I know that's what it's saying. That's why I said, "It's about the way things currently work, and how that means researchers really don't want to go pissing off either the people giving them money or the people who currently print their results." Right now, there isn't a mainstream open alternative- MIT's move is an attempt to change that, and I hope it works. All I'm saying is exactly what the article is saying- in the present circumstances, researchers need to be careful about choosing sides.
Sorry if I somehow misunderstood what you're saying, but my argument still applies. If you need to publish in a particular well-established journal in order to keep your funding, the new rules still allow you to do so, you just need to get approval for it first (which is why you shouldn't be surprised the vote was unanimous). That takes care of not pissing off the people giving them money. Now what exactly is pissing off the people who currently print their results going to do? You think they're not going to take papers from MIT in retaliation? Because that would work brilliantly...
There's no downside to choosing sides now. Use the closed journals when you absolutely have to, but make a strong effort not to. Eventually nobody will ever have to use the closed journals anymore. If you have an university of MIT's reputation in support of open journals, it goes a long way into making the change happen faster.
After all, faculty are completely reliant on both parties involved: the funding agencies pay for their work, and publishers ensure that it finds an audience. Obviously, this puts the faculty in no position to negotiate.
You misunderstood what that sentence is saying. Without an open alternative the publishers of the closed journals are the only way to get an audience for your work. That's why they held all the keys and were able to dictate terms for so long. That's also why, now that the internet offers a new medium where open journals can thrive, it's desirable to move away from those publishers.
The authors are certainly not happy with that situation. They don't get to keep the rights for their papers, and they don't an audience as large as the one they could be getting with open journals.
the article itself says that faculty are caught in the middle between the need for funding and the need for exposure
The article says nothing of the sort. It says the line is being drawn between publishers and funding groups. Funding groups want open access precisely because it brings the papers more exposure, without the barrier of a paid journal subscription.
The publishers are the only ones on the other side. Basically, their business model made sense before the internet, because the most efficient way to read papers was to have a subscription to a journal and read the physical copy. Today, the most efficient method is to just download the thing, and distribution costs are minimum. Peer review can still go on, since most editors for closed journals are volunteer professors (I remember my advisor offloading papers for me to review. He would still look over everything, but it saved him time, and got me experience).
Also, unlike **AA members, authors of scientific papers don't get paid for each individual copy people buy, so all they really want is for their paper to be read by a large number of people, which increases their chances of being cited, of their work getting exposure, and of getting increased funding.
Really...the only people who want closed journals are the owners of the closed journals.
It's certainly a good image, but not the best. This image of Ralf's, for instance, is noticeably more clear. He has many more amazing images though on his site here.
Holy shit. There's a picture of his on that site which actually managed to capture an astronaut on a spacewalk. Talk about impressive.
Thanks for the link, there's a whole lot of very interesting shots there.
Mostly I think it is because a lot of the things you have to fiddle with on Linux, which are not directly related to development, "just work" on OS X boxes.
Like what? What's not "just working" with modern distros these days?
???!!!???
Umm, what does XCode have to do with Linux software development?
Umm, you use Visual Studio to develop software for Linux? Is that even possible? What do you use Mono or something? I don't think Linux software development is what you think it is.
Heh...you shouldn't throw stones from that glass house. The most common language in Linux development is C. Turns out C is also the most cross platform language around, and you most certainly can, and I have often done so, write C programs in both XCode and Visual Studio.
I haven't done much mono programming, not because I have anything against mono, but because if I'm writing something that runs on linux I'll write in C, or C++, if I want something cross platform, I'll write in C, C++, with appropriate cross-platform libraries or java, because these are all well supported. Mono would be fine, but if I choose to use C# for something, I also want to use the very latest features, like WPF. I can't use those with mono yet, although I should take a look at the progress of Olive. Why, do you have something against mono?
I thought we were talking about Linux development, which as we all know is usually either server development or appliance development.
I don't care what it is that you're writing, just what you're using. If you're hooking in to the kernel, or into any software that can only run on linux, then you need to develop in linux anyway (or under a VM, but that's still "working in linux"). Otherwise, you can pretty much do it anywhere, with anything.
Umm, I know people who use Eclipse. I don't know any real Linux developers who use Code::Blocks. Isn't that just a crappy IDE for wannabe's who only know how to use Visual C++?
How is it even possible to "only know how to use Visual C++"? You write code. That means you can use a text editor, gcc, and gdb and not use an IDE at all. The only advantage of any IDE is giving you easier access to the tools and code, to make you more efficient with your time. That means a frontend to the compiler and debugger, which all of them have.
The problem with XCode is that it really clutters your entire desktop with windows everywhere, every time you try something else. Do you want a class browser? New window! Do you want to edit another file? New Window! Do you want a debug? New Window! I like to have an IDE where I can dock everything that I'm using to specific places, and I like to be able to have tabbed browsing for the code files. Both Eclipse and Code::Blocks fits the bill, but Eclipse is bloated as hell. It's incredibly large and very slow to load. In addition, Code::Blocks will open just about any project file, including visual studio and eclipse project files.
As for the features of Visual Studio that make me like it a lot, I was referring to things like allowing you to edit the code you're debugging, without the need to recompile it to see the results. Nice stuff.
Mostly a worry free desktop that gets out of the way and lets people run mainstream, cross platform software for office tasks
Cross platform software for office tasks? Like what? Open Office? Because you have that in Linux too, you know.
has some great OS X specific software for development and project management and collaboration
Like what? You don't like XCode either, apparently. You say people use Eclipse. Again, Eclipse runs everywhere, including Linux and Windows.
and has all the nice dev tools and command line options of Linux, without nasty hacks like Cygwin.
I started working there, three or four people were running OS X. A few years later when I left the vast majority of the engineers were using it...These were not casual users or casual developers.
I don't get it. I own a macbook pro, and I do spend most of my time on MacOS X, but that's mostly because my laptop manages to stay quite cool when in OS X, and it gets ridiculously hot in Ubuntu. However, as a development machine, MacOS doesn't offer any advantages, so I don't see why Linux developers would use it.
XCode is the worst IDE I've ever used. So the next choices are Eclipse and Code::Blocks (I'm really partial to Code::Blocks), but both of those are also available in Linux. If you're coding in your text editor and managing your build system by hand, again, you can do all of that in Linux. In fact, if I were going to choose an operating system for development work, I'd actually go with Windows, because the latest Visual Studio releases have been really great. Say what you will about microsoft, but they actually take the whole, "Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers!" thing to heart.
So, what is it about MacOS X that developers are raving about and I've been missing out on?
Another recent publishing success, however, has had more help from Washington, DC, than Hollywood. That book is Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".
Yeah well, it's still due to the media, even if it's not Hollywood. Atlas Shrugged's recent success isn't due to the economic situation, it's due to conservative pundits mentioning it every time they're on TV when criticizing Obama's "socialist" policies.
I, for one, am satisfied with a much different form of free will:
"the choice an experimenter makes cannot be predicted in advanced by anyone (including the experimenter him/herself)"
<Pedant>If I give you a scenario, you can tell me which choice you would make under that scenario. If you happen to experience the scenario in the future, you will have effectively predicted your choice in advance. The experimenter is always able to predict his own choices, unless of course the scenario changes (your emotional state is not what you expected to be under when the situation was described to you, you have acquired new experiences (data) in the interim, etc.)</Pedant>
Anyway, your definition is what most people called "the illusion of free will." Everyone agrees we have at least that much. Whether or not we have "true" free will as described in the article is the question we do not have the answer to.
Whether it makes any difference in our lives which type of free will we actually have is highly debatable. It probably only matters in religious connotations: if you have true free will, and choose to sin, you are justified in being punished. If everything you did was deterministic, and it just felt like your choice because your actions were impossible to model, you're not actually responsible for your actions in a cosmic sense and your salvation is pre-determined since before you were born.
So yeah, if you're not a very religious person (I am not), you can be perfectly satisfied with the illusion of free will.
The link I was responding to said that mcdonalds "consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees." McDonalds is supposed to "keep its coffee" at the holding temperature, not the serving temperature. When you get the coffee, if it's a bit too hot, you wait for it to cool down a bit.
Because having someone who absolutely hates the Cylons find out he is exactly what he hates the most isn't interesting? That was the best thing to happen for the show. Not only it forced him to see the Cylons in a different light (he understands that they didn't get to choose who they are), but it was a good way of having everyone around them start questioning whether or not the "toasters" are inherently evil, or whether they can be negotiated with.
In her defense, she was calling 9-11 because she was robbed, not because they ran out of nuggets. They usually don't show the whole clip, because then it's not as "funny".
She went to a store, paid for something, then after her money was taken, they refused to provide what she paid for. She asked for her money back and they refused to refund her money. Whether she was robbed of $3 or $3,000,000 is qualitatively irrelevant.
Yeah, I completely agree that she needed to call the police under that situation. I'm not sure if 911 is the right number to call (you need to call the police, but it's not an emergency). I remember having a similar thought when my car was broken in to. I had been robbed, but it's not like my life or anyone else's was in danger, the thief was long gone. So I called information and asked for the number of the local police station instead of helping to tie up the emergency lines.
I'm not sure what the correct procedure is, for all I know calling 911 would have been fine. I do agree that if you pay for something, you don't get what you paid for, and they refuse to give the money back, the police needs to be involved.
Ok, that's a different story, and it's not the same thing. As any coffee drinker would know, coffee is actually supposed to be that hot. I typed ""coffee serving temperature" -mcdonalds" on google (to avoid bias from people specifically trying to argue for or against mcdonalds), and the very first link will tell you that the ideal holding temperature for coffee is 175-185 degrees. Feel free to search anywhere else, you're going to find the same answer for non-espresso coffee.
Your link claims that McDonalds was holding coffee at 185 degrees, which is 20 degrees hotter than most other restaurants, but this doesn't mean McDonalds was keeping the coffee too hot. It means the other restaurants were keeping coffee about 10 degrees colder than is acceptable.
I'm an avid coffee drinker, been drinking the stuff since I was about seven actually (my family's cultural background doesn't have the stigma with children and coffee), and one thing I know is that coffee is supposed to seriously burn you if you let it spill over on your body and can't get it out of your skin immediately. So it annoys me when people say the mcdonalds coffee was too hot. It was at the high end of the acceptable temperature, but it was at the acceptable temperature. I'm not saying the woman was faking her injuries, I'm not saying the coffee didn't burn her...I'm saying that she should have known she was holding something that was dangerously hot (even back then they wrote that on the cup), and it was her responsibility to be careful with it.
No. What should humiliate you, is the fact, that there is no "machine" "winning". There is only a machine blindly and incredibly stupidly processing a giant set of rules, created by programmers, out of a giant amount of knowledge of many many persons.
Well, to be fair, there's no "you" losing. There's only a biological machine blindly and incredibly stupidly processing electrical and chemical inputs, based on a set of rules created through years of evolution, and out of the stored memory and neural network training that you have accomplished up to date.
Just because all of that has a high-order output display that looks like consciousness and thought is no more significant than the fact that the computer's display looks like a chess board. We're way more complex than the chess program, sure...it's probably not always going to stay that way.
Your tack is to just let the kid do and see anything (s)he wants...Would you really want your five year old to see the Texas Chainsaw Massacre?
No five year-old wants to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre. They ask to see things like Blue's Clues and the latest Pixar movie. If you plop your kid in front of a horror movie instead, you're a being a bad parent. When the kids want to see a violent movie and ask for it, that's the sign they're old enough, or at least close to ready (they might give up half way through and have nightmares, at which point they'll stop asking to see violent movies for a while longer).
our tack is to just let the kid do and see anything (s)he wants. Sorry, my generation tried that and look how yours turned out.
The same in some ways, better in all the others? We're wealthier, we're happier, we have better technology.
P.S.: Don't bring up the economy in an attempt to say we're not wealthier. This isn't our first economic depression, it won't be the last, and it was mostly caused by your generation...the people actually in charge of management in companies like AIG. Not that my generation won't make the same mistakes. We get wealthier, we improve our technology and quality of life, all of that makes us happier...but we all remain human with all the flaws that come with it.
It may go against conventional wisdom on Slashdot, but filters don't particularly hinder a child's efforts to learn about the world. If there is something that they want to see, they can ask you if it's ok and you can unblock it. That's the 21st century version of the way that parents used to do it. Part of being a parent is being a gatekeeper. Some information your kids just need to be largely innocent of until they become adults. It's one thing to know that the ugly side of the world exists. It's another thing to take few measures to stop your kids from participating in it out of curiosity.
I don't have kids, and I'm perfectly willing to admit that this makes me not qualified to give most types of parental advice. So, without telling you what I think is best and what I don't think is best, I will merely state from experience (of being raised by parents) that not all parents believe in your gatekeeper philosophy.
My parents believed that if I'm old enough to want to look for something, I'm old enough to be allowed to look for it. If I'm old enough to want to watch a violent movie, I'm old enough to watch it. If I'm old enough to look for porn online, they sure as hell weren't going to try to prevent me from finding it. They performed their gatekeeper role by attempting to filter what tries to come in from the outside world into my life, but let me have full control of the gate when I wanted to open it and seek something out. That doesn't mean it didn't come with advice that I probably shouldn't be involved in certain things, but they figured that letting me get hurt by ignoring their advice was the best way of making me learn that I should seriously consider following it the next time.
Not saying it works for every child, not telling anyone that's the way they should raise their children. Worked for me, I'm doing fairly well today, and I'll try to use the same principle when I have my own kids...however, I was an only child so I have literally one data point here.
If he wants a filter that is more difficult to bypass by the child, Privoxy is pretty handy.
Well, he specifically said he doesn't. He said he "believes in letting kids discover the world as it is" and that it's not fair for porn advertisers to display sex "without her permission," he didn't say his. I think that means he wants her to be able to bypass it if she wants to, but doesn't want her to be exposed to things she's not specifically looking for.
Pretty reasonable stance, and I think adblock is the way to go.
I don't think that robots are going to change the hours we work; it's not as though trucks meant drivers drive less hours per week than cart drivers, nor do office workers get siestas now that computers make them mor productive.
The grandparent wasn't referring to robotics that merely assist in a job. He was referring to the ones that take over jobs. During world war II people were hired as human calculators. Nobody does that job anymore. Look at the auto industry, and actual robots have replaced many of the jobs that existed earlier. In your truck driver example, do you think there will still be truck drivers once cars can drive themselves?
Now, for every profession that has been eliminated by computers, new ones have popped up. People were needed to design and build the machines taking over those jobs and entire new industries were opened up: there was no need for web developers back in the day, for example. However, you can't expect this trend to continue. Eventually machines will be able to perform every single job out there, except for the arts and extremely complicated theoretical research (assuming they never achieve hard AI / consciousness). Does that mean every single human will have to find a job on the level of theoretical physicist or become an artist in order to survive? Clearly the demand for art isn't that high (you can look at the competition for becoming an actor or writer in hollywood. What are the chances that your band will get signed? That you'll sell enough of your paintings to make a living off of it), and clearly not everyone is smart enough to take on the jobs of research professors. So you end up with billions of people who can't subsist because for every single job they are qualified for there's a machine that can do it better.
Eventually we will be forced out of the work economy. I honestly don't think it's going to be 30 years from now and perhaps even 300 years from now is pushing it, but we're going to get there.
So send an e-mail to each person you plan to send text messages to and get the reply later. Or talk to them online and ask. Or call them up from a landline and ask. Or ask them the next time you see them. If you want to be able to send a text to people you just got their phone number from, use Apple's default app: you can't get an iPhone plan that doesn't include hundreds of sms's per month anyway. It's really fascinating that people were paying money for that app, considering I just checked and there are multiple free apps on the store that do the same thing using the email gateway method, except that first they ask you to choose the provider.
Hell, I dont't know why you'd need an app if you know about this. Why not just add the e-mail addresses to your iphone's address list? This way you can just open up mail and select the person, almost exactly the same as using the iphone's default sms app.
Question: If the plan to bailout/assist people with upside-down mortgages goes through, it will cost about $1000 per taxpaying home. Why should I spend $1000 to pay somebody else's mortgage? And would this be considered corporatism, socialism, or communism?
IMHO whatever it's called, it's a human rights violation.
Taking my money to pay somebody else's housing bill is theft of labor. It's no different than if my neighbor bought a Lexus, and then demanded everyone in the area throw-in money to pay the bill. Nobody has a right to demand I help buy them a car. Or pay their mortgage.
I think it's fine for you to believe that (and I would even agree with you), as long as you're consistent an also against my money and yours being used to bail out the lenders. Why should I spend money because they made bad business decisions? Let them go bankrupt.
When organisations like this start going after the small stuff, I think they undermine the very importance of what they're fighting for and just end up preaching to the choir.
Small stuff? For how long has headphone plugs been standardized? Doing anything to revert this status in an attempt to have only "apple authorized" headphones work is as big as things like these get.
Some years ago it also meant that a jury composed of racist white people could convict a non-white person of a crime without any solid evidence to that conclusion, and based entirely on irrational preconceptions about behaviour being associated with the levels of melanine in one's skin...
You know, a lot of people use that example to argue not only that juries are bad, but that jury nullification is a bad concept (since a jury composed of racist white people also were known to acquit KKK members).
I always want to point out that the problem there isn't the concept of a jury, or the concept of jury nullification. The problem is that you're not actually getting a representative jury of your peers. You're getting selection bias. Why the hell would you have all 12 of them be of the same race? Or all twelve be of the same profession? In order for the jury to work, you need a proper random sample of the community.
Those that just out and out steal (yes it is appropriate, because it means taking something without paying
In copyright infringement nothing is "taken," something is "copied." If you're trying to sell a painting, and I sit down next to it and paint an exact copy and walk away, I have done something that is illegal, but I have not stolen your painting. The same concept applies if I copy your painting through easy technological means, such as taking a very high resolution picture of it.
A requirement for theft is that the victim no longer has the product. And no, you can't argue that I've "stolen the money from the sale" because that's not money you had which you no longer have. When I copy your painting in the example above, I may decide not to buy your painting, but I'm not being charged with theft of your sale, you'd sue me for copyright infringement.
I'm not going to get into the ethics of pirating, because there are obvious philosophical differences at hand and it comes down to your beliefs. However, there's no gray area on the theft thing, no room for discussion. Many things are wrong and many things are illegal, and most of things are not theft. You don't call fraud theft, you can't call copyright infringement theft either.
Fact: When someone says "I don't want to hear about [a gay person's] sexual orientation" what they are really saying is "Stop breaking my comfortable assumption that everyone is straight".
Well, that's obviously true. However, what I could never understand is exactly what do people find so damn "uncomfortable" about not everyone being straight.
As a straight male, my reaction when some woman tells me that she's a lesbian is, "that's kinda hot." My reaction when a man tells me he's gay is, "sweet, less competition!"
I might wish some of the lesbians were straight (or better yet, bi), but really wouldn't want the gay guys to "convert." Women are always complimenting those guys on their fashion sense and sensibility. I'm already at a disadvantage for being the type of guy who hangs at slashdot...I'd never get laid if I had to compete with those guys!
If they think they can sell something for more money, well they're _supposed_ to ask for more money.
That's not exactly true. If they think they can make more money, they should try doing that. However, sometimes you can make more money by actually lowering the price and selling a higher volume. That's especially true of digital content, where having "more volume" to sell comes almost for free.
The trick is finding out where the point is that will maximize the profit. I would think at this point they could benefit more by asking for less money. Especially in a multiplayer game like this. The more songs my friend buys, the more songs he will be pressuring me to buy so that I can play it online with him.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that's what it's saying. That's why I said, "It's about the way things currently work, and how that means researchers really don't want to go pissing off either the people giving them money or the people who currently print their results." Right now, there isn't a mainstream open alternative- MIT's move is an attempt to change that, and I hope it works. All I'm saying is exactly what the article is saying- in the present circumstances, researchers need to be careful about choosing sides.
Sorry if I somehow misunderstood what you're saying, but my argument still applies. If you need to publish in a particular well-established journal in order to keep your funding, the new rules still allow you to do so, you just need to get approval for it first (which is why you shouldn't be surprised the vote was unanimous). That takes care of not pissing off the people giving them money. Now what exactly is pissing off the people who currently print their results going to do? You think they're not going to take papers from MIT in retaliation? Because that would work brilliantly...
There's no downside to choosing sides now. Use the closed journals when you absolutely have to, but make a strong effort not to. Eventually nobody will ever have to use the closed journals anymore. If you have an university of MIT's reputation in support of open journals, it goes a long way into making the change happen faster.
The article says something exactly of the sort:
After all, faculty are completely reliant on both parties involved: the funding agencies pay for their work, and publishers ensure that it finds an audience. Obviously, this puts the faculty in no position to negotiate.
You misunderstood what that sentence is saying. Without an open alternative the publishers of the closed journals are the only way to get an audience for your work. That's why they held all the keys and were able to dictate terms for so long. That's also why, now that the internet offers a new medium where open journals can thrive, it's desirable to move away from those publishers.
The authors are certainly not happy with that situation. They don't get to keep the rights for their papers, and they don't an audience as large as the one they could be getting with open journals.
the article itself says that faculty are caught in the middle between the need for funding and the need for exposure
The article says nothing of the sort. It says the line is being drawn between publishers and funding groups. Funding groups want open access precisely because it brings the papers more exposure, without the barrier of a paid journal subscription.
The publishers are the only ones on the other side. Basically, their business model made sense before the internet, because the most efficient way to read papers was to have a subscription to a journal and read the physical copy. Today, the most efficient method is to just download the thing, and distribution costs are minimum. Peer review can still go on, since most editors for closed journals are volunteer professors (I remember my advisor offloading papers for me to review. He would still look over everything, but it saved him time, and got me experience).
Also, unlike **AA members, authors of scientific papers don't get paid for each individual copy people buy, so all they really want is for their paper to be read by a large number of people, which increases their chances of being cited, of their work getting exposure, and of getting increased funding.
Really...the only people who want closed journals are the owners of the closed journals.
It's certainly a good image, but not the best. This image of Ralf's, for instance, is noticeably more clear. He has many more amazing images though on his site here.
Holy shit. There's a picture of his on that site which actually managed to capture an astronaut on a spacewalk. Talk about impressive.
Thanks for the link, there's a whole lot of very interesting shots there.
Mostly I think it is because a lot of the things you have to fiddle with on Linux, which are not directly related to development, "just work" on OS X boxes.
Like what? What's not "just working" with modern distros these days?
???!!!???
Umm, what does XCode have to do with Linux software development?
Umm, you use Visual Studio to develop software for Linux? Is that even possible? What do you use Mono or something? I don't think Linux software development is what you think it is.
Heh...you shouldn't throw stones from that glass house. The most common language in Linux development is C. Turns out C is also the most cross platform language around, and you most certainly can, and I have often done so, write C programs in both XCode and Visual Studio.
I haven't done much mono programming, not because I have anything against mono, but because if I'm writing something that runs on linux I'll write in C, or C++, if I want something cross platform, I'll write in C, C++, with appropriate cross-platform libraries or java, because these are all well supported. Mono would be fine, but if I choose to use C# for something, I also want to use the very latest features, like WPF. I can't use those with mono yet, although I should take a look at the progress of Olive. Why, do you have something against mono?
I thought we were talking about Linux development, which as we all know is usually either server development or appliance development.
I don't care what it is that you're writing, just what you're using. If you're hooking in to the kernel, or into any software that can only run on linux, then you need to develop in linux anyway (or under a VM, but that's still "working in linux"). Otherwise, you can pretty much do it anywhere, with anything.
Umm, I know people who use Eclipse. I don't know any real Linux developers who use Code::Blocks. Isn't that just a crappy IDE for wannabe's who only know how to use Visual C++?
How is it even possible to "only know how to use Visual C++"? You write code. That means you can use a text editor, gcc, and gdb and not use an IDE at all. The only advantage of any IDE is giving you easier access to the tools and code, to make you more efficient with your time. That means a frontend to the compiler and debugger, which all of them have.
The problem with XCode is that it really clutters your entire desktop with windows everywhere, every time you try something else. Do you want a class browser? New window! Do you want to edit another file? New Window! Do you want a debug? New Window! I like to have an IDE where I can dock everything that I'm using to specific places, and I like to be able to have tabbed browsing for the code files. Both Eclipse and Code::Blocks fits the bill, but Eclipse is bloated as hell. It's incredibly large and very slow to load. In addition, Code::Blocks will open just about any project file, including visual studio and eclipse project files.
As for the features of Visual Studio that make me like it a lot, I was referring to things like allowing you to edit the code you're debugging, without the need to recompile it to see the results. Nice stuff.
Mostly a worry free desktop that gets out of the way and lets people run mainstream, cross platform software for office tasks
Cross platform software for office tasks? Like what? Open Office? Because you have that in Linux too, you know.
has some great OS X specific software for development and project management and collaboration
Like what? You don't like XCode either, apparently. You say people use Eclipse. Again, Eclipse runs everywhere, including Linux and Windows.
and has all the nice dev tools and command line options of Linux, without nasty hacks like Cygwin.
Yes, but again, at mo
I started working there, three or four people were running OS X. A few years later when I left the vast majority of the engineers were using it...These were not casual users or casual developers.
I don't get it. I own a macbook pro, and I do spend most of my time on MacOS X, but that's mostly because my laptop manages to stay quite cool when in OS X, and it gets ridiculously hot in Ubuntu. However, as a development machine, MacOS doesn't offer any advantages, so I don't see why Linux developers would use it.
XCode is the worst IDE I've ever used. So the next choices are Eclipse and Code::Blocks (I'm really partial to Code::Blocks), but both of those are also available in Linux. If you're coding in your text editor and managing your build system by hand, again, you can do all of that in Linux. In fact, if I were going to choose an operating system for development work, I'd actually go with Windows, because the latest Visual Studio releases have been really great. Say what you will about microsoft, but they actually take the whole, "Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers!" thing to heart.
So, what is it about MacOS X that developers are raving about and I've been missing out on?
Another recent publishing success, however, has had more help from Washington, DC, than Hollywood. That book is Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".
Yeah well, it's still due to the media, even if it's not Hollywood. Atlas Shrugged's recent success isn't due to the economic situation, it's due to conservative pundits mentioning it every time they're on TV when criticizing Obama's "socialist" policies.
I, for one, am satisfied with a much different form of free will: "the choice an experimenter makes cannot be predicted in advanced by anyone (including the experimenter him/herself)"
<Pedant>If I give you a scenario, you can tell me which choice you would make under that scenario. If you happen to experience the scenario in the future, you will have effectively predicted your choice in advance. The experimenter is always able to predict his own choices, unless of course the scenario changes (your emotional state is not what you expected to be under when the situation was described to you, you have acquired new experiences (data) in the interim, etc.)</Pedant>
Anyway, your definition is what most people called "the illusion of free will." Everyone agrees we have at least that much. Whether or not we have "true" free will as described in the article is the question we do not have the answer to.
Whether it makes any difference in our lives which type of free will we actually have is highly debatable. It probably only matters in religious connotations: if you have true free will, and choose to sin, you are justified in being punished. If everything you did was deterministic, and it just felt like your choice because your actions were impossible to model, you're not actually responsible for your actions in a cosmic sense and your salvation is pre-determined since before you were born.
So yeah, if you're not a very religious person (I am not), you can be perfectly satisfied with the illusion of free will.
The link I was responding to said that mcdonalds "consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees." McDonalds is supposed to "keep its coffee" at the holding temperature, not the serving temperature. When you get the coffee, if it's a bit too hot, you wait for it to cool down a bit.
I'm still bitter about Col Tigh being a Cylon.
Curse you, Ronald Moore.
Because having someone who absolutely hates the Cylons find out he is exactly what he hates the most isn't interesting? That was the best thing to happen for the show. Not only it forced him to see the Cylons in a different light (he understands that they didn't get to choose who they are), but it was a good way of having everyone around them start questioning whether or not the "toasters" are inherently evil, or whether they can be negotiated with.
In her defense, she was calling 9-11 because she was robbed, not because they ran out of nuggets. They usually don't show the whole clip, because then it's not as "funny". She went to a store, paid for something, then after her money was taken, they refused to provide what she paid for. She asked for her money back and they refused to refund her money. Whether she was robbed of $3 or $3,000,000 is qualitatively irrelevant.
Yeah, I completely agree that she needed to call the police under that situation. I'm not sure if 911 is the right number to call (you need to call the police, but it's not an emergency). I remember having a similar thought when my car was broken in to. I had been robbed, but it's not like my life or anyone else's was in danger, the thief was long gone. So I called information and asked for the number of the local police station instead of helping to tie up the emergency lines.
I'm not sure what the correct procedure is, for all I know calling 911 would have been fine. I do agree that if you pay for something, you don't get what you paid for, and they refuse to give the money back, the police needs to be involved.
That's the same smear job that was done to the "coffee" incident: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
Ok, that's a different story, and it's not the same thing. As any coffee drinker would know, coffee is actually supposed to be that hot. I typed ""coffee serving temperature" -mcdonalds" on google (to avoid bias from people specifically trying to argue for or against mcdonalds), and the very first link will tell you that the ideal holding temperature for coffee is 175-185 degrees. Feel free to search anywhere else, you're going to find the same answer for non-espresso coffee.
Your link claims that McDonalds was holding coffee at 185 degrees, which is 20 degrees hotter than most other restaurants, but this doesn't mean McDonalds was keeping the coffee too hot. It means the other restaurants were keeping coffee about 10 degrees colder than is acceptable.
I'm an avid coffee drinker, been drinking the stuff since I was about seven actually (my family's cultural background doesn't have the stigma with children and coffee), and one thing I know is that coffee is supposed to seriously burn you if you let it spill over on your body and can't get it out of your skin immediately. So it annoys me when people say the mcdonalds coffee was too hot. It was at the high end of the acceptable temperature, but it was at the acceptable temperature. I'm not saying the woman was faking her injuries, I'm not saying the coffee didn't burn her...I'm saying that she should have known she was holding something that was dangerously hot (even back then they wrote that on the cup), and it was her responsibility to be careful with it.
No. What should humiliate you, is the fact, that there is no "machine" "winning". There is only a machine blindly and incredibly stupidly processing a giant set of rules, created by programmers, out of a giant amount of knowledge of many many persons.
Well, to be fair, there's no "you" losing. There's only a biological machine blindly and incredibly stupidly processing electrical and chemical inputs, based on a set of rules created through years of evolution, and out of the stored memory and neural network training that you have accomplished up to date.
Just because all of that has a high-order output display that looks like consciousness and thought is no more significant than the fact that the computer's display looks like a chess board. We're way more complex than the chess program, sure...it's probably not always going to stay that way.
Your tack is to just let the kid do and see anything (s)he wants...Would you really want your five year old to see the Texas Chainsaw Massacre?
No five year-old wants to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre. They ask to see things like Blue's Clues and the latest Pixar movie. If you plop your kid in front of a horror movie instead, you're a being a bad parent. When the kids want to see a violent movie and ask for it, that's the sign they're old enough, or at least close to ready (they might give up half way through and have nightmares, at which point they'll stop asking to see violent movies for a while longer).
our tack is to just let the kid do and see anything (s)he wants. Sorry, my generation tried that and look how yours turned out.
The same in some ways, better in all the others? We're wealthier, we're happier, we have better technology.
P.S.: Don't bring up the economy in an attempt to say we're not wealthier. This isn't our first economic depression, it won't be the last, and it was mostly caused by your generation...the people actually in charge of management in companies like AIG. Not that my generation won't make the same mistakes. We get wealthier, we improve our technology and quality of life, all of that makes us happier...but we all remain human with all the flaws that come with it.
It may go against conventional wisdom on Slashdot, but filters don't particularly hinder a child's efforts to learn about the world. If there is something that they want to see, they can ask you if it's ok and you can unblock it. That's the 21st century version of the way that parents used to do it. Part of being a parent is being a gatekeeper. Some information your kids just need to be largely innocent of until they become adults. It's one thing to know that the ugly side of the world exists. It's another thing to take few measures to stop your kids from participating in it out of curiosity.
I don't have kids, and I'm perfectly willing to admit that this makes me not qualified to give most types of parental advice. So, without telling you what I think is best and what I don't think is best, I will merely state from experience (of being raised by parents) that not all parents believe in your gatekeeper philosophy.
My parents believed that if I'm old enough to want to look for something, I'm old enough to be allowed to look for it. If I'm old enough to want to watch a violent movie, I'm old enough to watch it. If I'm old enough to look for porn online, they sure as hell weren't going to try to prevent me from finding it. They performed their gatekeeper role by attempting to filter what tries to come in from the outside world into my life, but let me have full control of the gate when I wanted to open it and seek something out. That doesn't mean it didn't come with advice that I probably shouldn't be involved in certain things, but they figured that letting me get hurt by ignoring their advice was the best way of making me learn that I should seriously consider following it the next time.
Not saying it works for every child, not telling anyone that's the way they should raise their children. Worked for me, I'm doing fairly well today, and I'll try to use the same principle when I have my own kids...however, I was an only child so I have literally one data point here.
If he wants a filter that is more difficult to bypass by the child, Privoxy is pretty handy.
Well, he specifically said he doesn't. He said he "believes in letting kids discover the world as it is" and that it's not fair for porn advertisers to display sex "without her permission," he didn't say his. I think that means he wants her to be able to bypass it if she wants to, but doesn't want her to be exposed to things she's not specifically looking for.
Pretty reasonable stance, and I think adblock is the way to go.
I don't think that robots are going to change the hours we work; it's not as though trucks meant drivers drive less hours per week than cart drivers, nor do office workers get siestas now that computers make them mor productive.
The grandparent wasn't referring to robotics that merely assist in a job. He was referring to the ones that take over jobs. During world war II people were hired as human calculators. Nobody does that job anymore. Look at the auto industry, and actual robots have replaced many of the jobs that existed earlier. In your truck driver example, do you think there will still be truck drivers once cars can drive themselves?
Now, for every profession that has been eliminated by computers, new ones have popped up. People were needed to design and build the machines taking over those jobs and entire new industries were opened up: there was no need for web developers back in the day, for example. However, you can't expect this trend to continue. Eventually machines will be able to perform every single job out there, except for the arts and extremely complicated theoretical research (assuming they never achieve hard AI / consciousness). Does that mean every single human will have to find a job on the level of theoretical physicist or become an artist in order to survive? Clearly the demand for art isn't that high (you can look at the competition for becoming an actor or writer in hollywood. What are the chances that your band will get signed? That you'll sell enough of your paintings to make a living off of it), and clearly not everyone is smart enough to take on the jobs of research professors. So you end up with billions of people who can't subsist because for every single job they are qualified for there's a machine that can do it better.
Eventually we will be forced out of the work economy. I honestly don't think it's going to be 30 years from now and perhaps even 300 years from now is pushing it, but we're going to get there.
Yes, most providers do have email to SMS gateways, but unfortunately there's no way to tell what provider a given phone number is on.
So send an e-mail to each person you plan to send text messages to and get the reply later. Or talk to them online and ask. Or call them up from a landline and ask. Or ask them the next time you see them. If you want to be able to send a text to people you just got their phone number from, use Apple's default app: you can't get an iPhone plan that doesn't include hundreds of sms's per month anyway. It's really fascinating that people were paying money for that app, considering I just checked and there are multiple free apps on the store that do the same thing using the email gateway method, except that first they ask you to choose the provider.
Hell, I dont't know why you'd need an app if you know about this. Why not just add the e-mail addresses to your iphone's address list? This way you can just open up mail and select the person, almost exactly the same as using the iphone's default sms app.
Question: If the plan to bailout/assist people with upside-down mortgages goes through, it will cost about $1000 per taxpaying home. Why should I spend $1000 to pay somebody else's mortgage? And would this be considered corporatism, socialism, or communism?
IMHO whatever it's called, it's a human rights violation.
Taking my money to pay somebody else's housing bill is theft of labor. It's no different than if my neighbor bought a Lexus, and then demanded everyone in the area throw-in money to pay the bill. Nobody has a right to demand I help buy them a car. Or pay their mortgage.
I think it's fine for you to believe that (and I would even agree with you), as long as you're consistent an also against my money and yours being used to bail out the lenders. Why should I spend money because they made bad business decisions? Let them go bankrupt.
When organisations like this start going after the small stuff, I think they undermine the very importance of what they're fighting for and just end up preaching to the choir.
Small stuff? For how long has headphone plugs been standardized? Doing anything to revert this status in an attempt to have only "apple authorized" headphones work is as big as things like these get.
Some years ago it also meant that a jury composed of racist white people could convict a non-white person of a crime without any solid evidence to that conclusion, and based entirely on irrational preconceptions about behaviour being associated with the levels of melanine in one's skin...
You know, a lot of people use that example to argue not only that juries are bad, but that jury nullification is a bad concept (since a jury composed of racist white people also were known to acquit KKK members).
I always want to point out that the problem there isn't the concept of a jury, or the concept of jury nullification. The problem is that you're not actually getting a representative jury of your peers. You're getting selection bias. Why the hell would you have all 12 of them be of the same race? Or all twelve be of the same profession? In order for the jury to work, you need a proper random sample of the community.
And having more than 12 wouldn't hurt...
Those that just out and out steal (yes it is appropriate, because it means taking something without paying
In copyright infringement nothing is "taken," something is "copied." If you're trying to sell a painting, and I sit down next to it and paint an exact copy and walk away, I have done something that is illegal, but I have not stolen your painting. The same concept applies if I copy your painting through easy technological means, such as taking a very high resolution picture of it.
A requirement for theft is that the victim no longer has the product. And no, you can't argue that I've "stolen the money from the sale" because that's not money you had which you no longer have. When I copy your painting in the example above, I may decide not to buy your painting, but I'm not being charged with theft of your sale, you'd sue me for copyright infringement.
I'm not going to get into the ethics of pirating, because there are obvious philosophical differences at hand and it comes down to your beliefs. However, there's no gray area on the theft thing, no room for discussion. Many things are wrong and many things are illegal, and most of things are not theft. You don't call fraud theft, you can't call copyright infringement theft either.
I agree in principle, but Steam is a poor example. I'm most certainly not willing to give up what Steam is asking for in exchange for the benefits.
Fact: When someone says "I don't want to hear about [a gay person's] sexual orientation" what they are really saying is "Stop breaking my comfortable assumption that everyone is straight".
Well, that's obviously true. However, what I could never understand is exactly what do people find so damn "uncomfortable" about not everyone being straight.
As a straight male, my reaction when some woman tells me that she's a lesbian is, "that's kinda hot." My reaction when a man tells me he's gay is, "sweet, less competition!"
I might wish some of the lesbians were straight (or better yet, bi), but really wouldn't want the gay guys to "convert." Women are always complimenting those guys on their fashion sense and sensibility. I'm already at a disadvantage for being the type of guy who hangs at slashdot...I'd never get laid if I had to compete with those guys!
If they think they can sell something for more money, well they're _supposed_ to ask for more money.
That's not exactly true. If they think they can make more money, they should try doing that. However, sometimes you can make more money by actually lowering the price and selling a higher volume. That's especially true of digital content, where having "more volume" to sell comes almost for free.
The trick is finding out where the point is that will maximize the profit. I would think at this point they could benefit more by asking for less money. Especially in a multiplayer game like this. The more songs my friend buys, the more songs he will be pressuring me to buy so that I can play it online with him.
Those who know how to RTFA would know that he was charged $0.02/kB data rates.
Wow, he was being ripped off. Verizon will quote you .02 cents