Until we get the data to compare the model predictions with the real results, all that we know is that we have some model calculated fast... Just let it be a few more days (or hours) and then we can talk about something.
Umm... the tsunami hit California approximately 9 hours ago. How much longer do you think we should wait to see when the tsunami will hit California?
That would require that one of the two be male. Looking at the two of them, I'd say it's more likely to be Gaga.
I submit that the unmet requirement is that one be female. Believe it or not, Justin Bieber is male (I know, I forget that sometimes, too), and there is ample internet evidence that Lady Gaga has a penis.
This whole thing is hilarious, because iirc there was a story on this very website only a few months ago condemning Google for even HAVING a remote kill switch.
imagine US Marines walking off the job by comparison
I would fucking love that. Have the military on voluntary contracts, where they can't be forced to stay, and I think you'd find this fucking war would be over by now. Hell, it might not have even gotten off the ground. Imagine that, billions in resources, countless lives, damaged relationships, all saved, by allowing the people in the military freedom.
in an attempt to maintain an artificial scarcity of doctors, in order to keep salaries high. That results in insanely high salaries for you guys, but it does also result in a ridiculous amount of work that you must do in order to earn that money.
[citation needed] I have always been told that most doctors actually don't make a whole lot of money. Perhaps 150k towards the end of more successful careers, but that's perfectly reasonable for somebody who I'm trusting with my life. Also, medical school is fucking expensive. Students are often in debt for a decade due to student loans before they finally make it out of that hole.
What is not justified is that you skirting the rules because you're swamped.
Hmm... more time to take care of me, or more time spent on stupid rules and bureaucracy......? That's a tough question; maybe you can help me out.
This has nothing to do with labor. Not sure where you're getting that from. The externality is the environmental impact.
This has lots to do with labor. I could be crafty and turn your links right around on you and call you a blind self-righteous fuck head for calling only the environmental impact an externality and completely blowing off the very real externality of this new legislation that is the social cost to the health of our middle-class workforce and nationwide economy. I could point out that you probably don't have a job in manufacturing so you, in your smug environmentalist world, don't have to care about those uneducated rednecks in the light bulb plants and are too stupid to realize that those very rednecks make up a large part of our economy. But I'm not in a creative mood right now and I think the preceding two sentences get my point across well enough.
I, for one, wouldn't ban them. I'd just tax them real high and make CFLs more attractive.
The last thing we need is more taxes that are designed to modify consumer habits and get an even greater portion of our government's dick into what's supposed to be a free market. Taxes are for revenue, not for the government to ban things without actually banning them.
How about we actually design and implement clean, renewable energy sources that are plentiful and efficient enough that lawmakers don't NEED to worry about how much energy our desk lamps use, and instead let a person decide on his own what kind of light bulbs he's going to buy. Let people make their own decisions about how much money they want to spend on their energy bill and light bulbs. We don't need laws dictating what kind of light bulbs to use. LAWS ABOUT LIGHT BULBS? WE'RE AT WAR, GAS PRICES ARE RIDICULOUS, OUR ECONOMY IS STILL IN THE SHITTER, AND CONGRESS IS WORRYING ABOUT LIGHT BULBS???
How can a group that by it's very nature has no central control or even consistent make-up release such a statement. How does one member or group of members of Anonymous know whether or not any other part of Anonymous is/was doing something?
Because Anonymous has central control ever since people started taking control and the stupid teenage white knight let's all save the world teenagers started flocking to them to be a part of something. There are people that like to act like they're in charge of things so they speak for the "group". What was once "Anonymous" has completely changed and is now totally different from what it was 5 years ago.
People don't understand this. If you described DRM like a police-supplied GPS put in your car that faxes you a ticket whenever you go one mile-per-hour over, or like a camera in your skull that gives away all your secrets, people would understand how evil DRM is.
So if you described DRM with over-exaggerating sensationalist doomspeak, people would understand how evil it is. Sounds like Greenpeace is leading the anti-DRM front now.
What about DRM on things you don't purchase but stream, like Netflix and Hulu? Since you don't own it, you shouldn't be able to download it, and DRM is necessary to protect those companies interest.
Again, with content you OWN, DRM = evil because it limits rights. But with streaming content, it gives just enough rights so that in theory, prices should be cheaper (Apple TV rental being cheaper than purchase, despite it being the same bits sent to you).
They produce a browser because it is the best way to achieve their goals, but I don't see them turning their backs on any of their core values on the grounds of gaining marketshare.
I'm not talking about gaining marketshare. I'm talking about encouraging adoption of the technologies they have worked so hard to design. There will be no adoption if there's no way to control the content. Plain and simple.
Let me clarify my stance before I'm modded into the ground -1 Fascist. I hate DRM. I hate it when it's on things that I purchase and download for my own use. But I do recognize that it has become an evil that will never leave us, and so I always try to reward those who come up with creative ways to implement it such that it does not impede my ability to use what I legally own, and perhaps even adds functionality (Valve's Steam comes to mind). However, for videos that are only present online and I only plan on watching online, why would DRM be such a terrible thing? I'm not supposed to download those videos anyway, so their being protected by DRM doesn't matter.
Flash will continue to persist on a large scale until such a time that HTML video is standardized and has acceptable DRM written into the standard. Until that happens, publishers simply aren't going to stop using Flash. Mozilla is shooting themselves in the foot, and Google will be doing so as well if they make the same decision.
DRM isn't evil, people. Publishers WANT you to be able to view their content, or they wouldn't be putting it online. They wouldn't implement some DRM scheme that would ruin your ability to watch it, or why even publish it? They are NOT, however, going to publish it without some sort of control mechanism. If Mozilla and Google don't realize this soon, then all the effort they've been putting into the HTML video standard is for nothing.
I, personally, think the idea was hilarious and I am in search of the video so I can watch it and laugh. But to the parents and school administration, perhaps this video is insulting and tasteless, at best. Criminal? Felonious? Child pornfuckingography? Are these people INSANE?
Yes, that's not wrong. However, an attempt at supporting one of the largest platforms nowadays wouldn't hurt that much. Yes, I am aware that less than 1% does not mean anything;)
Yes, yes it would. The total marketshare for Linux-based desktops is slightly less than 1% iirc, but what about the marketshare for Linux-based gamers? Probably nowhere near that.
But this can take on other dimesions besides FOSS. One of the things that really got me pissed off was that Windows 98 "NO MORE SUPPORT" thing. I mean, many people bought legal copies of Windows and of games that Valve, in a search for money (by pleasing newer users), decided to make unusable. Was it old? Yes, it was! But if you buy a game, you expect it to be yours, not semi-owned by a company that shows you the finger. A simpler solution? Maybe just showing up a message such as "Your platform is old. We will not support you anymore and we will not give you recent updates. However, you can still play your current version of game X".
Forcing updates eliminates version fragmentation, which is very important in a service that is purely online. If everybody must update, then everybody has the latest update, then every server and every client is compatible with one another. Valve does not support Windows 98, nor should they. Perhaps they added dependencies upon libraries that were incompatible with Windows 98. Perhaps they just didn't feel like supporting it anymore. If you've ever worked a customer service position (of any sort), you'd know how stupid customers can be and how much of a drain on your resources they can be. Nobody should be trying to run modern games on such an outdated platform anyway... I can't imagine they run very well if at all.
That would have been correct. That would have showed decency. I was not affected by this, but I gradually stopped using Valve products since then (and now I'm free). It was shameful, idiotic and typical of a company that does not care about its users if they don't give money to the company anymore.
A company that does not care about its users if they don't give money to the company anymore does not update and modify a game in large ways every couple weeks for 3+ years that only cost the end-user $20 one time. I'm talking about TF2, and I'm willing to bet that nearly every asset in the game has been completely replaced at least once since the game's release in 2007, and not a single person has had to pay more than the initial $20 purchase to continue to get these updates. More recent updates have made the game absolute shit and I have stopped playing it, but the updates were still made free of charge with the happiness of the greater public in mind.
I understand that it may cost too much to develop cross-platform tools, but I hate that with each update Steam got less usable in Wine, even though we tried to tell it to the developers: "please, just let us keep this version without updating it". It was plain silly. The same thing happened the other day with Counter Strike Source. An unwanted update changed the whole damn game. Most people whom I know that played it (after they PAYED for it), stopped using Valve too, as they got tired of the constant non requested updates.
Valve does not develop their software with its compatibility with Wine in mind. The Wine developers made it work before, and they can make it work again. Valve isn't intentionally breaking Linux compatibility by any means... but they're not going to not implement something they want to implement for the sake of keeping it compatible with Wine. And yes they're going to force you to update because Steam is a DRM and anti-cheat system... so forcing updates is an obvious requirement.
I am also aware that, by agreeing with Valve's Terms And Conditions, we, as idiotic users, agreed to be subject to this. This is not a matter of them being allowed to do it, but a
There it goes again. Profitable. Sure profit is extremely important, but it is a real shame that it dictates everything nowadays. It's usually related with "The Amercan Dream". Well, I can do well without that, thanks -- being a Human Being once in a while is ok.
Being a Human Being is donating time, money, or your product to charity, or giving discounts to students, or forgiving somebody's late payments because both of their parents just died in a horrible car crash. Meeting your ridiculous expectations about cross-platform compatibility is not a humane effort, no matter how much your giant FOSS-fueled ego wants it to be.
If Toyota is cruising along at its current 14% marketshare in the US and suddenly FORD/GM/Chrysler make a mega-merge and suddenly garner 60% of the market, Toyota still has 14% of the market, with all the same profits and sustainability they currently enjoy. Why would the emergence of one monolithic competitor change that?
Reading comprehension is a wonderful skill. If you had any, you would know that the conversation is about software development and whether it is "worth it" for a company to develop for the operating environment that possesses greater than ninety percent of the overall market share or for other, less-widespread operating environments. It's not about whether Linux (if it were a for-profit endeavor) or Apple would be able to sustain profitability (they both can and/or do) with such small marketshares, it's about whether a company should invest the time and money to gain the extra potential customers that may or may not be using the platforms.
Well, I'd actually be pleased with the "simplest" of versions that just worked. No package system. No fancy gui. No support line whatsoever (after all, I am a "geek", I should know how to fix stuff). However, these companies don't try ANYTHING at all [CITATION NEEDED]. It'd be as simple as (of course, given the money and programming tasks, which I know would be hard) linking up the code to old libraries, containing every possible library that they can and distribute it under a.tar.gz file. There, all distributions supported. If someone doesn't know what to do with it, then screw that someone. All I ask for is an attempt.
Sacrificing the ability to provide installation and usage support for a product you are selling in order to please the small handful of idiots that have the same mindset as you is not exactly the best way to run a profitable business.
"The cause and source of the virus are not yet known."
I'm gonna take a guess at the cause: somebody decided to use a Microsoft product to control a critical system on which people's lives depend.
If a bank used an armored car made of cardboard to transport money, would you blame the inevitable robbers, or the bank?
It doesn't matter what OS you use. They're all susceptible to vulnerability when not properly managed by a competent administration staff.
If a bank used an armored car made of any material and failed to inspect it, maintain it, recognize its flaws, and reinforce it, would you blame the company that made the car, or the bank?
Slashdot Mirror
Until we get the data to compare the model predictions with the real results, all that we know is that we have some model calculated fast... Just let it be a few more days (or hours) and then we can talk about something.
Umm... the tsunami hit California approximately 9 hours ago. How much longer do you think we should wait to see when the tsunami will hit California?
America can't be a socialist state - you don't help the needy at all!
The fat check that every lazy person in the country gets every month begs to differ.
I don't get why he didn't just require an internet connection before Trumpet would run...
what's this WHY IS MY FOOT TAPPING OH GOD
Nice beat.
--
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. And what the hell is wrong with yelling?
That would require that one of the two be male. Looking at the two of them, I'd say it's more likely to be Gaga.
I submit that the unmet requirement is that one be female. Believe it or not, Justin Bieber is male (I know, I forget that sometimes, too), and there is ample internet evidence that Lady Gaga has a penis.
This whole thing is hilarious, because iirc there was a story on this very website only a few months ago condemning Google for even HAVING a remote kill switch.
imagine US Marines walking off the job by comparison
I would fucking love that. Have the military on voluntary contracts, where they can't be forced to stay, and I think you'd find this fucking war would be over by now. Hell, it might not have even gotten off the ground. Imagine that, billions in resources, countless lives, damaged relationships, all saved, by allowing the people in the military freedom.
lol you're funny
in an attempt to maintain an artificial scarcity of doctors, in order to keep salaries high. That results in insanely high salaries for you guys, but it does also result in a ridiculous amount of work that you must do in order to earn that money.
[citation needed] I have always been told that most doctors actually don't make a whole lot of money. Perhaps 150k towards the end of more successful careers, but that's perfectly reasonable for somebody who I'm trusting with my life. Also, medical school is fucking expensive. Students are often in debt for a decade due to student loans before they finally make it out of that hole.
What is not justified is that you skirting the rules because you're swamped.
Hmm... more time to take care of me, or more time spent on stupid rules and bureaucracy......? That's a tough question; maybe you can help me out.
This has nothing to do with labor. Not sure where you're getting that from. The externality is the environmental impact.
This has lots to do with labor. I could be crafty and turn your links right around on you and call you a blind self-righteous fuck head for calling only the environmental impact an externality and completely blowing off the very real externality of this new legislation that is the social cost to the health of our middle-class workforce and nationwide economy. I could point out that you probably don't have a job in manufacturing so you, in your smug environmentalist world, don't have to care about those uneducated rednecks in the light bulb plants and are too stupid to realize that those very rednecks make up a large part of our economy. But I'm not in a creative mood right now and I think the preceding two sentences get my point across well enough.
I, for one, wouldn't ban them. I'd just tax them real high and make CFLs more attractive.
The last thing we need is more taxes that are designed to modify consumer habits and get an even greater portion of our government's dick into what's supposed to be a free market. Taxes are for revenue, not for the government to ban things without actually banning them.
How about we actually design and implement clean, renewable energy sources that are plentiful and efficient enough that lawmakers don't NEED to worry about how much energy our desk lamps use, and instead let a person decide on his own what kind of light bulbs he's going to buy. Let people make their own decisions about how much money they want to spend on their energy bill and light bulbs. We don't need laws dictating what kind of light bulbs to use. LAWS ABOUT LIGHT BULBS? WE'RE AT WAR, GAS PRICES ARE RIDICULOUS, OUR ECONOMY IS STILL IN THE SHITTER, AND CONGRESS IS WORRYING ABOUT LIGHT BULBS???
It's relative. They were smart enough to get a whole bunch of idiots^h^h^h^h^h^hpeople^h^h^h^h^h^hidiots to vote them into office...
FTFY
You mean, like Time Machine?
Isn't that exactly what he said?
How can a group that by it's very nature has no central control or even consistent make-up release such a statement. How does one member or group of members of Anonymous know whether or not any other part of Anonymous is/was doing something?
Because Anonymous has central control ever since people started taking control and the stupid teenage white knight let's all save the world teenagers started flocking to them to be a part of something. There are people that like to act like they're in charge of things so they speak for the "group". What was once "Anonymous" has completely changed and is now totally different from what it was 5 years ago.
People don't understand this. If you described DRM like a police-supplied GPS put in your car that faxes you a ticket whenever you go one mile-per-hour over, or like a camera in your skull that gives away all your secrets, people would understand how evil DRM is.
So if you described DRM with over-exaggerating sensationalist doomspeak, people would understand how evil it is. Sounds like Greenpeace is leading the anti-DRM front now.
What about DRM on things you don't purchase but stream, like Netflix and Hulu? Since you don't own it, you shouldn't be able to download it, and DRM is necessary to protect those companies interest. Again, with content you OWN, DRM = evil because it limits rights. But with streaming content, it gives just enough rights so that in theory, prices should be cheaper (Apple TV rental being cheaper than purchase, despite it being the same bits sent to you).
That's pretty much exactly what I said.
They produce a browser because it is the best way to achieve their goals, but I don't see them turning their backs on any of their core values on the grounds of gaining marketshare.
I'm not talking about gaining marketshare. I'm talking about encouraging adoption of the technologies they have worked so hard to design. There will be no adoption if there's no way to control the content. Plain and simple.
Let me clarify my stance before I'm modded into the ground -1 Fascist. I hate DRM. I hate it when it's on things that I purchase and download for my own use. But I do recognize that it has become an evil that will never leave us, and so I always try to reward those who come up with creative ways to implement it such that it does not impede my ability to use what I legally own, and perhaps even adds functionality (Valve's Steam comes to mind). However, for videos that are only present online and I only plan on watching online, why would DRM be such a terrible thing? I'm not supposed to download those videos anyway, so their being protected by DRM doesn't matter.
Flash will continue to persist on a large scale until such a time that HTML video is standardized and has acceptable DRM written into the standard. Until that happens, publishers simply aren't going to stop using Flash. Mozilla is shooting themselves in the foot, and Google will be doing so as well if they make the same decision.
DRM isn't evil, people. Publishers WANT you to be able to view their content, or they wouldn't be putting it online. They wouldn't implement some DRM scheme that would ruin your ability to watch it, or why even publish it? They are NOT, however, going to publish it without some sort of control mechanism. If Mozilla and Google don't realize this soon, then all the effort they've been putting into the HTML video standard is for nothing.
I, personally, think the idea was hilarious and I am in search of the video so I can watch it and laugh. But to the parents and school administration, perhaps this video is insulting and tasteless, at best. Criminal? Felonious? Child pornfuckingography? Are these people INSANE?
His video depicted him saying sexual remarks to children. Whether or not they were actually there doesn't really matter.
So if I step on a 3" person I made out of clay I can be found guilty of murder? Are you fucking insane?
Yes, that's not wrong. However, an attempt at supporting one of the largest platforms nowadays wouldn't hurt that much. Yes, I am aware that less than 1% does not mean anything ;)
Yes, yes it would. The total marketshare for Linux-based desktops is slightly less than 1% iirc, but what about the marketshare for Linux-based gamers? Probably nowhere near that.
But this can take on other dimesions besides FOSS. One of the things that really got me pissed off was that Windows 98 "NO MORE SUPPORT" thing. I mean, many people bought legal copies of Windows and of games that Valve, in a search for money (by pleasing newer users), decided to make unusable. Was it old? Yes, it was! But if you buy a game, you expect it to be yours, not semi-owned by a company that shows you the finger. A simpler solution? Maybe just showing up a message such as "Your platform is old. We will not support you anymore and we will not give you recent updates. However, you can still play your current version of game X".
Forcing updates eliminates version fragmentation, which is very important in a service that is purely online. If everybody must update, then everybody has the latest update, then every server and every client is compatible with one another. Valve does not support Windows 98, nor should they. Perhaps they added dependencies upon libraries that were incompatible with Windows 98. Perhaps they just didn't feel like supporting it anymore. If you've ever worked a customer service position (of any sort), you'd know how stupid customers can be and how much of a drain on your resources they can be. Nobody should be trying to run modern games on such an outdated platform anyway... I can't imagine they run very well if at all.
That would have been correct. That would have showed decency. I was not affected by this, but I gradually stopped using Valve products since then (and now I'm free). It was shameful, idiotic and typical of a company that does not care about its users if they don't give money to the company anymore.
A company that does not care about its users if they don't give money to the company anymore does not update and modify a game in large ways every couple weeks for 3+ years that only cost the end-user $20 one time. I'm talking about TF2, and I'm willing to bet that nearly every asset in the game has been completely replaced at least once since the game's release in 2007, and not a single person has had to pay more than the initial $20 purchase to continue to get these updates. More recent updates have made the game absolute shit and I have stopped playing it, but the updates were still made free of charge with the happiness of the greater public in mind.
I understand that it may cost too much to develop cross-platform tools, but I hate that with each update Steam got less usable in Wine, even though we tried to tell it to the developers: "please, just let us keep this version without updating it". It was plain silly. The same thing happened the other day with Counter Strike Source. An unwanted update changed the whole damn game. Most people whom I know that played it (after they PAYED for it), stopped using Valve too, as they got tired of the constant non requested updates.
Valve does not develop their software with its compatibility with Wine in mind. The Wine developers made it work before, and they can make it work again. Valve isn't intentionally breaking Linux compatibility by any means... but they're not going to not implement something they want to implement for the sake of keeping it compatible with Wine. And yes they're going to force you to update because Steam is a DRM and anti-cheat system... so forcing updates is an obvious requirement.
I am also aware that, by agreeing with Valve's Terms And Conditions, we, as idiotic users, agreed to be subject to this. This is not a matter of them being allowed to do it, but a
There it goes again. Profitable. Sure profit is extremely important, but it is a real shame that it dictates everything nowadays. It's usually related with "The Amercan Dream". Well, I can do well without that, thanks -- being a Human Being once in a while is ok.
Being a Human Being is donating time, money, or your product to charity, or giving discounts to students, or forgiving somebody's late payments because both of their parents just died in a horrible car crash. Meeting your ridiculous expectations about cross-platform compatibility is not a humane effort, no matter how much your giant FOSS-fueled ego wants it to be.
If Toyota is cruising along at its current 14% marketshare in the US and suddenly FORD/GM/Chrysler make a mega-merge and suddenly garner 60% of the market, Toyota still has 14% of the market, with all the same profits and sustainability they currently enjoy. Why would the emergence of one monolithic competitor change that?
Reading comprehension is a wonderful skill. If you had any, you would know that the conversation is about software development and whether it is "worth it" for a company to develop for the operating environment that possesses greater than ninety percent of the overall market share or for other, less-widespread operating environments. It's not about whether Linux (if it were a for-profit endeavor) or Apple would be able to sustain profitability (they both can and/or do) with such small marketshares, it's about whether a company should invest the time and money to gain the extra potential customers that may or may not be using the platforms.
Well, I'd actually be pleased with the "simplest" of versions that just worked. No package system. No fancy gui. No support line whatsoever (after all, I am a "geek", I should know how to fix stuff). However, these companies don't try ANYTHING at all [CITATION NEEDED]. It'd be as simple as (of course, given the money and programming tasks, which I know would be hard) linking up the code to old libraries, containing every possible library that they can and distribute it under a .tar.gz file. There, all distributions supported. If someone doesn't know what to do with it, then screw that someone. All I ask for is an attempt.
Sacrificing the ability to provide installation and usage support for a product you are selling in order to please the small handful of idiots that have the same mindset as you is not exactly the best way to run a profitable business.
"The cause and source of the virus are not yet known."
I'm gonna take a guess at the cause: somebody decided to use a Microsoft product to control a critical system on which people's lives depend.
If a bank used an armored car made of cardboard to transport money, would you blame the inevitable robbers, or the bank?
It doesn't matter what OS you use. They're all susceptible to vulnerability when not properly managed by a competent administration staff.
If a bank used an armored car made of any material and failed to inspect it, maintain it, recognize its flaws, and reinforce it, would you blame the company that made the car, or the bank?