Is this the magical future where people will altruistically spend billions of dollars to give free shit away to people who figure they're entitled to the work of others?
Does this amazing shift in human nature happen through concentration camps or forced eugenics or something?
But Slashdot wisdom has taught me that it's impossible to secure Windows. I suspect the entire article is bullshit. A hundred thousand screaming free software zealots and apple lovers can't be wrong.
The most likely explanation is that the memes and "jokes" aren't actually funny in the comic sense, they just trigger that "us-against-them" reaction so common in cliques. In-jokes are rarely truly funny, they just tickle some shared experience.
The test of a joke actually being funny comes when you can get someone to laugh at it without a half hour of showing them why it makes you laugh. Slashdot meme humor fails that test badly.
And if you're using VS, then you have all the information about the type available at a click (or even a hover) and don't need to encode it in the name.
This is the basic problem with the "all I need is an editor" people. They spend so much time thinking of ways to reduce keystrokes that they solve the problem of reduced readability with Hungarian notation, rather than the obvious solution of using names that make sense in English (or whatever language they're using.)
Hopefully those 10 minutes saved over a lifetime avoiding the additional keystrokes are worth it.
That's not the case at all. The programming field is extremely large and there is room for people who don't know the underpinnings at all, and don't need to.
Placing arbitrary bars on what constitutes a "programmer worthy of the name" is just get-off-my-lawn elitism spawned by people who are watching their craft steadily devalue under attacks from all angles.
Sorry to let you guys in on this secret: it gets easier over time, and it will continue to do so until your arcane knowledge is as meaningless to society in general as pokemon trivia.
Your point on narrow virtualization is off, I've worked with implementing things like Altiris SVS and while something like that may be what Microsoft has in mind, it's not what the enterprise is going to see. They are going to look at this as they would a VMWare session. They are going to want to keep as much on XP as they can from a cost management standpoint.
So your whole point comes down to you blaming Microsoft for poor decision making in your organization? Fascinating logic.
Apparently whoever wrote the Constitution of the United States of America fucked up, then, since providing for the common defense and general welfare are listed as reasons for the existence of the federal government, but governing the citizens is not.
It's different now because Obama isn't a Republican. That's pretty much the only reason a lot of people need. The additional fact that he also isn't George Bush gets most of the rest.
And the no-copyright people won't rest until there is no monetary incentive to produce creative works so they can gorge themselves on entertainment. It's a stalemate, with both sides screaming about how their greed is more meaningful.
I'd also like to point out that your populist call to "the people" is a little hollow. This battle is people on all sides, not people against whatever you consider those who don't agree with you to be.
Try "powerful people have always had more political influence than people without power." Not too likely to change, either, until humans stop having human nature,
I get how noble (fair use just sounds noble) those reasons are, but why is it Google's responsibility to publish things they don't want to publish? Being big and really good at what they do doesn't remove their right to control what they serve.
Yeah, wouldn't it be awesome if Google were forced to give away all their technology regardless of the investment they made to develop it? Sure, they'd lose out in every way, but who cares? All they did was put in the work, but they're a big corporation and you're a noble free hacker. You should win by default.
Did your niece receive ownership of the various content as compensation or put up the money for the production or something along those lines? I doubt it but there's always that chance.
What I find most likely, however, is that she was hired to perform a service and compensated according to a contract she agreed to. It seems fairly unrealistic that distribution rights were part of that compensation, and if that is indeed the case, she shouldn't be distributing no matter how personally beneficial she would find it.
I would certainly find it lucrative if I could resell some of the software I've written under work-for-hire contracts, but I agreed to the conditions involving my employers retaining those rights in exchange for compensation.
Do-overs don't work in the adult world, and violating the rights of others because it's personally beneficial is repugnant to say the least.
Slashdot Mirror
No, unless we're going to start putting the people who accepted loans they knew they could never pay back into jail as well.
It'll happen as soon as jailbroken phones stop being a niche market, so probably never.
Is this the magical future where people will altruistically spend billions of dollars to give free shit away to people who figure they're entitled to the work of others?
Does this amazing shift in human nature happen through concentration camps or forced eugenics or something?
you had me at soft cock.
But Slashdot wisdom has taught me that it's impossible to secure Windows. I suspect the entire article is bullshit. A hundred thousand screaming free software zealots and apple lovers can't be wrong.
The most likely explanation is that the memes and "jokes" aren't actually funny in the comic sense, they just trigger that "us-against-them" reaction so common in cliques. In-jokes are rarely truly funny, they just tickle some shared experience.
The test of a joke actually being funny comes when you can get someone to laugh at it without a half hour of showing them why it makes you laugh. Slashdot meme humor fails that test badly.
And if you're using VS, then you have all the information about the type available at a click (or even a hover) and don't need to encode it in the name.
This is the basic problem with the "all I need is an editor" people. They spend so much time thinking of ways to reduce keystrokes that they solve the problem of reduced readability with Hungarian notation, rather than the obvious solution of using names that make sense in English (or whatever language they're using.)
Hopefully those 10 minutes saved over a lifetime avoiding the additional keystrokes are worth it.
That's not the case at all. The programming field is extremely large and there is room for people who don't know the underpinnings at all, and don't need to.
Placing arbitrary bars on what constitutes a "programmer worthy of the name" is just get-off-my-lawn elitism spawned by people who are watching their craft steadily devalue under attacks from all angles.
Sorry to let you guys in on this secret: it gets easier over time, and it will continue to do so until your arcane knowledge is as meaningless to society in general as pokemon trivia.
Sure is. You just can't be surprised when they come up with new and improved things to drop on your head.
So your whole point comes down to you blaming Microsoft for poor decision making in your organization? Fascinating logic.
Cause crazy people make bad configuration decisions?
While this oversimplifies the situation quite a bit, I can't for the life of me find the flamebait in this post.
It's disgusting to get up in arms about it now, really. It was horrible, but it's long over. Time to move on.
Apparently whoever wrote the Constitution of the United States of America fucked up, then, since providing for the common defense and general welfare are listed as reasons for the existence of the federal government, but governing the citizens is not.
It's different now because Obama isn't a Republican. That's pretty much the only reason a lot of people need. The additional fact that he also isn't George Bush gets most of the rest.
Yeah, and opinions are like assholes. And so are you.
The "industry" is also made up of real people. Ignore that fact at the peril of your own irrelevance.
And the no-copyright people won't rest until there is no monetary incentive to produce creative works so they can gorge themselves on entertainment. It's a stalemate, with both sides screaming about how their greed is more meaningful.
I'd also like to point out that your populist call to "the people" is a little hollow. This battle is people on all sides, not people against whatever you consider those who don't agree with you to be.
Try "powerful people have always had more political influence than people without power." Not too likely to change, either, until humans stop having human nature,
Why should you tell me I can't gamble with it? Why should your opinion have more influence over my life than my own?
You can say "fucking" here. Fake cursing is pretty silly in a forum that doesn't censor.
I get how noble (fair use just sounds noble) those reasons are, but why is it Google's responsibility to publish things they don't want to publish? Being big and really good at what they do doesn't remove their right to control what they serve.
Yeah, wouldn't it be awesome if Google were forced to give away all their technology regardless of the investment they made to develop it? Sure, they'd lose out in every way, but who cares? All they did was put in the work, but they're a big corporation and you're a noble free hacker. You should win by default.
Did your niece receive ownership of the various content as compensation or put up the money for the production or something along those lines? I doubt it but there's always that chance.
What I find most likely, however, is that she was hired to perform a service and compensated according to a contract she agreed to. It seems fairly unrealistic that distribution rights were part of that compensation, and if that is indeed the case, she shouldn't be distributing no matter how personally beneficial she would find it.
I would certainly find it lucrative if I could resell some of the software I've written under work-for-hire contracts, but I agreed to the conditions involving my employers retaining those rights in exchange for compensation.
Do-overs don't work in the adult world, and violating the rights of others because it's personally beneficial is repugnant to say the least.