's enough for me- I don't need the approval of an entire herd in order to justify my objection to the manner in which a certain company does business.
I worked for a credit company some years ago, and even with terminals at every desk, there were still reports (some massive) that were delivered to various departments. I'm guessing it was because the storage requirements to manage all that data may have been something on the "very expensive" side. It may have also had to do with the software not being able to access it- companies typically produce reports that make sense to their particular operation. Accessing that same data online, however, is another matter entirely.
This experience leads him to realize that maybe Java is dying - or at least fading in certain areas.
It seems to me that this kind of "opinion leading" is part and parcel of the development game. Someone has to be in front, shedding light on alternative approaches. Granted, sometimes change is sorely needed, but other times I get the impression that it's little more than change for the sake of change. This seems particularly true when a certain market segment gets saturated, and a new direction is needed to help those who were at the forefront, well, *stay* at the forefront.
When I hear/read about stories related to failed projects, projects in trouble, or projects that didn't turn out as well as they might have, I wonder how much if it involves programmers that aren't as well-trained as they maybe should be, and managers and/or organizations that don't have a clue about the dynamics associated with software development. It then leads me to wonder how much certain criticisms like java "bloat" is due to factors that have nothing to do with the language itself.
Fast forward five more years- lather, rinse, repeat - except this time it may very well be Ruby on the chopping block.