So if the guy's a dangerous, unprincipled hack, with a history of putting corporate profit ahead of human rights and life, we should just ignore all the past evidence of that and wait and see what happens when he runs the freaking World Bank?!
I can't understand the argument that people who write free software (free as in beer and free as in speech) should HAVE to do a port to Windows! They don't get paid for it, they don't have a responsibility to any of you! It's a priviledge, not a right to have this stuff.
Some of us (probably including the guy you're replying to) know that OSS is a volunteer effort, and that if there isn't a Windows port it's because somebody was too busy working/playing with their kids/playing hockey/sleeping to do it for free. It is a "privilege" to enjoy the fruits of others' labor for free.
But that said, it's still wise to port something really useful to Windows if at all possible, simply because it helps those of us with no technical skills in our contribution to the OSS movement - proselytizing OSS to our bosses, coworkers, friends and relatives.
"Once a man becomes a father he is never truly free."
Sure, this guy could burn the servers, spend several years in jail, emerge as an ex-con and therefore virtually unemployable (and likely hep/HIV+ cosidering what jails are like), for his beliefs. That would be the true Anarchist thing to do... and it would cause misery for his spouse and child (and parents, and other relatives, and friends). Could YOU make that choice, "Rakishi"? I doubt it. Not many have the strength to ruin three lives for a political ideal. So don't be too freaking "amused" by this.
You can't legally threaten to kill anyone. The President just has more aggressive enforcement on his side than your neighbour (who won't return your god damn weed wacker) does.
The problem lies not in a person's belief system, but in the attacking/supressing of alternative beliefs, insisting that one invalidates the other. Science has yet to prove or disprove the existance of a Creator/Supreme Being (and is unlikely to), so why should it care about religion?
It shouldn't... as long as religion doesn't try to screw over science. That's why scientists have to watch the religious fundamentalists like hawks - they'll take any chance they can get to trespass on OUR domain and shut US down, even while we leave them alone. They don't respect the boundary between science and religion, because to them there is no such boundary - there is only "Truth" (their scriptures) and "Evil Lies" (anything we discover, no matter how well-supported, that contradicts the contents of their books).
That's also what separates science from "belief systems" - science is based on testable physical reality, not "belief" or faith. I feel justified in saying that science IS better than religion - at determining truths about the physical world. Religion is worthless for this, because it almost never tries to modify its "laws" to fit the world, but instead holds them absolute regardless of what happens in reality.
I know you're not arguing the other side of this but this is why the mercenary tactics of the "religious right" to suppress scientific education steam me so much - it's a war on rationality itself, not just a "competing belief system".
You (or more accurately, THEY) can't equate religious films with scientific ones - especially in science museums! Religious beliefs are NOT scientific theories, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. "You shall not bear false witness" seems to be passe. I don't mind people having religious beliefs but when they try to sneak them into scientific discussion their goal is invariably nefarious - to try and force their proselytizing on others under the guise of scientific education.
If you want a set of plastic bowels, plastic toys, or whatever, they don't have to be the same as the rest of the production run, they can be made special just for you.
I grow as weary of explaining this as I am of being an example of it*. "Assholes" get chicks because they go out there to meet women, with confidence and at least the illusion of interest. They don't stay in griping about being single on Slashdot, while thinking "no hot girl will ever like me".
You're paying $0 per song, plus taking the small but not hugely small chance that you'll get caught and have to sell your car to pay the RIAA extortion fee. That's what the lawsuits are for.
Not a problem. Before I even read the rest of your post it occurred to me that I just form a co-op with about 50 other people of diverse tastes (including their teenaged star-obsessed kids), and we buy music for each other based on who gets the best deal.
That's where copy restriction and DRM come into play. You can only buy for you, I can only buy for me. Your tracks won't play on my devices and vice-versa. However I think the negative publicity from "differential pricing" would outweigh the money they'd make, so it's probably unlikely. It's much more likely that everything will just be *slightly* overpriced (like CD's now) so the profits would turn out about the same.
Yeah, I laughed when an employee at my local Roger's Video told me they didn't have "Faster, Pussycat Kill! Kill!" because they're a "family video store". They of course carry "Femalien", "Married People, Single Sex" and B-grade sex cheese like that...
Do we really want to turn our bodies into a battlefield for germ warfare?
Yes. You better believe it.
That was my response to this - "I/someone I love has cancer? Hell yeah, bring on a cure derived from elephantiasis-of-the-nuts if that's what it takes!"
I think the reason people are weirded out by this, but not by paper attendance lists and other traditional methods of getting kids to go to class, is that technology has a tendency to be regarded as absolute and infallible, and its records are used instead of human judgment. This creates the "well, the computer says so. the computer's never wrong" situation which popped up in old jokes about banks etc.
You can argue with the principal that you forgot to sign the attendence sheet but what if they rely on the sensors and you later find out your tag wasn't working, or was sitting inside your metal pencil case or something. Odds are they won't listen, because there'll be a "zero-tolerance policy" in effect which forces them to punish you. I had a rough time in high school but at least the admin didn't treat us like incarcerated criminals.
And yes, this sort of thing WILL create a generation of people who think technological intrusion is "normal". Maybe not desirable, but normal, the way we all hate to pay taxes but don't demand they be rescinded. And thus the ratchet tightens.
Oh, and fixing or buying a tractor isn't really comparable to fixing/buying a new computer to a farmer. One is their bread and butter. The other could quite possibly just be a toy.
I was posting under the assumption that a modern farmer (even Ma and Pa) likely has a computer for very practical reasons, and can't afford very much downtime... Also, I don't know very many people who think of farmers as rich, for the record - far from it! More like assuming that any family farm operator who's still in business is some sort of financial genius/agricultural prodigy/heavily in debt. I'm sure you're thinking of clueless urban yuppies or something... nobody I know;) And only asshole freepers who don't know where their food comes from believe farm subsidies are some kind of evil handout.
One thing I don't hesitate to do is recommend buying a new computer. Most of these rural folks have ancient systems, at least by today's standards. If the machine is still useable and they understand that they can't run new software on the old machine, I'll help them fix it, even if it's replacing hardware like a bad HD.
If they're farmers, the cost of the new HD/system probably looks like peanuts to them... it sure beats having to spend $60k on a new tractor after all. Am I even vaguely correct here?
They write back that they won't do anything until 3 cases have been confirmed against the seller.
"I'm sorry, we won't investigate until we have three confirmed cases of fraud against a seller. Three buyers complaining, with evidence, is insufficient confirmation. Confirmation requires an investigation."
Slashdot Mirror
I see your non-Natalie Portman, non-Soviet Russia based humour has not resonated with the fine minds here...
"I'm on the geek squad."
"You ARE the geek squad!"
These are all solid ways to be better at your job... of course these motivations are never aimed at management, only workers.
So if the guy's a dangerous, unprincipled hack, with a history of putting corporate profit ahead of human rights and life, we should just ignore all the past evidence of that and wait and see what happens when he runs the freaking World Bank?!
I can't understand the argument that people who write free software (free as in beer and free as in speech) should HAVE to do a port to Windows! They don't get paid for it, they don't have a responsibility to any of you! It's a priviledge, not a right to have this stuff.
Some of us (probably including the guy you're replying to) know that OSS is a volunteer effort, and that if there isn't a Windows port it's because somebody was too busy working/playing with their kids/playing hockey/sleeping to do it for free. It is a "privilege" to enjoy the fruits of others' labor for free.
But that said, it's still wise to port something really useful to Windows if at all possible, simply because it helps those of us with no technical skills in our contribution to the OSS movement - proselytizing OSS to our bosses, coworkers, friends and relatives.
To quote a character in Batman: Year One:
"Once a man becomes a father he is never truly free."
Sure, this guy could burn the servers, spend several years in jail, emerge as an ex-con and therefore virtually unemployable (and likely hep/HIV+ cosidering what jails are like), for his beliefs. That would be the true Anarchist thing to do... and it would cause misery for his spouse and child (and parents, and other relatives, and friends). Could YOU make that choice, "Rakishi"? I doubt it. Not many have the strength to ruin three lives for a political ideal. So don't be too freaking "amused" by this.
I always thought the situation in Half-Life 2 reminded me more of Iraq:
Combine = US Armed Forces
Citadel = Green Zone
Dr. Breen = Bremmer/Chalabi
Gordon Freeman = ???
You can't legally threaten to kill anyone. The President just has more aggressive enforcement on his side than your neighbour (who won't return your god damn weed wacker) does.
Wouldn't this kind of hose your performance? I mean not totally but you might see slowdown when running even one big app?
The problem lies not in a person's belief system, but in the attacking/supressing of alternative beliefs, insisting that one invalidates the other. Science has yet to prove or disprove the existance of a Creator/Supreme Being (and is unlikely to), so why should it care about religion?
It shouldn't... as long as religion doesn't try to screw over science. That's why scientists have to watch the religious fundamentalists like hawks - they'll take any chance they can get to trespass on OUR domain and shut US down, even while we leave them alone. They don't respect the boundary between science and religion, because to them there is no such boundary - there is only "Truth" (their scriptures) and "Evil Lies" (anything we discover, no matter how well-supported, that contradicts the contents of their books).
That's also what separates science from "belief systems" - science is based on testable physical reality, not "belief" or faith. I feel justified in saying that science IS better than religion - at determining truths about the physical world. Religion is worthless for this, because it almost never tries to modify its "laws" to fit the world, but instead holds them absolute regardless of what happens in reality.
I know you're not arguing the other side of this but this is why the mercenary tactics of the "religious right" to suppress scientific education steam me so much - it's a war on rationality itself, not just a "competing belief system".
You (or more accurately, THEY) can't equate religious films with scientific ones - especially in science museums! Religious beliefs are NOT scientific theories, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest. "You shall not bear false witness" seems to be passe. I don't mind people having religious beliefs but when they try to sneak them into scientific discussion their goal is invariably nefarious - to try and force their proselytizing on others under the guise of scientific education.
If you want a set of plastic bowels, plastic toys, or whatever, they don't have to be the same as the rest of the production run, they can be made special just for you.
Um, I'll pass on the plastic bowels, thanks.
I grow as weary of explaining this as I am of being an example of it*. "Assholes" get chicks because they go out there to meet women, with confidence and at least the illusion of interest. They don't stay in griping about being single on Slashdot, while thinking "no hot girl will ever like me".
* an example of the latter, not the former
POST LINKS PLZ!!!1!!
AWP whore!
You're paying $0 per song, plus taking the small but not hugely small chance that you'll get caught and have to sell your car to pay the RIAA extortion fee. That's what the lawsuits are for.
Not a problem. Before I even read the rest of your post it occurred to me that I just form a co-op with about 50 other people of diverse tastes (including their teenaged star-obsessed kids), and we buy music for each other based on who gets the best deal.
That's where copy restriction and DRM come into play. You can only buy for you, I can only buy for me. Your tracks won't play on my devices and vice-versa. However I think the negative publicity from "differential pricing" would outweigh the money they'd make, so it's probably unlikely. It's much more likely that everything will just be *slightly* overpriced (like CD's now) so the profits would turn out about the same.
Running Linux is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
;)
Running Linux is like owning a lightsaber. It's really cool, and then all of a sudden "Oh god, oh my god, what did I just do?"
Yeah, I laughed when an employee at my local Roger's Video told me they didn't have "Faster, Pussycat Kill! Kill!" because they're a "family video store". They of course carry "Femalien", "Married People, Single Sex" and B-grade sex cheese like that...
Do we really want to turn our bodies into a battlefield for germ warfare?
Yes. You better believe it.
That was my response to this - "I/someone I love has cancer? Hell yeah, bring on a cure derived from elephantiasis-of-the-nuts if that's what it takes!"
I'd tell you, but my browser window isn't big enough to see your entire post.
I think the reason people are weirded out by this, but not by paper attendance lists and other traditional methods of getting kids to go to class, is that technology has a tendency to be regarded as absolute and infallible, and its records are used instead of human judgment. This creates the "well, the computer says so. the computer's never wrong" situation which popped up in old jokes about banks etc.
You can argue with the principal that you forgot to sign the attendence sheet but what if they rely on the sensors and you later find out your tag wasn't working, or was sitting inside your metal pencil case or something. Odds are they won't listen, because there'll be a "zero-tolerance policy" in effect which forces them to punish you. I had a rough time in high school but at least the admin didn't treat us like incarcerated criminals.
And yes, this sort of thing WILL create a generation of people who think technological intrusion is "normal". Maybe not desirable, but normal, the way we all hate to pay taxes but don't demand they be rescinded. And thus the ratchet tightens.
Oh, and fixing or buying a tractor isn't really comparable to fixing/buying a new computer to a farmer. One is their bread and butter. The other could quite possibly just be a toy.
;) And only asshole freepers who don't know where their food comes from believe farm subsidies are some kind of evil handout.
I was posting under the assumption that a modern farmer (even Ma and Pa) likely has a computer for very practical reasons, and can't afford very much downtime... Also, I don't know very many people who think of farmers as rich, for the record - far from it! More like assuming that any family farm operator who's still in business is some sort of financial genius/agricultural prodigy/heavily in debt. I'm sure you're thinking of clueless urban yuppies or something... nobody I know
One thing I don't hesitate to do is recommend buying a new computer. Most of these rural folks have ancient systems, at least by today's standards. If the machine is still useable and they understand that they can't run new software on the old machine, I'll help them fix it, even if it's replacing hardware like a bad HD.
If they're farmers, the cost of the new HD/system probably looks like peanuts to them... it sure beats having to spend $60k on a new tractor after all. Am I even vaguely correct here?
They write back that they won't do anything until 3 cases have been confirmed against the seller.
"I'm sorry, we won't investigate until we have three confirmed cases of fraud against a seller. Three buyers complaining, with evidence, is insufficient confirmation. Confirmation requires an investigation."