We should prevent cell phone use on airplanes because it might interfere with a project that has consumed massive amounts of computational and technical resources and has never been successful, ever.
First you tell me that giving away WiFi doesn't actually bring more customers in. Next you'll tell me that making illegal copies of music doesn't help artists make money, or that you can't just give software away and make money on services.
And all this time I thought you became proud members of the Commonwealth with the federation of the colonies (and subsequent change to Dominion status) in 1901. Populated, as you say, with convicts who could not remain in England. *cough* exile *cough*.
And seriously, that page counts "refrigerator" and "refrigeration" as two separate inventions. Until I saw that page I didn't think you had a sense of humo(u)r.
There are many ways to establish credibility. But if you link those ways (eg publishing in peer-reviewed journals) to payment, then you automatically exclude people who cannot afford that payment and who therefore cannot establish credibility, eg graduate students, junior faculty, and some international authors. Requiring such paid publication as part of grant eligibility might aggravate this problem rather than alleviate it.
It's dumb to focus on the ethics when there is a more basic issue at stake. Writers who publish with vanity presses, for the most part, do not command the same respect and credibility as authors who publish with established journals and presses, unless the authors *already* have credibility.
The vanity-press (pay-to-publish) approach will simultaneously make journals *and* authors less credible. At the same time, it provides a way to silence new voices by providing an additional barrier to scientific publishing for graduate students and junior faculty.
At the risk of violating the Law of Minimum Efficient Threads, I will point out one last time that the argument that you made (that Linus should use OpenCVS, even though it doesn't work, because people could make it work) is incredibly weak. Your auxiliary hypotheses about distance from the ideal Linus tool aren't much better, given that if you don't know what Linus needs, you don't know whether OpenCVS is closer or not. But since you're retreating to weak pragmatism rather than making an argument, there's really nothing more to say here.
Since the illustrations aren't working, let me break it down for you. You proposed using a piece of software that you freely admit will not work for what Linus needs. Your justification was that it *could* be what he needs if only people would work on it and make it what he needs. Following this line of reasoning, *any* software could be proposed as a solution, because any software *could* be what he needs if enough people work on it and make it into what he needs. Therefore your proposal for a specific piece of software as a superior option to any other is not supported by your argument. The other opinions you're tossing around are irrelevant to this point, though you get points for being honest about not understanding things.
In your world, Linus could manage the kernel in vi if only enough people got into it and started contributing to it. So meh, he should switch to vi even though it won't be ready for months unless developers start working on it. Does this form of argument actually make sense to you?
Proposing that Linus should switch to a tool that you freely admit will not work for him is patently ideological and completely unhelpful. Stop it. You're hurting America.
There's an idea. Try something that doesn't work in the hopes that someone else will fix it because it doesn't work for you. Then again, I think this is the entire premise of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
Slashdot Mirror
We should prevent cell phone use on airplanes because it might interfere with a project that has consumed massive amounts of computational and technical resources and has never been successful, ever.
At least now SETI will have an excuse.
First you tell me that giving away WiFi doesn't actually bring more customers in. Next you'll tell me that making illegal copies of music doesn't help artists make money, or that you can't just give software away and make money on services.
Well, if you put a bunch of stickers and a chrome muffler tip on it, it substitutes for a biological penis.
And all this time I thought you became proud members of the Commonwealth with the federation of the colonies (and subsequent change to Dominion status) in 1901. Populated, as you say, with convicts who could not remain in England. *cough* exile *cough*.
And seriously, that page counts "refrigerator" and "refrigeration" as two separate inventions. Until I saw that page I didn't think you had a sense of humo(u)r.
Because what's better than a nation of exiled convicts? A nation of unemployed construction workers writing libfetchporn 0.9, that's what.
Sustained: Riding down the street.
Peak: Taking it off some sweet jumps.
Radio that's just as good as your local public-access TV channels. Won't that be awesome.
If they do this for press releases, Slashdot won't even need editors anymore!
Great. There goes Minesweeper.
I sincerely hope the movie is not as vacuous as these interview responses. Or as cavalier with punctuation! To tell you when something is funny!
No. No one knows. Stop asking questions and upgrade. It's free, and ESR uses it for a loofah.
Sea++.
Thank you. I'm here all week.
Yes. Harvard.
There are many ways to establish credibility. But if you link those ways (eg publishing in peer-reviewed journals) to payment, then you automatically exclude people who cannot afford that payment and who therefore cannot establish credibility, eg graduate students, junior faculty, and some international authors. Requiring such paid publication as part of grant eligibility might aggravate this problem rather than alleviate it.
Like anyone at slashdot knows anything about pubic access.
It's dumb to focus on the ethics when there is a more basic issue at stake. Writers who publish with vanity presses, for the most part, do not command the same respect and credibility as authors who publish with established journals and presses, unless the authors *already* have credibility.
The vanity-press (pay-to-publish) approach will simultaneously make journals *and* authors less credible. At the same time, it provides a way to silence new voices by providing an additional barrier to scientific publishing for graduate students and junior faculty.
It's only mostly dead.
Okay, I'm not a scientist, but why would you want a *smaller* vibrating dildo?
Remember, every time you engage in sloppy thinking, Linus kills a kitten.
At the risk of violating the Law of Minimum Efficient Threads, I will point out one last time that the argument that you made (that Linus should use OpenCVS, even though it doesn't work, because people could make it work) is incredibly weak. Your auxiliary hypotheses about distance from the ideal Linus tool aren't much better, given that if you don't know what Linus needs, you don't know whether OpenCVS is closer or not. But since you're retreating to weak pragmatism rather than making an argument, there's really nothing more to say here.
Since the illustrations aren't working, let me break it down for you. You proposed using a piece of software that you freely admit will not work for what Linus needs. Your justification was that it *could* be what he needs if only people would work on it and make it what he needs. Following this line of reasoning, *any* software could be proposed as a solution, because any software *could* be what he needs if enough people work on it and make it into what he needs. Therefore your proposal for a specific piece of software as a superior option to any other is not supported by your argument. The other opinions you're tossing around are irrelevant to this point, though you get points for being honest about not understanding things.
In your world, Linus could manage the kernel in vi if only enough people got into it and started contributing to it. So meh, he should switch to vi even though it won't be ready for months unless developers start working on it. Does this form of argument actually make sense to you?
Proposing that Linus should switch to a tool that you freely admit will not work for him is patently ideological and completely unhelpful. Stop it. You're hurting America.
There's an idea. Try something that doesn't work in the hopes that someone else will fix it because it doesn't work for you. Then again, I think this is the entire premise of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
Why wait two years? You can punish yourself right now with enlightenment.
Because, in the final furious masturbation circle that determined the winner, Theo came first.