and to understand that the important part of the document is the "6712 folders" and seven hundred thousand plus images they contain.
Seven hundred thousand files. But you genuinely heard it in your head as "images", right? And that is why prosecutors play such word games with, what should be, mundane technical information, because it does the same thing with the judge and jury.
"707,307 files" becomes "700,000 images" becomes "700,000 porn images, much of it kiddy porn."
It'd be a hell of a lot easier to teach evolution if idiot writers stopped using Lamarckian phrases like "developed an aversion... and passed that trait on to their young" when describing natural selection.
WIPO isn't the mutually agreed governing body of those who run the DNS network, ICANN is.
Under libertarianism, unless both Ron Paul and the domain owners agreed to use WIPO as an independent adjudicator, WIPO has no moral authority over domain name ownership.
Competition is impossible without a recognition of ownership. (You can't sell what you don't own.) And logically, ownership must be traced back to a first owner, and hence an original claim.
"Finders keepers" is a fine argument for the schoolyard, but
Actually, "Homesteading" is a central part of libertarianism. And according to that philosophy, no one has the moral authority to be able to tell the homesteader that they are not "responsibly" using their homestead/resources. Provided they make a clearly defined claim, and maintain a clear boundary, the claim is theirs.
[Disclaimer: I'm not a libertarian, but then, it would seem neither is Ron Paul.]
Your whole argument is based on this assumption. An assumption neither in the original article nor summary, only in the title. "Beginner" meant "a newbie to OSS" not "a newbie to software development". And your response is exactly what people complain about. You interpreted the topic in a way that allowed you to dismiss the whole discussion without having to think about it.
Try to discuss quantum physics with Hawkins.
Hawking? Hawkins died in 1928. [See, annoying, isn't it.]
I've read your comments in this thread and it is obvious that you are precisely the person everyone who has had difficulties with OSS projects is complaining about.
You've got a bunch of people who've had negative experiences and instead of listening to their experiences, instead of asking questions or adding thoughts that create an interesting and informative thread, your only interest is in proving that they are wrong. You twist their words, you pick and snipe, you grind them down until you drive them out of the thread and you "win"!
And that is a perfect example of what people face when dealing with... well, you, in OSS projects. I'd be willing to bet good money that you do exactly the same thing in help or dev forums for projects you think you're assisting. Grinding people down until they give up and leave. You do vastly more harm than good, as you have done in this very thread. I suspect it takes a dozen good contributors to make up for every one of... you. So in effect, you are not only harming newcomers, but you are cancelling out the work of many other existing contributors. Even worse if it creates a culture that encourages the same behaviour in others because of the habits they learn when trying to deal with people like you; until they become people like you. An anti-social virus.
While I know you can't read this comment (I mean actually "read" it, I'm sure you'll see some keywords to pick apart), I don't really write it for you. I'm hoping that it helps others who might recognise your behaviour in themselves and others, help them understand why what you do is so destructive. And perhaps create just a little social pressure in the other direction.
Do ad-blockers provide false feedback to the advertisers? Does it download the content and then not display it?
I don't think so. I've noticed that YouTube (and Google search results page) don't display ads even when ABP is disabled for those sites. But they will include ads when ABP is completely turned off in the Addons Manager. I haven't dug too deeply, but I suspect they detect ABP in the request-header and simply don't display ads for users with ABP - which, IMO, is pretty decent behaviour.
Google made a public gesture of refusing to develop official Google/Maps/YouTube apps for Windows Phone. This is just Microsoft's Tat to Google's Tit; no more "malicious" than Google's public snub.
They've never bothered with the 5 million or so AdBlockPro users, and (eventually) allowed ABP on Chrome, so why would they worry about the twelve people who buy a Windows Phone?
(If MS wanted to damage G, they would install an official adblocker into IE, all versions, as a "security" update. Instantly kill a third of G's ad revenue.)
I can only assume they did the right thing and cancelled the charges for all the votes that weren't counted? They surely wouldn't profiteer at the expense of true fans.
I'm especially concerned when the author states he has to put his hand up to block the road to see what's on the Google glass's screen..
That's an implementation failure. Either the projection is not bright enough or it needs to have a tinted background - like the inside of a pair of sunglasses.
Likely no one in the development team took them outside before they released the dev-kit. "Oh right, sunlight." Photochromatic ("Transition") tint on the back of the display lens might work as a quick'n'dirty solution.
The biggest failure, IMO, is their incompatibility with regular glasses. The only option (other then clumsily holding them up with your hand) is to have prescription lenses custom fitted to the GooGlass. In other words, the devs really did assume people will never want to take the headset off.
I find it fascinating that the universal response of the 'victims' in the video is laughter. They're not laughing because anything is particularly funny. It's the sort of laughter that is created by an inappropriate joke or a stressful situation that is avoided.
The young of many species of mammals have such sounds, yips, pant-hoots, etc, when mimicking adult behaviours (such as challenging/fighting) that might be taken as serious. It's a way of indicating that all parties understand that it is play behaviour. In primates, it's also a submissive gesture, "Heh heh, you wouldn't hurt me, would you Boss? All kidding, right, heh heh?"
[Speaking of: Psychopaths/sociopaths love this instinctive behaviour. "I'm hurting you and you're laughing! Brilliant!" They probably can mimic it, if they know it's a test, but don't think they don't naturally have it.]
Then you better throw out the constitution and burn any papers by the founding fathers because what you are calling sedition was a right of the people they supported..
And Article 1, Section 8, permits the government to "suppress insurrection". Specifically, to raise a militia to suppress insurrection. The same militia mentioned in the second amendment. Hence, the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure the supply of men for a militia to put down an armed rebellion. It's not about overthrowing the government, it's about preventing the overthrow of government. Such as almost happened in the Civil War, when traitors seized control of the southern states and tried to destroy the United States.
Indeed, the NRA itself was founded after the Civil War precisely in order to increase the number of trained gunmen (particularly in the north) available to the Union, should a new generation of traitors ever rise up again in those former slave states. There was concern that the urbanised north was losing skills with firearms. Unfortunately, the NRA was hijacked in the 1970s by those same traitors, and now openly serves the interests of America's domestic enemies.
Indeed, the loss of America as a dumping ground for transportees following the American Revolution was the primary motivation behind Australia's settlement.
It's interesting to speculate (since the French apparently had an interest in settling southern Australia, and the Dutch had widespread trade interests in the Asia-Pacific and almost certainly preceded Cook's "discovery" of Australia) on Australia's history had the American colonies not revolted or if the revolution had been crushed.
Local electronics chain used to offer extended warranties for a few dollars, or free on larger items. And they were good about claims. Usually replaced on the spot. Only sent away if the thing were actually repairable. I saw it as an in-store marketing/loyalty program. You got something for free, you felt good, you kept coming back.
Then they got bought by another company, suddenly the extended warranties were 15% of the item price, the staff were hard sell, and the claims process was a quagmire. The warranties became another profit centre.
You can imagine how eager I am to buy from them now.
Slashdot Mirror
Then they should test it on [the reduced gravity aircraft]
Yes, those idiots. They should have done that 2 years ago. I bet they feel pretty stupid right now.
and to understand that the important part of the document is the "6712 folders" and seven hundred thousand plus images they contain.
Seven hundred thousand files. But you genuinely heard it in your head as "images", right? And that is why prosecutors play such word games with, what should be, mundane technical information, because it does the same thing with the judge and jury.
"707,307 files" becomes "700,000 images" becomes "700,000 porn images, much of it kiddy porn."
effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Congrats, idiots.
Hey, at least that foot is no longer suffering...
It'd be a hell of a lot easier to teach evolution if idiot writers stopped using Lamarckian phrases like "developed an aversion ... and passed that trait on to their young" when describing natural selection.
It was never his to "give up".
WIPO isn't the mutually agreed governing body of those who run the DNS network, ICANN is.
Under libertarianism, unless both Ron Paul and the domain owners agreed to use WIPO as an independent adjudicator, WIPO has no moral authority over domain name ownership.
Competition is impossible without a recognition of ownership. (You can't sell what you don't own.) And logically, ownership must be traced back to a first owner, and hence an original claim.
"Finders keepers" is a fine argument for the schoolyard, but
Actually, "Homesteading" is a central part of libertarianism. And according to that philosophy, no one has the moral authority to be able to tell the homesteader that they are not "responsibly" using their homestead/resources. Provided they make a clearly defined claim, and maintain a clear boundary, the claim is theirs.
[Disclaimer: I'm not a libertarian, but then, it would seem neither is Ron Paul.]
How did that happen?
Many Americans have asked the same thing.
Being a newbie in a field
Your whole argument is based on this assumption. An assumption neither in the original article nor summary, only in the title. "Beginner" meant "a newbie to OSS" not "a newbie to software development". And your response is exactly what people complain about. You interpreted the topic in a way that allowed you to dismiss the whole discussion without having to think about it.
Try to discuss quantum physics with Hawkins.
Hawking? Hawkins died in 1928. [See, annoying, isn't it.]
I've read your comments in this thread and it is obvious that you are precisely the person everyone who has had difficulties with OSS projects is complaining about.
You've got a bunch of people who've had negative experiences and instead of listening to their experiences, instead of asking questions or adding thoughts that create an interesting and informative thread, your only interest is in proving that they are wrong. You twist their words, you pick and snipe, you grind them down until you drive them out of the thread and you "win"!
And that is a perfect example of what people face when dealing with... well, you, in OSS projects. I'd be willing to bet good money that you do exactly the same thing in help or dev forums for projects you think you're assisting. Grinding people down until they give up and leave. You do vastly more harm than good, as you have done in this very thread. I suspect it takes a dozen good contributors to make up for every one of... you. So in effect, you are not only harming newcomers, but you are cancelling out the work of many other existing contributors. Even worse if it creates a culture that encourages the same behaviour in others because of the habits they learn when trying to deal with people like you; until they become people like you. An anti-social virus.
While I know you can't read this comment (I mean actually "read" it, I'm sure you'll see some keywords to pick apart), I don't really write it for you. I'm hoping that it helps others who might recognise your behaviour in themselves and others, help them understand why what you do is so destructive. And perhaps create just a little social pressure in the other direction.
...on Mars.
Do ad-blockers provide false feedback to the advertisers? Does it download the content and then not display it?
I don't think so. I've noticed that YouTube (and Google search results page) don't display ads even when ABP is disabled for those sites. But they will include ads when ABP is completely turned off in the Addons Manager. I haven't dug too deeply, but I suspect they detect ABP in the request-header and simply don't display ads for users with ABP - which, IMO, is pretty decent behaviour.
Google made a public gesture of refusing to develop official Google/Maps/YouTube apps for Windows Phone. This is just Microsoft's Tat to Google's Tit; no more "malicious" than Google's public snub.
Why?
They've never bothered with the 5 million or so AdBlockPro users, and (eventually) allowed ABP on Chrome, so why would they worry about the twelve people who buy a Windows Phone?
(If MS wanted to damage G, they would install an official adblocker into IE, all versions, as a "security" update. Instantly kill a third of G's ad revenue.)
I can only assume they did the right thing and cancelled the charges for all the votes that weren't counted? They surely wouldn't profiteer at the expense of true fans.
Paramedics are going to have to get used to saying "Ok Glass, share video" or we are gonna miss out on some epic footage.
I'm especially concerned when the author states he has to put his hand up to block the road to see what's on the Google glass's screen..
That's an implementation failure. Either the projection is not bright enough or it needs to have a tinted background - like the inside of a pair of sunglasses.
Likely no one in the development team took them outside before they released the dev-kit. "Oh right, sunlight." Photochromatic ("Transition") tint on the back of the display lens might work as a quick'n'dirty solution.
The biggest failure, IMO, is their incompatibility with regular glasses. The only option (other then clumsily holding them up with your hand) is to have prescription lenses custom fitted to the GooGlass. In other words, the devs really did assume people will never want to take the headset off.
More details about the case here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/04/01/2337230/life-imprisonment-for-breaking-google-glasses
I find it fascinating that the universal response of the 'victims' in the video is laughter. They're not laughing because anything is particularly funny. It's the sort of laughter that is created by an inappropriate joke or a stressful situation that is avoided.
The young of many species of mammals have such sounds, yips, pant-hoots, etc, when mimicking adult behaviours (such as challenging/fighting) that might be taken as serious. It's a way of indicating that all parties understand that it is play behaviour. In primates, it's also a submissive gesture, "Heh heh, you wouldn't hurt me, would you Boss? All kidding, right, heh heh?"
[Speaking of: Psychopaths/sociopaths love this instinctive behaviour. "I'm hurting you and you're laughing! Brilliant!" They probably can mimic it, if they know it's a test, but don't think they don't naturally have it.]
I swear there was something in there about speach. Can't quite remember; it's been a while.
"Anything you say can and will be used against you"?
Then you better throw out the constitution and burn any papers by the founding fathers because what you are calling sedition was a right of the people they supported..
And Article 1, Section 8, permits the government to "suppress insurrection". Specifically, to raise a militia to suppress insurrection. The same militia mentioned in the second amendment. Hence, the purpose of the second amendment is to ensure the supply of men for a militia to put down an armed rebellion. It's not about overthrowing the government, it's about preventing the overthrow of government. Such as almost happened in the Civil War, when traitors seized control of the southern states and tried to destroy the United States.
Indeed, the NRA itself was founded after the Civil War precisely in order to increase the number of trained gunmen (particularly in the north) available to the Union, should a new generation of traitors ever rise up again in those former slave states. There was concern that the urbanised north was losing skills with firearms. Unfortunately, the NRA was hijacked in the 1970s by those same traitors, and now openly serves the interests of America's domestic enemies.
Indeed, the loss of America as a dumping ground for transportees following the American Revolution was the primary motivation behind Australia's settlement.
It's interesting to speculate (since the French apparently had an interest in settling southern Australia, and the Dutch had widespread trade interests in the Asia-Pacific and almost certainly preceded Cook's "discovery" of Australia) on Australia's history had the American colonies not revolted or if the revolution had been crushed.
Local electronics chain used to offer extended warranties for a few dollars, or free on larger items. And they were good about claims. Usually replaced on the spot. Only sent away if the thing were actually repairable. I saw it as an in-store marketing/loyalty program. You got something for free, you felt good, you kept coming back.
Then they got bought by another company, suddenly the extended warranties were 15% of the item price, the staff were hard sell, and the claims process was a quagmire. The warranties became another profit centre.
You can imagine how eager I am to buy from them now.
With cruel sarcastic insults.