I don't think it's a real improvement. Minerals is only one aspect fueling those wars, the other one being national feuds. If every source of important minerals could spark such conflicts alone then the entire world would be one big area of non-stop warfare. The only way that'll actually work is to resolve tensions between ethnic groups, if you go for minerals instead they'll just find another excuse to fight each other.
Either you aren't familiar with concept of market failure or you're just trolling. Both corporation and governments are equally capable of screwing up resource allocation, and both can be malicious. In fact a corporation is sort of mini-government itself, with its own internal planned economy. The larger it grows the less efficient it tends to become. Anti-trust laws exist to prevent one such entity from becoming so powerful that it supplants current government and expands its own internal communism on the entire country.
Hint: you ALWAYS pay for everything you use in the end. Whether it's a fee charged up front, or a hidden cost, you're paying for it. Raise taxes on corporations, you pay for it. Raise fees, you pay for it.
Nonetheless there are ways of artificially inflating prices and getting more money while doing jack shit. End users are inherently less skilled at it and can't see whether particular service fee is a blatant ripoff or providing it actually involves some effort for the provider. I wish we would more often forget about money and look at economic activities themselves and gauge whether they're efficient enough or some side of them is being outright taken advantage of. After all money are just abstractions.
What's the point of this? cairo is a C library. I guess you could standardize it as part of C2014 or something but just converting its interface to C++ as they say is just pointless. It would result in as much work as would be to make a proper C++ api from scratch and wouldn't necessarily result in as good C++ api as cairo is for C.
Because it doesn't make sense? In practice it only leads to cases like Star Control 3. What's the advantage of allowing large corporations to make such cash-ins employing unrelated dev teams? It only leads to consumer confusion. If there's no advantage for society at large it shouldn't be allowed.
The very fact that Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III 'lost control' over their creation shows that copyright/trademark law is bullshit. There's no rational reason to prevent them from continuing their own game. It's preposterous that some other guys will only 'ask for input' from them. It's also nonsensical that a game not made by them can be called Star Control 3. It only leads to consumer confusion.
Yes. Many complain about 'shocking attitude' of systemd developers. I tried to test it by checking original statements and didn't find anything shocking. They're about as professional as any other project's developers. So this is yet another lie it seems.. I wish there was less pointless trolling and more productive work.
It seems to me that it removes unneeded complexity too. Like no longer having to have initscripts in bash which is a fully featured programming language. Most of them consist of boilerplate and most people don't have complete understanding what exactly it does. Naturally it leads to more bugs. I don't believe systemd adds any new complexity but more like moves it from individual initscripts and special purpose utilities to common base. I think it leads to less work for everyone because you don't have to reinvent wheels.
Changelog is the best way for user to find out about new features and bugfixes. If they don't know about them they don't use new features and don't get rid of their obsolete bug workarounds. If you don't post changelog you make entire program less useful and the work that went into making the update is partly wasted.
More like demonstrably right. Both large scale nuclear accidents ARE caused by incompetency. This is for period of whopping 100 years. Human error is common but in competently designed system one error is not enough to lead to catastrophic consequences. Of course malicious destruction of nuclear plants is possible, but so is of any other industrial object involved with dangerous substances, and there are some compared to which cesium and strontium would look like reagents from children chemistry set. I don't say that nuclear plants can be made perfectly safe, but they can be made safe enough for practical use.
I for one consider the very idea of god to be nonsensical, so I can't say I believe or don't believe in it. Given how different are ideas people associate with it and different meaning it has in different contexts the whole notion has no value.
Blatant disregard for people's health and safety isn't something new for Japan. Chernobyl accident happened due to human error too. You won't see accidents if nuclear plants are operated with a modicum of competency.
That's absolutely true. We're talking about normal distributions that partially overlap. No one is saying that no women want to be programmers. Just that there's less of them that want to be than men.
The point is brain difference issue is a red herring. Based on it we can't conclude what gender split will be exactly and thus can't conclude that other factor does not play deciding role, like culture of blatant misogyny widespread in this young profession, or prevalent stereotypes influencing career choice that don't have sufficient grounding in reality, or economic factors.
Given issues like http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/11/26/2346258/psychologists-strike-a-blow-for-reproducibility I don't pay much attention to such studies anymore. They mostly start with preconceived notion of what they want to find and find it.The more I live the less I believe that there exists a meaningful difference between man's and woman's mind. Even if there is one it is overshadowed by difference between individuals in practice.
I do not say they balance out, but I do say that they matter less than other aspects based on my own experience programming. Certainly not enough to warrant 12-23% percentage of woman developers. I also can say that communication is more important for programming than spacial tasks. Why it isn't dominated by women then? The first programmer was a woman, mind you.
The answer is simple: better quality work in this particular sector doesn't give competetive advantage. Even youngsters can produce good enough result and the difference between good enough and competent only matters in the long run.
Men and women are different. One or more of those differences may account for the disparity in software engineers.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics. The truth is that in order to be effective programmer you need very particular mindset which can be found both in men and women. Whatever statistical differences found between men and women are irrelevant in each particular case. But software development misses out on many talented specialists due to prevalent ageism and sexism. Those exist in part because software development as a job is extremely immature. There are no standards or culture of professionalism. It's still a new profession and most people do it at amateur level, no matter what their titles say.
There's only one problem with this: CEOs are mostly useless aristocrats who nonetheless have too much power, like setting their own salaries. Thus no market forces are involved.
OS development is hard indeed. But taking money from every use of the software is just too limiting. It does cost almost nothing for them to make updates available, and Apple can draw revenue entirely from hardware.
They only offer UPGRADES for free? Then nothing changed, really. You'd still need to buy a Mac to use it legally. In fact it's kinda stupid OS updates were paid for in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's a real improvement. Minerals is only one aspect fueling those wars, the other one being national feuds. If every source of important minerals could spark such conflicts alone then the entire world would be one big area of non-stop warfare. The only way that'll actually work is to resolve tensions between ethnic groups, if you go for minerals instead they'll just find another excuse to fight each other.
Either you aren't familiar with concept of market failure or you're just trolling. Both corporation and governments are equally capable of screwing up resource allocation, and both can be malicious. In fact a corporation is sort of mini-government itself, with its own internal planned economy. The larger it grows the less efficient it tends to become. Anti-trust laws exist to prevent one such entity from becoming so powerful that it supplants current government and expands its own internal communism on the entire country.
Hint: you ALWAYS pay for everything you use in the end. Whether it's a fee charged up front, or a hidden cost, you're paying for it. Raise taxes on corporations, you pay for it. Raise fees, you pay for it.
Nonetheless there are ways of artificially inflating prices and getting more money while doing jack shit. End users are inherently less skilled at it and can't see whether particular service fee is a blatant ripoff or providing it actually involves some effort for the provider. I wish we would more often forget about money and look at economic activities themselves and gauge whether they're efficient enough or some side of them is being outright taken advantage of. After all money are just abstractions.
What's the point of this? cairo is a C library. I guess you could standardize it as part of C2014 or something but just converting its interface to C++ as they say is just pointless. It would result in as much work as would be to make a proper C++ api from scratch and wouldn't necessarily result in as good C++ api as cairo is for C.
Because it doesn't make sense? In practice it only leads to cases like Star Control 3. What's the advantage of allowing large corporations to make such cash-ins employing unrelated dev teams? It only leads to consumer confusion. If there's no advantage for society at large it shouldn't be allowed.
No. It's circular argument. You can't justify intellectual propertly by presupposing its existance. If it doesn't exist then they don't own anything.
How making money requires allowing other people to limit sequels and what not that you do?
'handing over your creation' is only made possible by the law in the first place.
The very fact that Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III 'lost control' over their creation shows that copyright/trademark law is bullshit. There's no rational reason to prevent them from continuing their own game. It's preposterous that some other guys will only 'ask for input' from them. It's also nonsensical that a game not made by them can be called Star Control 3. It only leads to consumer confusion.
Yes. Many complain about 'shocking attitude' of systemd developers. I tried to test it by checking original statements and didn't find anything shocking. They're about as professional as any other project's developers. So this is yet another lie it seems.. I wish there was less pointless trolling and more productive work.
It seems to me that it removes unneeded complexity too. Like no longer having to have initscripts in bash which is a fully featured programming language. Most of them consist of boilerplate and most people don't have complete understanding what exactly it does. Naturally it leads to more bugs. I don't believe systemd adds any new complexity but more like moves it from individual initscripts and special purpose utilities to common base. I think it leads to less work for everyone because you don't have to reinvent wheels.
Changelog is the best way for user to find out about new features and bugfixes. If they don't know about them they don't use new features and don't get rid of their obsolete bug workarounds. If you don't post changelog you make entire program less useful and the work that went into making the update is partly wasted.
More like demonstrably right. Both large scale nuclear accidents ARE caused by incompetency. This is for period of whopping 100 years. Human error is common but in competently designed system one error is not enough to lead to catastrophic consequences. Of course malicious destruction of nuclear plants is possible, but so is of any other industrial object involved with dangerous substances, and there are some compared to which cesium and strontium would look like reagents from children chemistry set. I don't say that nuclear plants can be made perfectly safe, but they can be made safe enough for practical use.
I for one consider the very idea of god to be nonsensical, so I can't say I believe or don't believe in it. Given how different are ideas people associate with it and different meaning it has in different contexts the whole notion has no value.
Blatant disregard for people's health and safety isn't something new for Japan. Chernobyl accident happened due to human error too. You won't see accidents if nuclear plants are operated with a modicum of competency.
That's absolutely true. We're talking about normal distributions that partially overlap. No one is saying that no women want to be programmers. Just that there's less of them that want to be than men.
The point is brain difference issue is a red herring. Based on it we can't conclude what gender split will be exactly and thus can't conclude that other factor does not play deciding role, like culture of blatant misogyny widespread in this young profession, or prevalent stereotypes influencing career choice that don't have sufficient grounding in reality, or economic factors.
Given issues like http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/11/26/2346258/psychologists-strike-a-blow-for-reproducibility I don't pay much attention to such studies anymore. They mostly start with preconceived notion of what they want to find and find it.The more I live the less I believe that there exists a meaningful difference between man's and woman's mind. Even if there is one it is overshadowed by difference between individuals in practice.
I do not say they balance out, but I do say that they matter less than other aspects based on my own experience programming. Certainly not enough to warrant 12-23% percentage of woman developers. I also can say that communication is more important for programming than spacial tasks. Why it isn't dominated by women then? The first programmer was a woman, mind you.
The answer is simple: better quality work in this particular sector doesn't give competetive advantage. Even youngsters can produce good enough result and the difference between good enough and competent only matters in the long run.
Men and women are different. One or more of those differences may account for the disparity in software engineers.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics. The truth is that in order to be effective programmer you need very particular mindset which can be found both in men and women. Whatever statistical differences found between men and women are irrelevant in each particular case. But software development misses out on many talented specialists due to prevalent ageism and sexism. Those exist in part because software development as a job is extremely immature. There are no standards or culture of professionalism. It's still a new profession and most people do it at amateur level, no matter what their titles say.
There's only one problem with this: CEOs are mostly useless aristocrats who nonetheless have too much power, like setting their own salaries. Thus no market forces are involved.
If it were in any way legal or enforceable it would be in ToS everywhere.
There's no way something like that could be approved by genuine rightsholders. It's just one 'pirate' trolling other 'pirates'.
OS development is hard indeed. But taking money from every use of the software is just too limiting. It does cost almost nothing for them to make updates available, and Apple can draw revenue entirely from hardware.
They only offer UPGRADES for free? Then nothing changed, really. You'd still need to buy a Mac to use it legally. In fact it's kinda stupid OS updates were paid for in the first place.