You mean when it's not running most professional mathematician's, programmer's, and scientists' desktops, the majority of internet servers, and the majority share of phones?
I don't use Linux to feel superior, nor do most of the users I know. I tried hard to use the tools I prefer to code with on Windows. It was just more and more a pain in the ass. The castration of the CLI and the move to Powershell annoyed me immensely. I also really prefer the software manager and the level of customization. Maybe most people would find a lot of the software in the repositories geeky/nerdy/boring/whatever, but I like it. In the end, Windows is good for gaming, so I keep a partition on my main box, but I generally live in Linux because I actually prefer it. While I am aware that there are people like you describe (and there seem to be some in any subculture), most of the people I have known and worked with in the OSS community are involved for very different reasons, ranging from the practical to the ideological (I lay somewhere in between).
I would say a lot of innovation is going on, and that that's why we are seeing so many patent suits. The last batch of patent wars were during the boom in the 90s, and we have to admit we are having a boom in tech right now. Some would call it a bubble, but I have to disagree; plenty of real value is being created by all this investment and some of it should recoup at least a normal profit (in the economics sense of normal profit...enough to induce staying in the market). So long as people continue to like neat gadgets and shiny software, this surge of innovation should prove stable enough financially.
That's why the patent wars have begun again...shit just got real. Microsoft and Apple are working together to take down Google, while Oracle is making a power-play to take a much bigger piece of the pie. Until patents are finally abandoned as a way to deal with software, it will probably happen like this every time there is a flurry of development.
I think you mean Unix (Linux kernel came out in '91 IIRC), but I remember those days, too. Workstations came in various Unix/BSD flavors, home boxes ran DOS, and Macs were overpriced Speak-and-Spells. I remember getting a 20 meg HDD and marveling over "how can I ever fill this thing up?".
In my ill-spent youth, another computer geek and I would go to the Radio Shack at the mall and edit the autoexec.bats on the demo machines. We would add format c:/autotest
What can I say? I was a bit of an ass when I was a kid.:(
Funny, I've never had Google try to make me have an account on anything. They simply made things available and I made the choice. More FUD from yet another shill.
Seriously. I am seeing so much of this lately...an attempt to put Google into the same box as Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle. The fact is that those companies represent a different era in business models and within the tech community. Google is as much a social reaction the state of affairs on the tech scene when they came into existence as they are a technological one. They saw the issues created by the companies before them and developed their approaches to those issues before they got big enough to apply to them. With one sentence, "don't be evil" they passed judgment on those who had come before them and pledged an idealogical stance (as opposed to a technological one). In addition to that, their chosen problem (to make the knowledge of world accessible and usable while solving the problem of online reputation and trust) is as much (or more) social and philosophical as technological.
This essential difference in stance and approach comes with its own problems. I am *not* saying that Google is some sort of corporate saint. What I am saying is that these issues that arise with other companies (such as the mentioned issues with Microsoft libraries, languages, frameworks, and even IDEs) just don't apply to the way Google has been going about things.
That said, I do think that a good programmer needs to understand and be able to cope with those "nasty implementation details". It's an easy way to write really bad code if you have no clue how the methods you're using work. However, on a day to day coding basis, libraries, frameworks, code generation, and autocompletion/intellisense help speed up development a great deal. As long as you understand what these shortcuts are doing, there is nothing wrong with abstracting away from and hiding the implementation methods, and you won't end up "stuffed" by using *anyone's* tools. There is no danger in learning C# and.NET and using Visual Studio to code apps using them. The danger is learning to use VS and thinking that means you really know C# (or C++ for that matter).
The problem with that is that people don't follow up on the science. Instead they dismiss it because of the scandal, plus those who oppose the science (either on ideological/religious grounds or political/capitalistic grounds) gain a weapon. The fact of the matter is that people believe what they hear 1) first, 2) loudest, and 3) already believed.
This is one reason why I feel that our media and its attendant journalists in all mediums must be reformed. The media uses sensationalism to sell their papers and ads, which in turn skews the content of their news. Hence, while there is plenty of good science and evidence supporting the theory of human-influenced climate change, the scandal (rather conveniently for some parties) distracts from that evidence and inspires doubt and disbelief that actual science does not justify.
Patents are for processes, trademarks are for logos, copyrights are for content. The first two cost money and are a laborious process, while copyright is free and happens automatically (though you should use some sort of dating system to prove first rights; people used to send themselves their manuscripts in the mail and leave it unopened to use the postmark for that very reason).
Then you don't understand my response any more than you understand Aristotle. Let me guess...did a search for "self-sufficient", didn't understand the quote but figured no one else would either, and used it to attempt to argue your point? Lame.
"From the point of view of self-sufficiency the same result seems to follow; for the final good is thought to be self-sufficient. Now by self-sufficient we do not mean that which is sufficient for a man by himself, for one who lives a solitary life, but also for parents, children, wife, and in general for his friends and fellow citizens, since man is born for citizenship. But some limit must be set to this; for if we extend our requirement to ancestors and descendants and friends' friends we are in for an infinite series. Let us examine this question, however, on another occasion; the self-sufficient we now define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think it most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good thing among others -- if it were so counted it would clearly be made more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that which is added becomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action."
Is the most directly relevant quote I ever found, and you can clearly see the parallels between the modern ideal of the self-made man, and the Aristotelian ideal of a completely self-sufficient man. Once again, I recommend a read through the entire book, it's not something that can be easily summed up on a post on a message board.
Keep a checklist of every quality the AC at the top of this conversation mentioned by your side when you're reading, you'll likely be be able to find almost every single one of them written about in great detail.
The specific social and economic conditions of the times change through the years, but the essential nature of mankind really hasn't.
Dude, you completely misread this quote and you're trying to shoe-horn modern Libertarian bullwit (not a typo) into Aristotle, who was civic-minded like all Greeks of his time. The desire by a citizen to avoid their taxes would have been considered a deep shame by any Athenian, and the complete disregard for one's friends and fellow-citizens (whose happiness is required for one's own in the quote) would have gotten someone deported, if not executed. You were not allowed to benefit from being a part of their culture and then simply amass wealth and benefit for yourself.
He is saying that happiness is a self-sufficient end unto itself, a final good as opposed to an instrumental good. An instrumental good is only good because it leads to some other, final, good. So happiness is "self-sufficient" because we want it in and of itself, not because it brings us some other goal. Your notion of self-sufficiency was considered inhuman, and to be excellent for Aristotle was to be an excellent human.
"he who is unable to live in society,
or has no need because he is sufficient for himself,
must be either a beast or a god" -Aristotle-"
The term kids does not necessarily imply age. I am still my parent's kid, and I am 33. My dad doesn't say "I have two adults, Neal and Ryan", he says "I have two kids" or "two boys".
They get put on a list. And that list gets watched. Of course, nothing will happen to the people on that list, just like this filter for "child abuse" won't get expanded to include political and social issues./sarcasm...just in case you didn't realize.
Why should people have to use Tor? The internet should be free and this is exactly what hacktivists groups should be doing...putting the fear of the computing gods into those who would attempt to control and censor the internet.
If the Tea Party is your ideas at work:
1. You should reconsider your ideas, because every member I have seen say a thing about the Constitution was wrong, and mostly didn't know a damn thing about it, having never read it because, and I quote, "reading is for faggots".
2. Perhaps establish a vetting process. If the Tea Party was the embodiment of my words made flesh and my ideas given form, I would stop speaking.
Okay, let me rephrase that...what are you going to do that works? In a finer world better thoughts would win the day...but that is not *this* world. This world doesn't care about pretty thoughts. In fact, the prettier they are, the more they are despised, until they are old and moldy and can't hurt anyone anymore. Then they become "classics" and part of the "canon".
Another thought-peddler in a world that demands iron and arms, money and force. I would laugh if I were not the same.
Subversion was a minor upgrade from CVS. Essentially it should have felt like a major version upgrade. GIT is an entirely different philosophy of source code management. Its a fundamental shift, and one that for most commercial shops really doesn't make sense.
Why do you feel Git doesn't work well for commercial shops? With a lot of modern coding practices (Agile,etc), I feel like it's the only one that makes sense.
Because all of the things you just mentioned require vast infrastructures and resources, in addition to laws to govern all that regulation. You just answered your own question.
And when those laws exist, along come the "populists" and their "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem!" rhetoric and make sure those laws are changed, repealed, or never really enforced. It's always argued in this appealing, underdog rebel kind of way, but when you look behind the scenes there are always entrenched politicians and corporations who stand to gain from deregulation.
How is Opera nowadays? I'm using it on my phone due to the speed, and I used to use it like ten years ago, but I haven't heard much about it for a while. What would you say made you choose it?
Slashdot Mirror
You mean when it's not running most professional mathematician's, programmer's, and scientists' desktops, the majority of internet servers, and the majority share of phones?
I don't use Linux to feel superior, nor do most of the users I know. I tried hard to use the tools I prefer to code with on Windows. It was just more and more a pain in the ass. The castration of the CLI and the move to Powershell annoyed me immensely. I also really prefer the software manager and the level of customization. Maybe most people would find a lot of the software in the repositories geeky/nerdy/boring/whatever, but I like it. In the end, Windows is good for gaming, so I keep a partition on my main box, but I generally live in Linux because I actually prefer it. While I am aware that there are people like you describe (and there seem to be some in any subculture), most of the people I have known and worked with in the OSS community are involved for very different reasons, ranging from the practical to the ideological (I lay somewhere in between).
I would say a lot of innovation is going on, and that that's why we are seeing so many patent suits. The last batch of patent wars were during the boom in the 90s, and we have to admit we are having a boom in tech right now. Some would call it a bubble, but I have to disagree; plenty of real value is being created by all this investment and some of it should recoup at least a normal profit (in the economics sense of normal profit...enough to induce staying in the market). So long as people continue to like neat gadgets and shiny software, this surge of innovation should prove stable enough financially.
That's why the patent wars have begun again...shit just got real. Microsoft and Apple are working together to take down Google, while Oracle is making a power-play to take a much bigger piece of the pie. Until patents are finally abandoned as a way to deal with software, it will probably happen like this every time there is a flurry of development.
I think you mean Unix (Linux kernel came out in '91 IIRC), but I remember those days, too. Workstations came in various Unix/BSD flavors, home boxes ran DOS, and Macs were overpriced Speak-and-Spells. I remember getting a 20 meg HDD and marveling over "how can I ever fill this thing up?".
In my ill-spent youth, another computer geek and I would go to the Radio Shack at the mall and edit the autoexec.bats on the demo machines. We would add
/autotest
format c:
What can I say? I was a bit of an ass when I was a kid. :(
How much is this recent surge in Google-FUD costing the Apple-Microsoft Coalition?
Funny, I've never had Google try to make me have an account on anything. They simply made things available and I made the choice. More FUD from yet another shill.
OK, I'll bite troll. What, quantitatively, shucks?
Corn farmers?
Seriously. I am seeing so much of this lately...an attempt to put Google into the same box as Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle. The fact is that those companies represent a different era in business models and within the tech community. Google is as much a social reaction the state of affairs on the tech scene when they came into existence as they are a technological one. They saw the issues created by the companies before them and developed their approaches to those issues before they got big enough to apply to them. With one sentence, "don't be evil" they passed judgment on those who had come before them and pledged an idealogical stance (as opposed to a technological one). In addition to that, their chosen problem (to make the knowledge of world accessible and usable while solving the problem of online reputation and trust) is as much (or more) social and philosophical as technological.
This essential difference in stance and approach comes with its own problems. I am *not* saying that Google is some sort of corporate saint. What I am saying is that these issues that arise with other companies (such as the mentioned issues with Microsoft libraries, languages, frameworks, and even IDEs) just don't apply to the way Google has been going about things.
That said, I do think that a good programmer needs to understand and be able to cope with those "nasty implementation details". It's an easy way to write really bad code if you have no clue how the methods you're using work. However, on a day to day coding basis, libraries, frameworks, code generation, and autocompletion/intellisense help speed up development a great deal. As long as you understand what these shortcuts are doing, there is nothing wrong with abstracting away from and hiding the implementation methods, and you won't end up "stuffed" by using *anyone's* tools. There is no danger in learning C# and .NET and using Visual Studio to code apps using them. The danger is learning to use VS and thinking that means you really know C# (or C++ for that matter).
The problem with that is that people don't follow up on the science. Instead they dismiss it because of the scandal, plus those who oppose the science (either on ideological/religious grounds or political/capitalistic grounds) gain a weapon. The fact of the matter is that people believe what they hear 1) first, 2) loudest, and 3) already believed. This is one reason why I feel that our media and its attendant journalists in all mediums must be reformed. The media uses sensationalism to sell their papers and ads, which in turn skews the content of their news. Hence, while there is plenty of good science and evidence supporting the theory of human-influenced climate change, the scandal (rather conveniently for some parties) distracts from that evidence and inspires doubt and disbelief that actual science does not justify.
It's not the same at all. Texans choose to live in Texas.
Patents are for processes, trademarks are for logos, copyrights are for content. The first two cost money and are a laborious process, while copyright is free and happens automatically (though you should use some sort of dating system to prove first rights; people used to send themselves their manuscripts in the mail and leave it unopened to use the postmark for that very reason).
Then you don't understand my response any more than you understand Aristotle. Let me guess...did a search for "self-sufficient", didn't understand the quote but figured no one else would either, and used it to attempt to argue your point? Lame.
From Book 1, Chapter 7:
"From the point of view of self-sufficiency the same result seems to follow; for the final good is thought to be self-sufficient. Now by self-sufficient we do not mean that which is sufficient for a man by himself, for one who lives a solitary life, but also for parents, children, wife, and in general for his friends and fellow citizens, since man is born for citizenship. But some limit must be set to this; for if we extend our requirement to ancestors and descendants and friends' friends we are in for an infinite series. Let us examine this question, however, on another occasion; the self-sufficient we now define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think it most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good thing among others -- if it were so counted it would clearly be made more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that which is added becomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action."
Is the most directly relevant quote I ever found, and you can clearly see the parallels between the modern ideal of the self-made man, and the Aristotelian ideal of a completely self-sufficient man. Once again, I recommend a read through the entire book, it's not something that can be easily summed up on a post on a message board.
Keep a checklist of every quality the AC at the top of this conversation mentioned by your side when you're reading, you'll likely be be able to find almost every single one of them written about in great detail.
The specific social and economic conditions of the times change through the years, but the essential nature of mankind really hasn't.
Dude, you completely misread this quote and you're trying to shoe-horn modern Libertarian bullwit (not a typo) into Aristotle, who was civic-minded like all Greeks of his time. The desire by a citizen to avoid their taxes would have been considered a deep shame by any Athenian, and the complete disregard for one's friends and fellow-citizens (whose happiness is required for one's own in the quote) would have gotten someone deported, if not executed. You were not allowed to benefit from being a part of their culture and then simply amass wealth and benefit for yourself.
He is saying that happiness is a self-sufficient end unto itself, a final good as opposed to an instrumental good. An instrumental good is only good because it leads to some other, final, good. So happiness is "self-sufficient" because we want it in and of itself, not because it brings us some other goal. Your notion of self-sufficiency was considered inhuman, and to be excellent for Aristotle was to be an excellent human.
"he who is unable to live in society, or has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god" -Aristotle-"
The term kids does not necessarily imply age. I am still my parent's kid, and I am 33. My dad doesn't say "I have two adults, Neal and Ryan", he says "I have two kids" or "two boys".
They get put on a list. And that list gets watched. Of course, nothing will happen to the people on that list, just like this filter for "child abuse" won't get expanded to include political and social issues. /sarcasm...just in case you didn't realize.
Why should people have to use Tor? The internet should be free and this is exactly what hacktivists groups should be doing...putting the fear of the computing gods into those who would attempt to control and censor the internet.
Working as intended.
Nah, the strength checks and eternal dice-rolling came later, with WoTC. Gygax era D&D was less intuitive in some ways, but had cleaner gameplay IMHO.
If the Tea Party is your ideas at work: 1. You should reconsider your ideas, because every member I have seen say a thing about the Constitution was wrong, and mostly didn't know a damn thing about it, having never read it because, and I quote, "reading is for faggots". 2. Perhaps establish a vetting process. If the Tea Party was the embodiment of my words made flesh and my ideas given form, I would stop speaking.
Okay, let me rephrase that...what are you going to do that works? In a finer world better thoughts would win the day...but that is not *this* world. This world doesn't care about pretty thoughts. In fact, the prettier they are, the more they are despised, until they are old and moldy and can't hurt anyone anymore. Then they become "classics" and part of the "canon". Another thought-peddler in a world that demands iron and arms, money and force. I would laugh if I were not the same.
And what will you do about it? So you aren't going to sit idly by, right? So what are you going to do?
Subversion was a minor upgrade from CVS. Essentially it should have felt like a major version upgrade. GIT is an entirely different philosophy of source code management. Its a fundamental shift, and one that for most commercial shops really doesn't make sense.
Why do you feel Git doesn't work well for commercial shops? With a lot of modern coding practices (Agile,etc), I feel like it's the only one that makes sense.
Because all of the things you just mentioned require vast infrastructures and resources, in addition to laws to govern all that regulation. You just answered your own question.
And when those laws exist, along come the "populists" and their "Government isn't the solution, government is the problem!" rhetoric and make sure those laws are changed, repealed, or never really enforced. It's always argued in this appealing, underdog rebel kind of way, but when you look behind the scenes there are always entrenched politicians and corporations who stand to gain from deregulation.
Thanks for your response, that's pretty helpful. Extensions are pretty much a must-have for me...I need something like Firebug for work.
How is Opera nowadays? I'm using it on my phone due to the speed, and I used to use it like ten years ago, but I haven't heard much about it for a while. What would you say made you choose it?