Aww, after that parent post about the girl when I first came to the word "busted" in your post I thought it was going to be used as an anatomical reference...
Here's a better idea: STOP REGULATING BUSINESSES TO DEATH
A little bit of hyperbole I think. If businesses were being regulated to death, why are there so many of them still around? And why do countries with less regulations tend to have weaker economies?
Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ex.
If person has signed paperwork then it is legally binding. So if there is a contract with general information and small print or using uncommon vocabulary and the person signs it they are still legally contracted. So the rigidity of that law allows the lawyers to hack the system and scam people and government to do things that are not nessarly right.
Actually many courts won't enforce contracts that they think were unfairly entered into. For example, when one side has a vastly stronger bargaining position, or when there's no consideration (i.e. one person gets something while the other party gets screwed), or if the terms of the contract are too vague, OR if an important clause is buried in pages of boilerplate fine print. And obviously, you can't legally contract to commit an illegal act.
But actually, you do have an important point beneath the similarity between law and hacking. The American common law system has been doing pure open source law for a lot longer than OSS programmers have.
Re:But apparently we can't sense...
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
But apparently we can't sense...self congratulatory bullshit.
Obviously not, considering how many people here quote ESR.
Re:Except Animals are more likely to be right.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Hackers are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. In their case it isn't an accute sense, but chronic pessimism.
Yep, have there been any verifiable incidents of hackers in general sensing totalitarianism before it happened?
Kildall ultimately sold his company to Novell Inc. (NOVL ) in 1991 for $120 million. He went on to create some pioneering multimedia technology, but never again was an industry player.
You know, after you break the $100 million mark I stop feeling sorry for you losing out on business deals.
CEO's son:"All my life I have searched for a computer that feels a certain way. Powerful like a gorilla, yet soft and yielding like a nerf ball. Now, at last, I have found it."
Reporter: How much does this...monstrosity cost?
CEO: $1,699 DOLLARS? THIS MONSTROSITY COSTS $1,699 DOLLARS?!
Ahh, I'm just funning. It actually looks kind of cool, but hideously overpriced for what you get.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the airwaves are a public resource, and thus if you're going to broadcast over them you should do so in the public interest.
I see my comments go up and down from +4 to +0 in the course of a single hour as Slashdot is overwhelminingly a left-wing Noam Chomsky echo chamber but here goes:
Hahahaha...good one. Slashdot, where anything you write in favor of progressive ideals will be modded down into limbo, is left wing. Very funny.
ost are younger (18-25) year olds, that will have their eyes opened when they get their first "real" paycheck and see how much is taken out in federal and state taxes.
Oh god, another fanatic. There's a reason the vast majority of Americans don't vote libertarian, and it doesn't have to do with lack of visibility. Most people aren't so goddamn obsessed with money that they cry every time they look at their paycheck. Compared to most other industrialized nations our taxes are quite low. Now stop whining and leave if you don't like how you're "oppressed" by the government.
By your argument, then, sems you should be voting for Bush. Maybe you're right, because it seems a lot of people are. I'd like to believe they're all smart enough to know he's lying, too... but knowing what I know about the Bush supporters around me here in the bible belt, I have my doubts.
No, my argument says, don't vote against Bush because he's a liar, vote against him because he's incompetent.
Presidential candidates have to watch every word they say. If they're honest, they'll lose the election. And you know something, that's not entirely their fault.
Look at it this way. Let's say you're an idealist running against someone who is doing a dangerously lousy job. If you're completely open on your positions, you'll probably lose. If you spin everything just right, you'll probably win. Which would you choose?
Honesty? Then at the end of the campaign you've lost. Yes, you didn't lie (or at least deceive) the voters, but now they're stuck with the lousy/evil/incompetent leader, whose decisions cause a lot more evil than your lies would have.
Now let's look at what my motivation as a voter should be. I want someone who will do a good job. I don't think they have to be a saint.
Let's take an analogy. You need a doctor. There are two choices. One is honest and incompetent, one is dishonest but competent. Which do you prefer?
None of the above is meant to apply to the current electoral situation, by the way. I don't think Bush is honest but incompetent; I think he'd dishonest AND incompetent. And I think Kerry has been evasive, but I don't think he's really dishonest. But I'm just saying this simplistic "THEY'S GOTTA BE HONEST AND TRUE" thing isn't necessarily a great reason to vote for someone.
Good god, in 2000 Bush explicitly said he would lower gas prices by CALLING UP OPEC MEMBERS AND ASKING THEM. Believe me, Kerry's not the won trying to win on force of personality.
Oh, wait, I just read the last sentence of your post and realize you're totally irrational. I'll just leave this conversation at this point...
President Bush: Yet despite the energy and activism of many youth, less than half of eligible voters, ages 18-24, voted in recent national elections. The youth voice needs to be heard - so I encourage you to make sure that it is!
Yeah, right. The last thing he wants is more 18-24 year olds (who tend to skew heavily democratic) voting.
Slashdot Mirror
The new estimate, of between 20,000 to 25,000 genomes is marginally less than the 27,000 for the Arabidopsis, a flowering plant in the mustard family.
Damn elitist mustard, looking down on us.
And unlike the Yankees and Red Sox there's actual a question over who will win.
The penalty for being an idiot on the internet will be public beheading.
At which point slashdot loses 90% of its readers.
Aww, after that parent post about the girl when I first came to the word "busted" in your post I thought it was going to be used as an anatomical reference...
You can just turn on the Weather Channel there, Aragorn.
Yep, like they mucked up the internet. Oh wait, I mean invent, they invented the internet.
Here's a better idea: STOP REGULATING BUSINESSES TO DEATH
A little bit of hyperbole I think. If businesses were being regulated to death, why are there so many of them still around? And why do countries with less regulations tend to have weaker economies?
Ex. If person has signed paperwork then it is legally binding. So if there is a contract with general information and small print or using uncommon vocabulary and the person signs it they are still legally contracted. So the rigidity of that law allows the lawyers to hack the system and scam people and government to do things that are not nessarly right.
Actually many courts won't enforce contracts that they think were unfairly entered into. For example, when one side has a vastly stronger bargaining position, or when there's no consideration (i.e. one person gets something while the other party gets screwed), or if the terms of the contract are too vague, OR if an important clause is buried in pages of boilerplate fine print. And obviously, you can't legally contract to commit an illegal act.
But actually, you do have an important point beneath the similarity between law and hacking. The American common law system has been doing pure open source law for a lot longer than OSS programmers have.
But apparently we can't sense...self congratulatory bullshit.
Obviously not, considering how many people here quote ESR.
Hackers are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. In their case it isn't an accute sense, but chronic pessimism.
Yep, have there been any verifiable incidents of hackers in general sensing totalitarianism before it happened?
From the article:
Kildall ultimately sold his company to Novell Inc. (NOVL ) in 1991 for $120 million. He went on to create some pioneering multimedia technology, but never again was an industry player.
You know, after you break the $100 million mark I stop feeling sorry for you losing out on business deals.
unless this telescope can orbit earth.
Technically, just about any object can orbit earth if you get them up there...
it is not compatible with Internet.
Which of the Internets do you mean?
CEO's son:"All my life I have searched for a computer that feels a certain way. Powerful like a gorilla, yet soft and yielding like a nerf ball. Now, at last, I have found it."
Reporter: How much does this...monstrosity cost?
CEO: $1,699 DOLLARS? THIS MONSTROSITY COSTS $1,699 DOLLARS?!
Ahh, I'm just funning. It actually looks kind of cool, but hideously overpriced for what you get.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the airwaves are a public resource, and thus if you're going to broadcast over them you should do so in the public interest.
I see my comments go up and down from +4 to +0 in the course of a single hour as Slashdot is overwhelminingly a left-wing Noam Chomsky echo chamber but here goes:
Hahahaha...good one. Slashdot, where anything you write in favor of progressive ideals will be modded down into limbo, is left wing. Very funny.
I do not believe it is the case, but the US courts seem to
I've never heard of any courts finding video games to blame for anything.
ost are younger (18-25) year olds, that will have their eyes opened when they get their first "real" paycheck and see how much is taken out in federal and state taxes.
Oh god, another fanatic. There's a reason the vast majority of Americans don't vote libertarian, and it doesn't have to do with lack of visibility. Most people aren't so goddamn obsessed with money that they cry every time they look at their paycheck. Compared to most other industrialized nations our taxes are quite low. Now stop whining and leave if you don't like how you're "oppressed" by the government.
People throw around bloat with great abandon, and usually without any real rationale behind the term.
My OS is full-featured. Yours has feature creep. His is bloated.
By your argument, then, sems you should be voting for Bush. Maybe you're right, because it seems a lot of people are. I'd like to believe they're all smart enough to know he's lying, too... but knowing what I know about the Bush supporters around me here in the bible belt, I have my doubts.
No, my argument says, don't vote against Bush because he's a liar, vote against him because he's incompetent.
Presidential candidates have to watch every word they say. If they're honest, they'll lose the election. And you know something, that's not entirely their fault.
Look at it this way. Let's say you're an idealist running against someone who is doing a dangerously lousy job. If you're completely open on your positions, you'll probably lose. If you spin everything just right, you'll probably win. Which would you choose?
Honesty? Then at the end of the campaign you've lost. Yes, you didn't lie (or at least deceive) the voters, but now they're stuck with the lousy/evil/incompetent leader, whose decisions cause a lot more evil than your lies would have.
Now let's look at what my motivation as a voter should be. I want someone who will do a good job. I don't think they have to be a saint.
Let's take an analogy. You need a doctor. There are two choices. One is honest and incompetent, one is dishonest but competent. Which do you prefer?
None of the above is meant to apply to the current electoral situation, by the way. I don't think Bush is honest but incompetent; I think he'd dishonest AND incompetent. And I think Kerry has been evasive, but I don't think he's really dishonest. But I'm just saying this simplistic "THEY'S GOTTA BE HONEST AND TRUE" thing isn't necessarily a great reason to vote for someone.
Good god, in 2000 Bush explicitly said he would lower gas prices by CALLING UP OPEC MEMBERS AND ASKING THEM. Believe me, Kerry's not the won trying to win on force of personality.
Oh, wait, I just read the last sentence of your post and realize you're totally irrational. I'll just leave this conversation at this point...
President Bush: Yet despite the energy and activism of many youth, less than half of eligible voters, ages 18-24, voted in recent national elections. The youth voice needs to be heard - so I encourage you to make sure that it is!
Yeah, right. The last thing he wants is more 18-24 year olds (who tend to skew heavily democratic) voting.
...but not over anything having to do with the movie.
OK, I'll bite. What's a "German-style" game?
Any game can be! Just make sure you always go by the rules, try not to have fun, and for gods sake don't chat or laugh while you're playing.