It's lose-lose. The main problem is actually the problem with the intelligence of the majority of people (FROM BOTH parties, dont even start with single-party bashing), who "pretty much universally fall prey to marketing".
Give them the vote directly, they will vote for "bread and circuses".
Give them the vote indirectly, and the above de Tocqueville quotation comes into play. But really, that is just a one-level abstracted instance of the "bread and circuses" effect. (Juvenal, circa AD 100)
It was to counter this effect, that ancient Athens attempted to educate citizens out of "Idiocy". It's interesting to note that originally, "idiot" was a term referring to someone who voted and generally acted in a self-centered manner.
The REAL problem, is that there is this culture-of-inertia acceptance of an "update" button, which almost always brings security "fixes".. COMBINED WITH MORE "features", I mean bugs.
Until vendors start offering more options, there's almost no point in updating, from a security standpoint. You're just posponing your hackability. Your safest means of protection currently, is to only run java from trusted sites.
Vendors need to offer a "just security patches, NO new feature code" auto-update button. *especially* the java vendor(s)
That being said, it was a LOUSY article, scientifically speaking.
From the records they had, the researchers could not tell which traits were being selected for, but the variation in the number of offspringâ"from zero to 17â"indicates there was a large opportunity for selection to occur.
paraphrase, "well, we cant actually prove anything, but we're really hopeful that it coulda-shoulda happened!! Partyyyy!"
No, hulu did not choose to do this.
This is the content owners declaring this.
The idiots think they are going to kill hulu, and so save themselves.
However, all they will succeed in doing, is killing both.
The fun thing is, I havent used hulu for some time now;
The current shows I watch, are available directly from the networks they come from now (albeit with slightly stupider commercial policies. but I can live with that)
The non-current shows I watch.. I've found they can be found elsewhere as well.
Still with occasional commercials. But that's fine, i can live with one or two. Just dont get GREEDY.
That would be very comforting for people living in the sky.
But for local yokels like me, who live on the ground, I imagine that changes to wind patterns "near the group", are still quite important, reguardless of whether the sky people are doing okay.
yes, and they should [sue] for a game developers union.
let me guess: you're a libertarian or something.
People who are "L-word" politically, tend to not absorb the following concept, but I'll try to convey it anyway;
Try to keep in mind that unions dont magically create money out of thin air. more money to the programers, means either more expensive games, because cost to produce is higher...or smaller games, because same sale price == same investment dollars, and those dollars now go half as far.
The "millions in profit" is rare. the pay of programmers is set by the junk titles, that still need to be funded somehow.
Consider musicians. Most of the get paid lousy, and for terrible hours. Yet "publishers" make "millions of dollars"!
So all musicians have to do is make a big ol union, and then they'll all be rolling in dough, right?
Since Faith can't be proven, inherent to its very nature, then all faiths must be equal.
The perspective can only be held by someone who has not actually examined each of the major faiths in depth. When you look deeper, one finds that they are strongly mutually exclusive (with the exception of Judaism and Christianity).
Therefore, you cannot have more than one be true.
Therefore, the only way you can have them "all be equal", is if they are all false.
I agree that you personally dont need to prove your faith to anyone else. Some people have closed minds; proving anything to them, that they do not wish to believe, is impossible.
That being said, I do hope that you at least have "proven" your faith to yourself.
Let the reader note that there is a difference between
"scientific, repeatable proof", and "reasonable cause to believe".
Interestingly, our legal system (specifically, a jury trial) is strongly based on this latter concept, although the converse is usually applied. (ie: "reasonable doubt")
It's not about right or wrong, but simply a choice about what feels the best for you. At that point, sharing these beliefs with other people can be easy, enjoyable, and conflict free.
That is a completely untenable position, for many reasons.
First and foremost, if a particular religion does not explain the true ultimate nature of the universe and the reason for existance, then it is meaningless as a religion. It becomes merely a self-prescription for rose colored glasses.
The ultimate usefulness of religion, is to convey to humans, what the Creator wants us to know.
If instead, you base your faith on "what feels good to you"... then you are essentially merely worshipping *yourself*. You are placing yourself in the position of God, where your feelings and desires are more important than anyone else.
Isnt that rather backwards from what it should be?
If you somehow knew for a fact, that God wanted you to do (xyz), and xyz made you quite unhappy and uncomfortable... are you going to do it? or are you going to then say, "well, I choose not to believe in that God, I'll make up my own that feels good".
Seems to me that type of attitude is even worse than one of an atheist who refuses to believe in any kind of god.
At least the atheist has some kind of integrity in what they believe.
But where's the integrity in believing in a god which you made up yourself?
== "water, plus 'food'". Which in some sense could be considered "dirt", but it's a whole lot less dirt than if you're planting in a great big field of it.
You're throwing around ad hominem attacks at an imagined adversary, rather than giving decent facts. I'd imagine that the amount of effort to grown one's own food, and have a year round supply, would be a *considerable* amount of effort, and planning.
accusations of "too lazy" belong in the realm of "people are too lazy to walk 30 feet to dispose of their cigarettes properly", not "people are 'too lazy' to farm". Farming is hard work. Not wanting to labor in that particular way, doesnt make a person "lazy".
On the other hand, I still think RMS played a more fundamental role in the success of the Linux kernel. There are other open source UNIX kernels out there as we all know, whether they're licensed under the GPL or not, and a few have also reached that critical mass of community support. We would have other kernels, but without gcc and the GPL, free software wouldn't be a fraction of what it is today.
Without gcc, sure. But without the GPL.... not that big a deal.
The big difference in what Linus did, vs what other people (*BSD) did before him, was NOT the license. The license was *NOT* what made linux popular.
The difference was in choice of management over what stuff gets included, and what doesnt. etc, etc.
Linus could just have easily have chosen the BSD license, or the apache license, or (insert reasonably "free-to-use" license here), and things would have progressed pretty much the same way.
The more user-friendly atmosphere of linux , is what then drove the boom of free software development. So that also, happened to be GPL. But really, most people care about "free to use" more than the GNU religious points.
case in point: many people may CLAIM they care about that stuff, but when push comes to shove... most will take closed-source vendor drivers and use them, if its the difference between usin the hardware they have, vs having it be a brick to them.
It so *happened* that Linus chose GPL. The GPL zealots out there want to claim the license as the reason why it succeeded, and that it couldnt possibly have gone anywhere with a difference license. But that is simply not true.
that is to say, dont casually interchange "you", with "I".
It would be more accurate if you wrote, "Believe me, I do notice the difference"....
But I'm guessing most of the non-photography professionals here on slashdot, either would not notice the difference, or really wouldnt care about the difference.
that being said... I can appreciate your professional input, and I personally think it would be great if GIMP fully supported you as a photog professional. I just wouldnt hold my breath waiting for it to happen:-/
yeah. What I personally find really messed up, is that GEGL is homed under "gimp.org" and has been for a long time.. yet it is only now being merged into gimp core... and only "accidentally" ? !!
One definition of Moron, would be someone who thinks, "if I dont see a reason for it, there is no reason for it".
nvidia does not apparently want its graphics hardware drivers open sourced. long LONG time ago, they started out open, but then went closed for them.
Somewhere high up in management, there is somewho who believes there is an important business reason for doing this.
If that person, or persons, are still there, they are now faced with the datapoint of, "if we release our closed source drivers on linux... they will get reverse engineered, and our intellectual property will be opened up against our wishes."
Then then becomes a business reason to discontinue linux graphics driver support in the future, depending on whether they are still all cagey and proprietary about their graphics cards. They probably are.
btw: exactly how many "high end [Irix]" workstations exist in the year 2012??? Really weird rational you are claiming.
My sentiments are somewhat similar to the poster above, although a bit less... aggravated.
This sounds like a "cool hack". Which,.. ya know.. is "cool" an all... but usually not a good idea for a major piece of software such as GIMP.
IFF what they're describing is some kind of transition phase, where it allows dual-mode backend sort of stuff, and a concrete plan of action to eventually port all existing (standard) plugins to the newer methods, and then DITCH the old way.... then great.
But otherwise, having heavily layered interface/mechanics conversion code, is a Really Really bad idea. The bigger the software, the worse idea it is. It would be better to just toss it all out and start from scratch, if this is going to be an indefinitely lived hack.
No. It's the teachers. Dont just "think" about these issues. Either gain experience with them, or listen quietly to those who do have the experience.
2 out of my 3 childrens' teachers are computer-incompetant, and seem to have no significant drive to improve this status.
INCLUDING THE "gifted" class teacher
That is a huge example of what is wrong with US public schools.
Schools default to paper notices because it's a SINGLE systems that can work with EVERYBODY
By that logic, having computer skills classes are a total waste of time in schools, because some of those kids wont have computers at home, and after all, we only want to do things schools that "work with EVERYBODY".
By letting the pension funds in the door... we have made sure that high-risk projects and products are just never approved.
Theres nothing wrong with "high risk projects",even in that culture.. you just have to make sure that the amount of capital invested in the "high risk project", is an amount you can afford to lose.
aka, "Never gamble with money you cant afford to lose".
This is just GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE.
So if people arent doing high risk stuff, it isnt because of what you said. It's more likely because the people in control are looking for short-term gain, over larger but longer-term gain.
Thanks for replying.
A small factual correction to what you wrote:
We've had churches permanently ban people from the feeds based on nothing more than personal whimsy or dislike. A lesbian couple was banned from the Elm Street Mission permanently, for example.
Ah... that's probably an example of "declining to support what that church views as immoral behaviour". not "personal whimsy or dislike".
I would even guess that, if the "couple" had refrained from playing "gay couple" at the church location, they would still be welcomed, but their lack of self-control, or desire to "prove a point", got them banned.
But obviously, since I wasnt there, I wouldnt know for sure.
At any rate, thank you for providing the extra data. It sounds like what you have observed, supports what someone else posted, along the lines of, "this is why government run homeless programs are a bad idea".
Since the non-government/business-run ones, seem to be head and shoulders above
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's good that we've avoided the tyranny of the 51%, for the tyranny of the 1% then, isnt it?
It's lose-lose.
The main problem is actually the problem with the intelligence of the majority of people (FROM BOTH parties, dont even start with single-party bashing), who "pretty much universally fall prey to marketing".
Give them the vote directly, they will vote for "bread and circuses".
Give them the vote indirectly, and the above de Tocqueville quotation comes into play. But really, that is just a one-level abstracted instance of the "bread and circuses" effect.
(Juvenal, circa AD 100)
It was to counter this effect, that ancient Athens attempted to educate citizens out of "Idiocy". It's interesting to note that originally, "idiot" was a term referring to someone who voted and generally acted in a self-centered manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot/Idiocy_(Athenian_Democracy)
The Swiss system where a number of citizens can call a vote on an issue seems fairly reasonable.
Then again, almost any system will work well, in a population of only 7 million people .
In comparison, the population of a SINGLE hyper metropolitan area in the US (the "greater los angeles area") is 16 million
San francisco bay area, 7 million
New York`: 8 million
The REAL problem, is that there is this culture-of-inertia acceptance of an "update" button, which almost always brings security "fixes".. COMBINED WITH MORE "features", I mean bugs.
Until vendors start offering more options, there's almost no point in updating, from a security standpoint. You're just posponing your hackability.
Your safest means of protection currently, is to only run java from trusted sites.
Vendors need to offer a "just security patches, NO new feature code" auto-update button.
*especially* the java vendor(s)
From the records they had, the researchers could not tell which traits were being selected for, but the variation in the number of offspringâ"from zero to 17â"indicates there was a large opportunity for selection to occur.
paraphrase, "well, we cant actually prove anything, but we're really hopeful that it coulda-shoulda happened!! Partyyyy!"
yeeesh. Go back to undergraduate studies.
The fun thing is, I havent used hulu for some time now; The current shows I watch, are available directly from the networks they come from now (albeit with slightly stupider commercial policies. but I can live with that)
The non-current shows I watch.. I've found they can be found elsewhere as well. Still with occasional commercials. But that's fine, i can live with one or two. Just dont get GREEDY.
oops, too late. bye bye
That would be very comforting for people living in the sky. But for local yokels like me, who live on the ground, I imagine that changes to wind patterns "near the group", are still quite important, reguardless of whether the sky people are doing okay.
In short, in your attempt to be a pedant and nitpick the headline and the summary, you have instead shown yourself a fool. A foolish fool.
but he still wins, because almost everyone will have read his post, but stopped reading yours after the second word.
I also have nightmares about the valley of the living windmills.
how could you not reference this?
http://xkcd.com/556/
(disclaimer: you probably WERE, but dont be a joke snob; share with the whole class :)
yes, and they should [sue] for a game developers union.
let me guess: you're a libertarian or something. People who are "L-word" politically, tend to not absorb the following concept, but I'll try to convey it anyway;
Try to keep in mind that unions dont magically create money out of thin air. more money to the programers, means either more expensive games, because cost to produce is higher...or smaller games, because same sale price == same investment dollars, and those dollars now go half as far.
The "millions in profit" is rare. the pay of programmers is set by the junk titles, that still need to be funded somehow.
Consider musicians. Most of the get paid lousy, and for terrible hours. Yet "publishers" make "millions of dollars"! So all musicians have to do is make a big ol union, and then they'll all be rolling in dough, right?
Wrong.
Yay election year motivated spending.... lets see them get anything the following year :p
Since Faith can't be proven, inherent to its very nature, then all faiths must be equal.
The perspective can only be held by someone who has not actually examined each of the major faiths in depth. When you look deeper, one finds that they are strongly mutually exclusive (with the exception of Judaism and Christianity). Therefore, you cannot have more than one be true. Therefore, the only way you can have them "all be equal", is if they are all false. I agree that you personally dont need to prove your faith to anyone else. Some people have closed minds; proving anything to them, that they do not wish to believe, is impossible.
That being said, I do hope that you at least have "proven" your faith to yourself.
Let the reader note that there is a difference between "scientific, repeatable proof", and "reasonable cause to believe". Interestingly, our legal system (specifically, a jury trial) is strongly based on this latter concept, although the converse is usually applied. (ie: "reasonable doubt")
It's not about right or wrong, but simply a choice about what feels the best for you. At that point, sharing these beliefs with other people can be easy, enjoyable, and conflict free.
That is a completely untenable position, for many reasons. First and foremost, if a particular religion does not explain the true ultimate nature of the universe and the reason for existance, then it is meaningless as a religion. It becomes merely a self-prescription for rose colored glasses.
The ultimate usefulness of religion, is to convey to humans, what the Creator wants us to know. If instead, you base your faith on "what feels good to you"... then you are essentially merely worshipping *yourself*. You are placing yourself in the position of God, where your feelings and desires are more important than anyone else.
Isnt that rather backwards from what it should be? If you somehow knew for a fact, that God wanted you to do (xyz), and xyz made you quite unhappy and uncomfortable... are you going to do it? or are you going to then say, "well, I choose not to believe in that God, I'll make up my own that feels good".
Seems to me that type of attitude is even worse than one of an atheist who refuses to believe in any kind of god. At least the atheist has some kind of integrity in what they believe. But where's the integrity in believing in a god which you made up yourself?
One example would be hydroponics.
== "water, plus 'food'".
Which in some sense could be considered "dirt", but it's a whole lot less dirt than if you're planting in a great big field of it.
cant do without the water, though
"too lazy".
You're throwing around ad hominem attacks at an imagined adversary, rather than giving decent facts.
I'd imagine that the amount of effort to grown one's own food, and have a year round supply, would be a *considerable* amount of effort, and planning.
accusations of "too lazy" belong in the realm of "people are too lazy to walk 30 feet to dispose of their cigarettes properly", not "people are 'too lazy' to farm".
Farming is hard work. Not wanting to labor in that particular way, doesnt make a person "lazy".
On the other hand, I still think RMS played a more fundamental role in the success of the Linux kernel. There are other open source UNIX kernels out there as we all know, whether they're licensed under the GPL or not, and a few have also reached that critical mass of community support. We would have other kernels, but without gcc and the GPL, free software wouldn't be a fraction of what it is today.
Without gcc, sure. But without the GPL.... not that big a deal.
The big difference in what Linus did, vs what other people (*BSD) did before him, was NOT the license. The license was *NOT* what made linux popular. The difference was in choice of management over what stuff gets included, and what doesnt. etc, etc.
Linus could just have easily have chosen the BSD license, or the apache license, or (insert reasonably "free-to-use" license here), and things would have progressed pretty much the same way.
The more user-friendly atmosphere of linux , is what then drove the boom of free software development. So that also, happened to be GPL. But really, most people care about "free to use" more than the GNU religious points.
case in point: many people may CLAIM they care about that stuff, but when push comes to shove... most will take closed-source vendor drivers and use them, if its the difference between usin the hardware they have, vs having it be a brick to them.
It so *happened* that Linus chose GPL. The GPL zealots out there want to claim the license as the reason why it succeeded, and that it couldnt possibly have gone anywhere with a difference license. But that is simply not true.
pro tip: you arent writing to all pros :-}
that is to say, dont casually interchange "you", with "I".
It would be more accurate if you wrote, "Believe me, I do notice the difference"....
But I'm guessing most of the non-photography professionals here on slashdot, either would not notice the difference, or really wouldnt care about the difference.
that being said... I can appreciate your professional input, and I personally think it would be great if GIMP fully supported you as a photog professional. I just wouldnt hold my breath waiting for it to happen :-/
yeah.
What I personally find really messed up, is that GEGL is homed under "gimp.org" and has been for a long time.. yet it is only now being merged into gimp core... and only "accidentally" ? !!
GIMP: Needs Moar Planning
One definition of Moron, would be someone who thinks, "if I dont see a reason for it, there is no reason for it".
nvidia does not apparently want its graphics hardware drivers open sourced. long LONG time ago, they started out open, but then went closed for them.
Somewhere high up in management, there is somewho who believes there is an important business reason for doing this.
If that person, or persons, are still there, they are now faced with the datapoint of, "if we release our closed source drivers on linux... they will get reverse engineered, and our intellectual property will be opened up against our wishes."
Then then becomes a business reason to discontinue linux graphics driver support in the future, depending on whether they are still all cagey and proprietary about their graphics cards.
They probably are.
btw: exactly how many "high end [Irix]" workstations exist in the year 2012???
Really weird rational you are claiming.
My sentiments are somewhat similar to the poster above, although a bit less... aggravated.
This sounds like a "cool hack". Which, .. ya know.. is "cool" an all... but usually not a good idea for a major piece of software such as GIMP.
IFF what they're describing is some kind of transition phase, where it allows dual-mode backend sort of stuff, and a concrete plan of action to eventually port all existing (standard) plugins to the newer methods, and then DITCH the old way.... then great.
But otherwise, having heavily layered interface/mechanics conversion code, is a Really Really bad idea. The bigger the software, the worse idea it is. It would be better to just toss it all out and start from scratch, if this is going to be an indefinitely lived hack.
Way to go guys.. you've now given Nvidia massive disincentive to continue to do more work with their MODERN drivers.
INCLUDING THE "gifted" class teacher
That is a huge example of what is wrong with US public schools.
Schools default to paper notices because it's a SINGLE systems that can work with EVERYBODY
By that logic, having computer skills classes are a total waste of time in schools, because some of those kids wont have computers at home, and after all, we only want to do things schools that "work with EVERYBODY".
It's not a valid excuse.
By letting the pension funds in the door ... we have made sure that high-risk projects and products are just never approved.
Theres nothing wrong with "high risk projects",even in that culture.. you just have to make sure that the amount of capital invested in the "high risk project", is an amount you can afford to lose.
aka, "Never gamble with money you cant afford to lose".
This is just GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE. So if people arent doing high risk stuff, it isnt because of what you said. It's more likely because the people in control are looking for short-term gain, over larger but longer-term gain.
This is not a new phenomenon.
"congratulations, you have succeeded" ... in alienating your child.
We've had churches permanently ban people from the feeds based on nothing more than personal whimsy or dislike. A lesbian couple was banned from the Elm Street Mission permanently, for example.
Ah... that's probably an example of "declining to support what that church views as immoral behaviour". not "personal whimsy or dislike". I would even guess that, if the "couple" had refrained from playing "gay couple" at the church location, they would still be welcomed, but their lack of self-control, or desire to "prove a point", got them banned. But obviously, since I wasnt there, I wouldnt know for sure. At any rate, thank you for providing the extra data. It sounds like what you have observed, supports what someone else posted, along the lines of, "this is why government run homeless programs are a bad idea". Since the non-government/business-run ones, seem to be head and shoulders above