"Sex between a man and a woman, and only after marriage, is the only moral way to have sex"
In other words, go fuck yourself and your idea of "morals".
While it kinda hits my nerve when people justify their arguments with their morals I'd say that it's some hell of a stretch to attack another persons morals because some people have twisted evil moral concepts so any morals are inherently and utterly evil, also making the argument 100% evil.
Replace the word "moral" with "ethical" (I myself prefer to try and improve my ethics than even have a set of moral values in my head - but while different, ethics and morals have certain similarities that make the words somewhat exchangeable here) and think for a while, how would you have responded in that case? Personally I've never heard anyone argue against gay marriage by stating that it's not ethical, so I guess at least that particular example is unusable for making argument that all ethics are evil (which they, by very definition, try not being);) I guess morals are more a set of dogmas one learns and then very reluctantly even questions them - useful for creating a religion-like illusion of living rightfully - it doesn't make morals necessarily evil, but way more often than hearing people justify something with morals that I agree with I hear morals used to justify something that I have hard time imagining anyone trying to argue being ethical... As ethics are more about finding out what seems rightful by thinking by yourself, justifying them with arguments that you consider to be able to stand on their own rather than dogmas inherited from fathers and their ancestors without ever questioning them unless it just turns to be really hard to blindly believe them even against what you're eyes can see...
You see, I don't value moral codes very highly, but I'd still like to question your attack against this persons morals - I don't know if he can justify his morals with arguments I can accept or not (regardless of what I think about them), but I'm having hard time imagining you can justify the logic you used to attack his morals. Consider how badly I described moral "values" above and that despite of it I still felt that you're attack was unworthy, undeserved, not justified and generally just bad behavior with no value as argument against grandparent - so, while I don't know you and can't judge your person from just one case, it did not exactly paint a pretty picture of you... I dunno, regardless of this you might just as well be a very decent person - virtually everyone behaves really badly at least sometimes - so I wan't to be very clear that I'm not attacking your person here.
Once they have no choice, yes - which is rarely the case, thank god. The further you take your DRM crippling the more likely it is they choose another solution, or switch when such is released, possibly even if it's technically not as advanced, if it's just DRM free or even less crippled than before.
To kill pirating your app has to at least depend on authenticity checks even if you want to seriously try imagining it could work. And what do customers think of such issues as software not being able to run without internet connection, etc. that are not just nuisances - and especially the fact that if you go bankrupt, decide to end supporting your software, or such, it will turn that program into unusable garbage (possibly leaving your data in format no other programs can't read). No, big customers do not like that, for them it's top priority, even higher than ongoing development, that the software is guaranteed to work as long as they might need it to.
Go ahead and kill your software with extensive DRM, you have the right - though I think you shouldn't, it's against customers rights - to do what you want. I won't use it anyway - I'd guess your odds at succeeding are not that great... and if you do manage to do something where customers have no choice but yours, well, eventually there will be a competing product - and quite likely all your DRM crap won't prevent your software from getting cracked, but it may cause people who wouldn't normally pirate to do it because your DRM crap causes too much hassle, while the cracked one won't (and while some of them may pay you anyway, guaranteed some will consider that such products should receive no support, even if used).
But feel free to believe otherwise - I guess you and I feel the same about each others opinions;)
No, but at some point, your hobby might turn into something that can make you money, and it's nice to be able to make the switch.
Sure, but I would still want to fiddle with stuff interesting to me just for the love of doing it, fully knowing that some things could never be useful in making money, so I would not switch but rather combine.
And while one should not stop dreaming or reaching for dreams lightly, it's far more likely to end up programming in a job that, while something I could enjoy doing, would not let me implement whatever I want freely and on my own, if I so choose - thus it would not be the same as my coding hobby for fun so no switching. One doesn't have to abandon his hobby just because he gets job on same field - if one has still energy and interest in it then there's no reason to quit the just for fun part.
Linux: Linus Torvalds wrote Linux in his spare time because he wanted to prove his professor wrong.
I could go on and on...
I know this is not important for getting your point, but for the sake of factual knowledge I'd like to question this statement and I claim that it's not correct (read further). And for my love and interest to learn things I hadn't known I'd like to ask if you can give reference to this information and/or if you could tell who was this professor, and what was it that Linux supposedly wanted to prove wrong?
I have this book from 2000 about history of Linux, "Linuxin historia" (translates to "History of Linux", no idea if there exists an English translation), and on the chapter about birth of Linux I found no mention of Linus wanting to prove his professor wrong - I'm not saying that is wrong, possibly just not mentioned in this book. But it does briefly mention University courses about C-programming and Unix development environment by special researches Auvo Häkkinen and "computer and operating systems" course by professor Kimmo Raatikainen, as well as Marice J. Bachs book "The Design of the Unix Operating System" and most importantly another by Andrew S. Tanenbaum, "Operating Systems, Design and Implementation", which was probably the most important thing in University that affected the birth of Linux. But wethever there was something Linux wanted to prove his professor was wrong about, it's clearly not among the main reasons Linus wrote Linux.
It's quite clear from the book, as well as from many other sources, that the primary reason, The One Reason that was above even other important ones and is, even alone, a reason why Linux did and would have regardless of other reasons start writing Linux: He knew he simply could not live with MS DOS and Windows operating systems, having seen them thoroughly he wanted an OS he could trust. OS's that could fulfill his demands were not available - Unix having been way too heavy for his personal PC and way too expensive (between 5000-10000 dollars, or 30000-60000 finish marks back then). He got his hand on Minix, found it usable for lack of better but lacking on some parts (like ineffective scheduling). He used Minix as base and took a bunch of ideas from it, but as he had not found system up to his demands, only a system he wanted to take fundamental design ideas as base (Unix in general, not Minix specifically). He has later also said that if BSD386 had been done before he started with Linux he probably wouldn't ever had started it. So he started it simply to create an OS for his needs as there was none available - btw, he had done similar thing, but on a LOT smaller scale, long ago: he was not satisfied with the built-in system his Quantum Leap booted in so he rewrote it from scratch;)
His own words (my translation from Finish): "I wanted an OS that I could rely on and that would do exactly what I want it to do. That's after all how computers should work. Microsoft's MS-DOS did not fill this criteria and neither did Microsoft Windows, and even still they don't. Other systems have way too much bugs. It's frustrating to sit in front of computer, hoping that the system doesn't suddenly crash."
Interesting tidbit: Linux kernel actually begun from 32-bit terminal emulator Linus started to create. His purpose was to make the emulator independent from OS, an application you would start like you boot into OS. In couple months the work ended up evolving into Unix-like OS kernel.
I'm guessing most of the full time developers reading/. also do some programming for fun.
I don't think I know anyone who programs for fun, and I've worked in the software industry for over a decade. It's a job you do to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. I'm grateful I chose to learn the skill, so I can be in an air-conditioned office all day and don't have to wait tables or nail roofs on houses to feed my family. But for fun??
Exactly. For fun. Having hard time understanding that? Well, I'm having hard time understanding how anyone can study something like programming when they clearly have no passion or interest in it, except for the money you can earn for it. But then, I have bad ADHD and I have never been successful studying things that don't intrigue my mind anywhere much further from basics. But I don't have problem understanding that people do that - though I never could - whet ever it's programming or any other skills, people do learn stuff they have no interest whatsoever to just get a job that they get paid for. For me, if I had to choose between working as programmer but losing possibility to do any coding on my own just for fun (let's just imagine someone cursed me) and being able to do coding as a hobby but remain unemployed or at shitty minimum wage job - well, I know I wouldn't even consider giving up coding for fun.
It may be hard for you to understand, but I don't believe you actually have any idea what most people you have known or worked with at some level in the software industry think about coding for fun. How many have you asked or heard speaking about it? Because you are a boring programmer (I don't mean that you are boring in general) a hacker is much less interested in trying to talk to you about coding as hobby - I know I rarely talked of it with people I thought had no real interest in coding for it's own sake because, well, what's the point?
But why do people still code applications for C-64 to make multitasking OS, server & client applications (like VNC and audio streaming server playing music from datasette drive)? Hint: It's not because they are unemployed - that would not explain why they program obsolete stuff for obsolete hardware to achieve more and more that a decade ago nobody would have believed to be possible. It will not help them much on programming skills most important in the field today. Think about it, really - if you think that people just lye for fun when they say they code for fun, well that's way more ridiculous than how ridiculous you think the idea of loving programming is. And if you really think about it, there is a huge load of applications, scripts and articles which can be explained only by their authors having fun doing them.
Sure there may be a percentage of people out there who find programming fun, and a smaller percentage who come home after a long day of programming to........ continue programming, but for fun. But I'd expect that percentage to be as miniscule as the percentage of workers who pour cement all day then come home to pour their own driveway for fun.
I think it's quite high actually, especially among the really innovative top level professionals - hacking and programming takes a certain mindset. Those who love it often have more or less ideal mind for learning programming - those who, if given possibility, might learn C programming at age of ten better in a month than most ever learn in college (or whatever the level of finish school system I'm thinking of is closest in english). Reminds me, ADD/ADHD is more common among professional programmers than all people in general, and as far as I have experience especially so among hackers who love to code - and as I have ADHD myself, I think it's beneficial to programming (there are positive aspects in ADHD, most people with it I have known would not want to be totally "cured" nor consider it to be "flaw") and I probably would have
Does anyone code for fun after they leave moms basement ? Everyone has to make money and those who claim to program for fun are really just hoping to be 'discovered' and brought into the industry.
Yes, Mr. Anyone does - and well, so do I.
And, sure, say what you want but I have never even considered stopping it as a hobby because I also work as programmer. You see, what "doing something for fun" means is that the person likes doing that something - I could think of numerous examples, outside programming, of people doing something as hobby even though they do it as paid job also. And true hacker minded coders don't just love their hobby, but would also shudder for the thought that all their programming should be limited by what they need to do at work - limiting and/or killing their possibilities to freely express their own ideas, inventions, whims and such. Of course only condescending and ignorant people like you actually say such things - and really, no hacker who loves coding will take that seriously:)
Just about any modern browser has this too - some have master password you need to use, some don't (very bad) - and perhaps with some you can get them behind master passwd via plugin.
I'm sure that McD's lobbied--and probably in some cases with success--to limit the number of fast food restaurants in a given radius in order to prevent this, in a way trying to protect their investment in research. That's what Apple is doing. If you don't like it, don't bitch and moan in slashdot; get a law degree and fight the law. Or write your congresscritter. Or become an expert witness and hire yourself out to the EFF.
But comments here do nothing to change the status quo.
So, why are you taking part in discussing here anyway?
But isn't it actually the way they boil lobsters? So why the frog claim anyway, why did someone start talking about frogs, instead of lobsters or whatever, in the first place?
At least in my country, Finland, you can take any batteries to closest shop and drop them into used battery bin - but in USA if government pushed laws to achieve same it would probably seen as human rights violation (companies are people there).;p
Well, at least in our world anyone who cares even a little can recycle batteries just by taking them to shop when going to by groceries - it's awful, is it not?
Well, I basically don't want anything from Sony-BMG...
Their only dirt is not rootkit, nor that and OtherOS scam (an advertised feature) - they have lot's of crap in past and they have lost my trust. Also, statements like "copying a song from your (legally bought) CD to your MP3 player is theft", etc. have made me despise Sony. To hell with them, as far as I'm considered.
Their MP3 players support MP3 natively? Big whoop - they have a product that (nowdays) does what it should.
Finally lets not forget that there is just simply more opportunity for fatal error with an automatically driven car. There is going to be software glitches causing cars to veer off a cliff. Sensors are going to fail causing the computer to make the wrong calculations for position. I mean what happens if a passing car kicks up a splash of water or slush that suddenly blocks a visual sensor, the car is going to think its about to hit another vehicle and slam on the brakes or veer away suddenly.
I can't believe how stupid the proponents of automatic car are, this is about the dumbest idea ever pushed forward. A few tests in very controlled situations and suddenly its ready for prime time?
Automated cars is a fiction best left in books and in movies.
The first company offering an automated car for general public use will be sued out of existence, period. I am sorry for the people that will have to die and families ruined before this happens.
I think your worries are fiction, if anything - good for bad sci-fi maybe... I would not under estimate engineers abilities to design systems to take into account much worse situations you are talking about - ie. it might recognize water splash coming, then combine that fact with one video sensor giving data different from other video, sonar, etc. sensors after just having recognized splash - even without recognizing the splash, it's obvious that it won't act on one sensor showing emergency situation when all others are consistent with each others - obviously any good engineer and programmer would design it to ignore that one sensor (and inform user of one sensor needing fix/clearing) for as long as needed.
Not pro at all on this subject, but your example doesn't seem like even close to accidents.
And when the system is tested it will be firs tested in very limited situations, but before it will become widely accepted in common use it will have to had gone a lot more vigorous testing - and even then it will spread slowly (where, who and how can they be used) when more IRL end-user experience and official trials are conducted. Trust me, when they come commodity they will have been tested quite thoroughly. Accidents will keep happening, I suppose mostly with mixed tech (manual/auto) accidents, but eventually way less than with humans - that was prediction of mine, not what I claim as fact.
I wonder how long people have been predicting that. Even with GPS, it's a lot harder to implement than you might think. I've had GPS errors of several miles on a number of occasions. First time that happens and someone gets creamed because they were on the Interstate and their car thought the speed limit was 25 in a school zone, the lawsuit would be epic.
I would think that with all sensors used in auto-matics google would be incredibly stupid to not implement system to recognize speed limit signs - and other traffic signs too, after all in case of any temporary situations (accident on road, repair work, etc. stuff causing temporary change in speed limits) a GPS only system would be dumb as shit.
They would be idiots for not having considered these things.
Plus, speeding tickets are a vital revenue source for a lot of towns. Go on and check how much your city brings in with ticket revenue each month. They'd probably have to increase property taxes if that revenue source dried up, and 'round these parts you have to ask the voters in order to increase property taxes. We won't even agree to it for schools and fire departments, much less to make up for shortfalls in traffic ticket revenues.
The system needs a fix really badly if town needs traffic violations to get money. I was astonished when I first bumped on this stuff mentioned here on slashdot earlier this year - but then it was either US or UK, those rarely surprise me that bad with stupid stuff there anyway...
When you find someone living on the street who can can and brew, lemme know.
Or have a yard - I guess that one was just a lame attempt at trolling.
I've lived on the street, and it's a pitiful, tough existence, especially in the winter. Also, FYI, foraging is quite distinct from dumpster diving, as well.
Seems to me scubamage has his head on straight.
Indeed - and am saying this as someone who does dumpster diving (shops throw away food before it goes old, no sense in letting that go to waste).
Reminds me, my MSN account is a result of my ooold Hotmail account - which was my first email account, registered when Hotmail was not part of MS and which I abandoned soon after MS had bought it (the interface got worse soon after) - and years later noticed that my credentials still worked on MSN network / messenger.
My other mailbox is gmail, yet I use the webmail interface only occasionally when I can't access my mail software (which I can also use via SSH+VNC when not home) remotely (once I used my old nokia J2ME phone's Opera Mini browser - didn't know that they have very nice trimmed down mobile version, even able to show PDF attachment within Opera Mini's limitations). Normally I use Thunderbird and while able to choose individual accounts Inbox I usually browse "global Inbox" folder to see mails on both accounts at once. Good thing gmail too supports IMAP.
My other mailbox has web interface too, but the provider really focuses to mainly document how to configure different email clients to access mail.
Never used conditional comments, am a known IE basher yet I know it's possible to do just that, load one or another using conditional comments - I would use server side code still though, if for nothing else at least for cleaner HTML, as you say... and I would not worry about browsers faking to be IE - no browser is set to do so by default, so it's end users own issue anyway.
Obvious solution could be server side code to identify old IE versions, provide 1.9 for them and 2.0 for others - and not using any 2.0 specific features, only taking advantage of having faster jQuery lib than 1.9.
As someone who travels long distances, not being able to carry a spare battery sucks. If all of their laptops move to this, I'll be hackintoshing a Lenovo for my next laptop. My 2009 Macbook still has plenty of life in it.....and a removable battery....and a cheap to replace screen.
This - seems many people, who have no such need or haven't thought about it, totally ignore that with glued in battery you can't have a spare battery to swap in on the road.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sex between a man and a woman, and only after marriage, is the only moral way to have sex"
In other words, go fuck yourself and your idea of "morals".
While it kinda hits my nerve when people justify their arguments with their morals I'd say that it's some hell of a stretch to attack another persons morals because some people have twisted evil moral concepts so any morals are inherently and utterly evil, also making the argument 100% evil.
Replace the word "moral" with "ethical" (I myself prefer to try and improve my ethics than even have a set of moral values in my head - but while different, ethics and morals have certain similarities that make the words somewhat exchangeable here) and think for a while, how would you have responded in that case? ;)
Personally I've never heard anyone argue against gay marriage by stating that it's not ethical, so I guess at least that particular example is unusable for making argument that all ethics are evil (which they, by very definition, try not being)
I guess morals are more a set of dogmas one learns and then very reluctantly even questions them - useful for creating a religion-like illusion of living rightfully - it doesn't make morals necessarily evil, but way more often than hearing people justify something with morals that I agree with I hear morals used to justify something that I have hard time imagining anyone trying to argue being ethical... As ethics are more about finding out what seems rightful by thinking by yourself, justifying them with arguments that you consider to be able to stand on their own rather than dogmas inherited from fathers and their ancestors without ever questioning them unless it just turns to be really hard to blindly believe them even against what you're eyes can see...
You see, I don't value moral codes very highly, but I'd still like to question your attack against this persons morals - I don't know if he can justify his morals with arguments I can accept or not (regardless of what I think about them), but I'm having hard time imagining you can justify the logic you used to attack his morals. Consider how badly I described moral "values" above and that despite of it I still felt that you're attack was unworthy, undeserved, not justified and generally just bad behavior with no value as argument against grandparent - so, while I don't know you and can't judge your person from just one case, it did not exactly paint a pretty picture of you... I dunno, regardless of this you might just as well be a very decent person - virtually everyone behaves really badly at least sometimes - so I wan't to be very clear that I'm not attacking your person here.
Once they have no choice, yes - which is rarely the case, thank god. The further you take your DRM crippling the more likely it is they choose another solution, or switch when such is released, possibly even if it's technically not as advanced, if it's just DRM free or even less crippled than before.
To kill pirating your app has to at least depend on authenticity checks even if you want to seriously try imagining it could work.
And what do customers think of such issues as software not being able to run without internet connection, etc. that are not just nuisances - and especially the fact that if you go bankrupt, decide to end supporting your software, or such, it will turn that program into unusable garbage (possibly leaving your data in format no other programs can't read). No, big customers do not like that, for them it's top priority, even higher than ongoing development, that the software is guaranteed to work as long as they might need it to.
Go ahead and kill your software with extensive DRM, you have the right - though I think you shouldn't, it's against customers rights - to do what you want. I won't use it anyway - I'd guess your odds at succeeding are not that great... and if you do manage to do something where customers have no choice but yours, well, eventually there will be a competing product - and quite likely all your DRM crap won't prevent your software from getting cracked, but it may cause people who wouldn't normally pirate to do it because your DRM crap causes too much hassle, while the cracked one won't (and while some of them may pay you anyway, guaranteed some will consider that such products should receive no support, even if used).
But feel free to believe otherwise - I guess you and I feel the same about each others opinions ;)
No, but at some point, your hobby might turn into something that can make you money, and it's nice to be able to make the switch.
Sure, but I would still want to fiddle with stuff interesting to me just for the love of doing it, fully knowing that some things could never be useful in making money, so I would not switch but rather combine.
And while one should not stop dreaming or reaching for dreams lightly, it's far more likely to end up programming in a job that, while something I could enjoy doing, would not let me implement whatever I want freely and on my own, if I so choose - thus it would not be the same as my coding hobby for fun so no switching. One doesn't have to abandon his hobby just because he gets job on same field - if one has still energy and interest in it then there's no reason to quit the just for fun part.
Linux: Linus Torvalds wrote Linux in his spare time because he wanted to prove his professor wrong.
I could go on and on...
I know this is not important for getting your point, but for the sake of factual knowledge I'd like to question this statement and I claim that it's not correct (read further).
And for my love and interest to learn things I hadn't known I'd like to ask if you can give reference to this information and/or if you could tell who was this professor, and what was it that Linux supposedly wanted to prove wrong?
I have this book from 2000 about history of Linux, "Linuxin historia" (translates to "History of Linux", no idea if there exists an English translation), and on the chapter about birth of Linux I found no mention of Linus wanting to prove his professor wrong - I'm not saying that is wrong, possibly just not mentioned in this book.
But it does briefly mention University courses about C-programming and Unix development environment by special researches Auvo Häkkinen and "computer and operating systems" course by professor Kimmo Raatikainen, as well as Marice J. Bachs book "The Design of the Unix Operating System" and most importantly another by Andrew S. Tanenbaum, "Operating Systems, Design and Implementation", which was probably the most important thing in University that affected the birth of Linux.
But wethever there was something Linux wanted to prove his professor was wrong about, it's clearly not among the main reasons Linus wrote Linux.
It's quite clear from the book, as well as from many other sources, that the primary reason, The One Reason that was above even other important ones and is, even alone, a reason why Linux did and would have regardless of other reasons start writing Linux: ;)
He knew he simply could not live with MS DOS and Windows operating systems, having seen them thoroughly he wanted an OS he could trust. OS's that could fulfill his demands were not available - Unix having been way too heavy for his personal PC and way too expensive (between 5000-10000 dollars, or 30000-60000 finish marks back then).
He got his hand on Minix, found it usable for lack of better but lacking on some parts (like ineffective scheduling). He used Minix as base and took a bunch of ideas from it, but as he had not found system up to his demands, only a system he wanted to take fundamental design ideas as base (Unix in general, not Minix specifically).
He has later also said that if BSD386 had been done before he started with Linux he probably wouldn't ever had started it. So he started it simply to create an OS for his needs as there was none available - btw, he had done similar thing, but on a LOT smaller scale, long ago: he was not satisfied with the built-in system his Quantum Leap booted in so he rewrote it from scratch
His own words (my translation from Finish): "I wanted an OS that I could rely on and that would do exactly what I want it to do. That's after all how computers should work. Microsoft's MS-DOS did not fill this criteria and neither did Microsoft Windows, and even still they don't. Other systems have way too much bugs. It's frustrating to sit in front of computer, hoping that the system doesn't suddenly crash."
Interesting tidbit: Linux kernel actually begun from 32-bit terminal emulator Linus started to create. His purpose was to make the emulator independent from OS, an application you would start like you boot into OS. In couple months the work ended up evolving into Unix-like OS kernel.
I don't think I know anyone who programs for fun, and I've worked in the software industry for over a decade. It's a job you do to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. I'm grateful I chose to learn the skill, so I can be in an air-conditioned office all day and don't have to wait tables or nail roofs on houses to feed my family. But for fun??
Exactly. For fun.
Having hard time understanding that? Well, I'm having hard time understanding how anyone can study something like programming when they clearly have no passion or interest in it, except for the money you can earn for it. But then, I have bad ADHD and I have never been successful studying things that don't intrigue my mind anywhere much further from basics. But I don't have problem understanding that people do that - though I never could - whet ever it's programming or any other skills, people do learn stuff they have no interest whatsoever to just get a job that they get paid for.
For me, if I had to choose between working as programmer but losing possibility to do any coding on my own just for fun (let's just imagine someone cursed me) and being able to do coding as a hobby but remain unemployed or at shitty minimum wage job - well, I know I wouldn't even consider giving up coding for fun.
It may be hard for you to understand, but I don't believe you actually have any idea what most people you have known or worked with at some level in the software industry think about coding for fun. How many have you asked or heard speaking about it?
Because you are a boring programmer (I don't mean that you are boring in general) a hacker is much less interested in trying to talk to you about coding as hobby - I know I rarely talked of it with people I thought had no real interest in coding for it's own sake because, well, what's the point?
But why do people still code applications for C-64 to make multitasking OS, server & client applications (like VNC and audio streaming server playing music from datasette drive)? Hint: It's not because they are unemployed - that would not explain why they program obsolete stuff for obsolete hardware to achieve more and more that a decade ago nobody would have believed to be possible. It will not help them much on programming skills most important in the field today.
Think about it, really - if you think that people just lye for fun when they say they code for fun, well that's way more ridiculous than how ridiculous you think the idea of loving programming is. And if you really think about it, there is a huge load of applications, scripts and articles which can be explained only by their authors having fun doing them.
Sure there may be a percentage of people out there who find programming fun, and a smaller percentage who come home after a long day of programming to........ continue programming, but for fun. But I'd expect that percentage to be as miniscule as the percentage of workers who pour cement all day then come home to pour their own driveway for fun.
I think it's quite high actually, especially among the really innovative top level professionals - hacking and programming takes a certain mindset. Those who love it often have more or less ideal mind for learning programming - those who, if given possibility, might learn C programming at age of ten better in a month than most ever learn in college (or whatever the level of finish school system I'm thinking of is closest in english). Reminds me, ADD/ADHD is more common among professional programmers than all people in general, and as far as I have experience especially so among hackers who love to code - and as I have ADHD myself, I think it's beneficial to programming (there are positive aspects in ADHD, most people with it I have known would not want to be totally "cured" nor consider it to be "flaw") and I probably would have
Does anyone code for fun after they leave moms basement ? Everyone has to make money and those who claim to program for fun are really just hoping to be 'discovered' and brought into the industry.
Yes, Mr. Anyone does - and well, so do I.
And, sure, say what you want but I have never even considered stopping it as a hobby because I also work as programmer. You see, what "doing something for fun" means is that the person likes doing that something - I could think of numerous examples, outside programming, of people doing something as hobby even though they do it as paid job also. :)
And true hacker minded coders don't just love their hobby, but would also shudder for the thought that all their programming should be limited by what they need to do at work - limiting and/or killing their possibilities to freely express their own ideas, inventions, whims and such. Of course only condescending and ignorant people like you actually say such things - and really, no hacker who loves coding will take that seriously
Just about any modern browser has this too - some have master password you need to use, some don't (very bad) - and perhaps with some you can get them behind master passwd via plugin.
I'm sure that McD's lobbied--and probably in some cases with success--to limit the number of fast food restaurants in a given radius in order to prevent this, in a way trying to protect their investment in research. That's what Apple is doing. If you don't like it, don't bitch and moan in slashdot; get a law degree and fight the law. Or write your congresscritter. Or become an expert witness and hire yourself out to the EFF.
But comments here do nothing to change the status quo.
So, why are you taking part in discussing here anyway?
But isn't it actually the way they boil lobsters? So why the frog claim anyway, why did someone start talking about frogs, instead of lobsters or whatever, in the first place?
I'm not making excuses, that was my first comment on this thread - and I wanted to just say that all this is funny =)
I listen punk rock bands who constantly sing about killing certain politicians, like Finnish band "Shitter Limited" - they are funny too.
At least in my country, Finland, you can take any batteries to closest shop and drop them into used battery bin - but in USA if government pushed laws to achieve same it would probably seen as human rights violation (companies are people there). ;p
Well, at least in our world anyone who cares even a little can recycle batteries just by taking them to shop when going to by groceries - it's awful, is it not?
Well, I basically don't want anything from Sony-BMG...
Their only dirt is not rootkit, nor that and OtherOS scam (an advertised feature) - they have lot's of crap in past and they have lost my trust. Also, statements like "copying a song from your (legally bought) CD to your MP3 player is theft", etc. have made me despise Sony. To hell with them, as far as I'm considered.
Their MP3 players support MP3 natively? Big whoop - they have a product that (nowdays) does what it should.
Seems that they are smarter than the rest of people then.
Finally lets not forget that there is just simply more opportunity for fatal error with an automatically driven car. There is going to be software glitches causing cars to veer off a cliff. Sensors are going to fail causing the computer to make the wrong calculations for position. I mean what happens if a passing car kicks up a splash of water or slush that suddenly blocks a visual sensor, the car is going to think its about to hit another vehicle and slam on the brakes or veer away suddenly.
I can't believe how stupid the proponents of automatic car are, this is about the dumbest idea ever pushed forward. A few tests in very controlled situations and suddenly its ready for prime time?
Automated cars is a fiction best left in books and in movies.
The first company offering an automated car for general public use will be sued out of existence, period. I am sorry for the people that will have to die and families ruined before this happens.
I think your worries are fiction, if anything - good for bad sci-fi maybe... I would not under estimate engineers abilities to design systems to take into account much worse situations you are talking about - ie. it might recognize water splash coming, then combine that fact with one video sensor giving data different from other video, sonar, etc. sensors after just having recognized splash - even without recognizing the splash, it's obvious that it won't act on one sensor showing emergency situation when all others are consistent with each others - obviously any good engineer and programmer would design it to ignore that one sensor (and inform user of one sensor needing fix/clearing) for as long as needed.
Not pro at all on this subject, but your example doesn't seem like even close to accidents.
And when the system is tested it will be firs tested in very limited situations, but before it will become widely accepted in common use it will have to had gone a lot more vigorous testing - and even then it will spread slowly (where, who and how can they be used) when more IRL end-user experience and official trials are conducted.
Trust me, when they come commodity they will have been tested quite thoroughly. Accidents will keep happening, I suppose mostly with mixed tech (manual/auto) accidents, but eventually way less than with humans - that was prediction of mine, not what I claim as fact.
I wonder how long people have been predicting that. Even with GPS, it's a lot harder to implement than you might think. I've had GPS errors of several miles on a number of occasions. First time that happens and someone gets creamed because they were on the Interstate and their car thought the speed limit was 25 in a school zone, the lawsuit would be epic.
I would think that with all sensors used in auto-matics google would be incredibly stupid to not implement system to recognize speed limit signs - and other traffic signs too, after all in case of any temporary situations (accident on road, repair work, etc. stuff causing temporary change in speed limits) a GPS only system would be dumb as shit.
They would be idiots for not having considered these things.
Plus, speeding tickets are a vital revenue source for a lot of towns. Go on and check how much your city brings in with ticket revenue each month. They'd probably have to increase property taxes if that revenue source dried up, and 'round these parts you have to ask the voters in order to increase property taxes. We won't even agree to it for schools and fire departments, much less to make up for shortfalls in traffic ticket revenues.
The system needs a fix really badly if town needs traffic violations to get money. I was astonished when I first bumped on this stuff mentioned here on slashdot earlier this year - but then it was either US or UK, those rarely surprise me that bad with stupid stuff there anyway...
And I'm quite prepared to look stupid doing it.
I think it's great what you do :)
Probably - I've never met a Coke "boycotter" who did not know of Chiquita evil. And as an activist I have known a whole lot (inc. myself).
Reading comprehension, much?
When you find someone living on the street who can can and brew, lemme know.
Or have a yard - I guess that one was just a lame attempt at trolling.
I've lived on the street, and it's a pitiful, tough existence, especially in the winter. Also, FYI, foraging is quite distinct from dumpster diving, as well.
Seems to me scubamage has his head on straight.
Indeed - and am saying this as someone who does dumpster diving (shops throw away food before it goes old, no sense in letting that go to waste).
Reminds me, my MSN account is a result of my ooold Hotmail account - which was my first email account, registered when Hotmail was not part of MS and which I abandoned soon after MS had bought it (the interface got worse soon after) - and years later noticed that my credentials still worked on MSN network / messenger.
My other mailbox is gmail, yet I use the webmail interface only occasionally when I can't access my mail software (which I can also use via SSH+VNC when not home) remotely (once I used my old nokia J2ME phone's Opera Mini browser - didn't know that they have very nice trimmed down mobile version, even able to show PDF attachment within Opera Mini's limitations). Normally I use Thunderbird and while able to choose individual accounts Inbox I usually browse "global Inbox" folder to see mails on both accounts at once. Good thing gmail too supports IMAP.
My other mailbox has web interface too, but the provider really focuses to mainly document how to configure different email clients to access mail.
Never used conditional comments, am a known IE basher yet I know it's possible to do just that, load one or another using conditional comments - I would use server side code still though, if for nothing else at least for cleaner HTML, as you say... and I would not worry about browsers faking to be IE - no browser is set to do so by default, so it's end users own issue anyway.
Are you a turd?
Obvious solution could be server side code to identify old IE versions, provide 1.9 for them and 2.0 for others - and not using any 2.0 specific features, only taking advantage of having faster jQuery lib than 1.9.
ME-MO-RY, not storage space. You know, RAM - storage space is never (practically never anyway) referred as "memory", RAM is always.
As someone who travels long distances, not being able to carry a spare battery sucks. If all of their laptops move to this, I'll be hackintoshing a Lenovo for my next laptop. My 2009 Macbook still has plenty of life in it.....and a removable battery....and a cheap to replace screen.
This - seems many people, who have no such need or haven't thought about it, totally ignore that with glued in battery you can't have a spare battery to swap in on the road.