Seriously, market a product as "stylish", "hip" and "different", and you'll raise a troupe of people to whom presenting themselves as different is pretty much their only end.
Yeaaah, maaaaaaaan. Ditch Apple and their desire to make money and their marketing campaigns. Stick with non-commercial entities like HP, Dell, and Sony that pay no attention to marketing, style, profit, or consumer appeal.
PS: Most of the Mac users I know are developers. It's a nice platform for developers because you have all the *nix-y tools, as well as the ability to easily run Windows via Boot Camp or a virtualization solution. The marketing campaign doesn't have a whole lot to do with it in my personal experience. You CAN achieve the same end result on a Linux or Windows system, but judging by the market share of Apple hardware at developers' conferences, Apple is a popular choice amongst even "real" geeks.
I can suggest another awesome upgrade, this $1700 power cable http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PSPREPC&variation=2.0, upgrade that normal power cable which powers your player and experience true video and audio nirvana, it really does work! Never mind the 500ft of unshielded romex inside your wall, its truley the last 6ft of power cord that does make the difference you will see and hear!
I'm not sure how well that thing moves electrons around, but when it comes to moving money out of your wallet it's practically a superconductor!
You said that we'd have a lesser quantity of software were things written in assembler, but a higher quality of software. I took issue with your assertion that software would be higher-quality if written in assembler, because because I think the level of complexity would just be too high for software projects of any significant size.
You simply said that software would be of higher quality if written in assembler. Since you didn't specify any exceptions, it's only reasonable to assume that you were talking about all software.
If you weren't, fine. You corrected and clarified yourself, and I don't disagree with anything you just posted.
You're talking about something completely different now. We were talking about writing and/or optimizing things in assembler versus high-level languages. You're talking about insufficient QA. Totally independent issue.
>>How much of the cool stuff you enjoy using today would even exist if it had to be coded in assembly?
>Maybe less in terms of quantity, but more in terms of quality.
I disagree. The complexity of a software module does not grow linearly with size. It grows much faster than that. Something like Firefox (a piece of software most of us enjoy, though most of us agree it could be much more svelte) just couldn't be accomplished in any reasonable time frame in assembly because of the sheer complexity involved.
Assembly has its place (and always will) and I'll ALWAYS look to assembly programmers as the true heroes of the programming world. I just like to take issue (or rather, poke fun) at these people that pine for an imaginary world where everything is written in assembly.
How much of the cool stuff you enjoy using today would even exist if it had to be coded in assembly? You think you'd be using a nice, modern web browser or game if they had to code the whole thing in assembly?
Coding in higher-level languages frees programmers up to create actual cool stuff. It's great that some ur-geek wrote a bitchin' disk driver in ASM that fits in 7KB of code during one Jolt-and-meth-fueled month back in 1991 but jesus, who cares. Given the chance, I bet that engineer would have done it in 1/4 of the time in C and actually done something useful with the rest of his month. Or at least stayed away from the meth and Jolt.
It's the technological equivalent of carrying buckets of water three miles from the stream to your prarie frontier home every single morning. Like, it's cool and admirable that people once did that, but thank goodness we generally don't have to do that these days. Even if my tap water really doesn't have any new functionality compared to that stream water.
As I've said from the beginning, I never made any claim. You're confused. Look at the context, if you wish to be informed. He said people shouldn't talk to him LIKE they could hurt him. So that is what I did. I did not actually claim I could hurt him, I only talked to him like I could. This should not be hard for you to understand.
Ah. The all-too-common situation. A misguidedly egotistical person finds it hard to believe that anybody could actually understand what they're saying and disagree with it.
Pudge, I understood what you initially wrote. As I'm sure you'd agree ("This should not be hard for you to understand") your initial "I could hurt you" was not anything that was particularly hard to grasp.
I understood it and still found it childish, tacky, and depressingly out of touch with reality. You, who feel that you inhabit a reality in which "I could hurt you" is a socially acceptable thing to say to strangers, feel differently. We will probably never see eye-to-eye on that and should probably end this discussion. Good day to you.
What self-respecting reader has not burned down some sort of structure in their time. mmm burny... -- Offest your CO2 Emissions at Carbon Planet [carbonplanet.com]
If that's not the best post-and-sig combination I've seen in ages, I don't know what is. Hats off to you, friend. Hats off.
Okay. You're right. "I could hurt you" can never be an implied threat because it doesn't literally claim that the speaker will literally hurt the listener, only that he could. Would you care to put your claim on the line? If you really believe this to be true, mail ten letters containing nothing but the following to local judges and other public officials:
-The phrase "I could hurt you" -Your full name and address
Good luck with that. Heck, even feel free to ensconce the phrase "I could hurt you" in a context that makes it fairly clear that you won't hurt them - I suspect that "I could hurt you, but I won't" is going to be met with about the same reaction.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what you're arguing about at this point. Are you arguing that "I will hurt you" and "I could hurt you" mean different things in a grammatical sense? I'm absolutely on board with you there. My only real point is that they generally convey the same meaning and that it's tacky (or worse) to go there.
Me: It is entirely impossible to imply something without intending to do it. You: False.
My apologies. I meant to say "possible" there, not "impossible." At least we agree on something, even if you contradict yourself in the process.
You're missing my point entirely. My point is not that you were threatening the other guy. You agree with that, I agree with that, most people on this thread agree with that.
My point is that nerdishly chortling "technically I did not threaten you hur hur hur hur" while stopping just shy of an actual threat is still an extremely poor practice. I'm not sure if you've spent most of your life coding in a basement for Slashdot or what but try walking around an actual workplace (or, for bonus points, a bar) and saying things like "I could hurt you" and see where that gets you. The meaning of words doesn't necessarily match their literal content. That is how sarcasm works. That is how a great deal of human communication works.
to imply requires intent.
Says who? Evidentially you have your own personal definition of "imply" but for your future reference these are two totally unrelated terms. It is entirely impossible to imply something without intending to do it. A bluff (look it up!) would be one example. I have, in fact, non-violently bluffed my out of several situations by implying violence that I did not truly intend to commit. In several situations I have scared away threatening groups of people by waving around a baseball bat. Did I really intend to cave their heads in? Heck no, but it sure worked.
I made some snarky comment to him. I turned my head and he sucker-punched me. What a loser he was.
So you've always been clueless when it comes to human interactions. Have you improved at all since you were 10? There's no justifying violence but you do understand that you provoked that, right? Human beings are living organisms with emotions, not lines of code.
I'm just trying to help you here. Clearly you lack basic human interation skills, as proved by your example above and further proved by the fact that nearly everybody on this thread thinks that your post was tacky and clueless. Might want to work on that. Or not. If it makes you feel any better, I agree with you that the Rails dude's "rant" was equally lame for different reasons.
A threat would be saying that I *would*, rather than *could*, hurt him, which I absolutely did not do.
You don't understand why this is threatening? If I "casually" mentioned that I know where you live and that I used to be a firefighter and know how to get away with arson and that I think you're somebody whose family deserves to suffer, you wouldn't think that was threatening?
(Note: I am entirely non-violent, have never been a firefighter, do not know where you live, and have no idea how to commit arson)
I understand what you're saying - you said you could hurt him, not that you would. I understood that when I read your post without reading your clumsy explanations.
What I am saying is that communication between human beings is not precise like code. You did not say that you would hurt him, but the implication was clear. Obviously, I don't think you have any intention of hurting him. It just makes you look like a typically clueless robot-like nerd, that's all. Try that kind of crap in the real world and you get beaten up and/or slapped with restraining orders and/or worse.
Horse poop. You've already seen the version with the voice over, so you know what is going on in the director's cut. If you watch the director's cut for the first time ever, you have absolutely no clue WTF is going on. Only after watching the original, do you know what was going on in the director's cut.
Exactly what did you find confusing without the voiceover? The plot is pretty straightforward - Deckard is out to "retire" robots that look like humans. While I love the movie, it certainly is not highbrow intellectual stuff.
The only confusing thing I can think of might have been the Voigt-Kampf tests. I didn't really understand quite what they actually were until I read the novel, although even without the benefit of having read the novel it seems pretty obvious that the V.K. is some kind of test to identify replicants.
For the record I saw the Director's Cut before seeing or reading any of the other versions and understood it with no problem. My sci-fi background at the time consisted of Hollywood sci-fi flicks and little to no reading. I still found the movie easy to follow. I am not a genius and that movie is not, by any standard, difficult. It's a Hollywood movie starring the guy from Star Wars, for heaven's sake.
The numbers he quoted were the number of software titles sold. Why would he subtracts "dollars lost per console sold" from "number of software titles sold?" They're not... the same units.
Powering boats with sunlight is nothing short of miraculous. I hope that some day we are able to propel ships with other elements, such as the wind, as well. What an incredible world our children shall surely inherit!
I wonder how fast something like Open Office would run if coded with the efficiency needed to run a program on older computers (not necessarily PCs) when they had to pay attention to resources and cycles.
But today's programs are, in general, orders of magnitude more complex than those delightfully handcrafted versions of AppleWorks and WordPerfect from the 1980s you're feeling nostalgic for.
The effort required to build a piece of software does not scale linearly with the complexity - a piece of software that's twice as complex mostly likely takes something like four times the effort, if everything else (development toolchain, programmer skill) remains constant.
Simply put, you just couldn't build something like OpenOffice the way WordPerfect 5.1 was built.
Most of the software "bloat" isn't programmer laziness so much as it is the result of programmers using higher-level tools to manage and abstract away complexity just to keep a project reasonably manageable.
I coule get MP3 files playing perfectly well on a DX2/66 and a 50mhz Amiga... I had them playing on a 33mhz Amiga too [snip]...I would have thought a DX4/100 would have no issues whatsoever playing mp3 files, maybe something else in your machine was letting it down, slow memory, slow/nondma ide controller, slow soundcard etc.
You're right; it could have been something else in the system. I'd put my money on that myself. But also remember that the DX4/100s had a 25mhz bus while the DX2/66 actually had a 33mhz bus. Not sure if that would have been enough to make things hairy for mp3 playback.
For customers, maybe, but not for investors - and they're the ones that will see the ticker symbol. The workstation market is near-nonexistent. "Workstations" harken to the days of $10,000 desktop computers like the NeXT Cube and the like. Former workstation companies like SGI have collapsed financially and are scrambling to try and find other ways to make money.
"we are [not] a company whose products can be limited by one category"
So instead of naming themselves after one product category, they're naming themselves after another. Great! The name change makes some sense (who really wants the outdated "workstation" thing attached to their name?) but marketingspeak is just so silly sometimes.
Can't help but think they'll want to do this gain once Java is no longer their flagship product. If they're still around (and I hope they are!)
From what I have read in industry papers and from conversations with friends, the apps I have worked on just don't address scaling issues. Our maximum load during typical usage is far below the maximum potential load of the system, so we never spend time considering what would happen when there is an extreme load on the system.
Is it just me, or is the question hopelessly confused? He's using the term "availability" but it sounds like he's talking about "scalability."
Availability is basically percentage of uptime. You achieve that with hot spares, mirroring, redundancy, etc. Scalability is the ability to perform well as workloads increase. Some things (adding load-balanced webservers to a webserver farm) address both issues, of course, but they're largely separate issues.
The first thing this poster needs to do is get a firm handle on exactly WHAT he's trying to accomplish, before he can even think about finding resources to help him do it.
> by Seumas (6865) on Tuesday August 21, @01:08AM (#20300997) > My understanding is that HD-DVD does not do uncompressed audio > like Blu-Ray. That alone is enough to sell me on Blu-Ray. I > spent $20,000 on the audio system for my home entertainment > center and I want the best quality media. I don't care if I > can buy a HD-DVD player for $100 cheaper than a Blu-Ray -- > if the quality isn't there, it isn't of interest.
> by ResidntGeek (772730) on Tuesday August 21, @01:18AM (#20301043) > HD-DVD does support mandatory Linear PCM, so no worries there.
I like how that guy spent $20,000 on audio equipment, but can't do 30 seconds of research. I really need some clients like him.:)
The most important thing I learned in public school is how to interact with so-called "normal" people on the level of an equal, not a brainiac who comes to intellectually lord over them. You know, stuff like "respect," and "politeness," and the concept of giving everybody a fair shot to prove their abilities.
Amen. Being smarter than 99% of the population doesn't make one better than 99% of the population.
Also, there's always somebody smarter than you. At some point, if you work hard and achieve, you will find yourself amongst intellectual equals and superiors.
I was bored in school, too - from nursery school through high school I was one of the top few brains in my school. This was generally true in college as well. I just had no idea what it was like to be in an environment where I wasn't smarter than most of the others.
But I never based my worldview around feelings of superiority. I would get frustrated with the slow pace of other students but I never thought they were "stupid violent monkeys" as the other poster said. And thank goodness I didn't base my whole existence around that kind of thinking... because once I got out of college and made my way in the field of software engineering, I *did* find myself in situations where everybody else was at least as sharp as me. That probably would have been a soul-destroying experience if feeling smarter than everybody else was what kept me going in life, because what happens when that rug gets pulled out from under you?
This gives me an advantage over others in my field, many of whom have a hard time interacting with "the norms" or "the mundanes" or whatever. I enjoy explaining concepts to and making software for people that don't necessarily have 130+ IQs. I can work with them and help them without being patronizing, and this has been hugely helpful to me and the people I work for. I'm certainly not the best coder but I'm a good one and when combined with people skills, it's a fairly rare combination.
I'm a developer and I use a ton of Microsoft software. However, I never actually pay for any of it, through a combination of MSDN subscriptions and "borrowed" software. If I actually had to pay for Microsoft software. I'd be a heck of a lot more F/OSS oriented. And Microsoft's quote underscores why I don't feel bad about using their software for free. I realize (as do they, apparently) that by simply using their products I'm helping them - one less developer gone over to F/OSS.
Before you bash me as a bad guy, I am making a concerted effort to move over to F/OSS personally and professionally. Right now I'm involved in an effort to convert a client from.NET to Linux+MySQL+Ruby+Rails.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeaaah, maaaaaaaan. Ditch Apple and their desire to make money and their marketing campaigns. Stick with non-commercial entities like HP, Dell, and Sony that pay no attention to marketing, style, profit, or consumer appeal.
PS: Most of the Mac users I know are developers. It's a nice platform for developers because you have all the *nix-y tools, as well as the ability to easily run Windows via Boot Camp or a virtualization solution. The marketing campaign doesn't have a whole lot to do with it in my personal experience. You CAN achieve the same end result on a Linux or Windows system, but judging by the market share of Apple hardware at developers' conferences, Apple is a popular choice amongst even "real" geeks.
I can suggest another awesome upgrade, this $1700 power cable http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PSPREPC&variation=2.0, upgrade that normal power cable which powers your player and experience true video and audio nirvana, it really does work! Never mind the 500ft of unshielded romex inside your wall, its truley the last 6ft of power cord that does make the difference you will see and hear!
I'm not sure how well that thing moves electrons around, but when it comes to moving money out of your wallet it's practically a superconductor!
You said that we'd have a lesser quantity of software were things written in assembler, but a higher quality of software. I took issue with your assertion that software would be higher-quality if written in assembler, because because I think the level of complexity would just be too high for software projects of any significant size.
You simply said that software would be of higher quality if written in assembler. Since you didn't specify any exceptions, it's only reasonable to assume that you were talking about all software.
If you weren't, fine. You corrected and clarified yourself, and I don't disagree with anything you just posted.
You're talking about something completely different now. We were talking about writing and/or optimizing things in assembler versus high-level languages. You're talking about insufficient QA. Totally independent issue.
>>How much of the cool stuff you enjoy using today would even exist if it had to be coded in assembly?
>Maybe less in terms of quantity, but more in terms of quality.
I disagree. The complexity of a software module does not grow linearly with size. It grows much faster than that. Something like Firefox (a piece of software most of us enjoy, though most of us agree it could be much more svelte) just couldn't be accomplished in any reasonable time frame in assembly because of the sheer complexity involved.
Assembly has its place (and always will) and I'll ALWAYS look to assembly programmers as the true heroes of the programming world. I just like to take issue (or rather, poke fun) at these people that pine for an imaginary world where everything is written in assembly.
How much of the cool stuff you enjoy using today would even exist if it had to be coded in assembly? You think you'd be using a nice, modern web browser or game if they had to code the whole thing in assembly?
Coding in higher-level languages frees programmers up to create actual cool stuff. It's great that some ur-geek wrote a bitchin' disk driver in ASM that fits in 7KB of code during one Jolt-and-meth-fueled month back in 1991 but jesus, who cares. Given the chance, I bet that engineer would have done it in 1/4 of the time in C and actually done something useful with the rest of his month. Or at least stayed away from the meth and Jolt.
It's the technological equivalent of carrying buckets of water three miles from the stream to your prarie frontier home every single morning. Like, it's cool and admirable that people once did that, but thank goodness we generally don't have to do that these days. Even if my tap water really doesn't have any new functionality compared to that stream water.
Pudge, I understood what you initially wrote. As I'm sure you'd agree ("This should not be hard for you to understand") your initial "I could hurt you" was not anything that was particularly hard to grasp.
I understood it and still found it childish, tacky, and depressingly out of touch with reality. You, who feel that you inhabit a reality in which "I could hurt you" is a socially acceptable thing to say to strangers, feel differently. We will probably never see eye-to-eye on that and should probably end this discussion. Good day to you.
-The phrase "I could hurt you"
-Your full name and address
Good luck with that. Heck, even feel free to ensconce the phrase "I could hurt you" in a context that makes it fairly clear that you won't hurt them - I suspect that "I could hurt you, but I won't" is going to be met with about the same reaction.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what you're arguing about at this point. Are you arguing that "I will hurt you" and "I could hurt you" mean different things in a grammatical sense? I'm absolutely on board with you there. My only real point is that they generally convey the same meaning and that it's tacky (or worse) to go there.My apologies. I meant to say "possible" there, not "impossible." At least we agree on something, even if you contradict yourself in the process.
My point is that nerdishly chortling "technically I did not threaten you hur hur hur hur" while stopping just shy of an actual threat is still an extremely poor practice. I'm not sure if you've spent most of your life coding in a basement for Slashdot or what but try walking around an actual workplace (or, for bonus points, a bar) and saying things like "I could hurt you" and see where that gets you. The meaning of words doesn't necessarily match their literal content. That is how sarcasm works. That is how a great deal of human communication works.Says who? Evidentially you have your own personal definition of "imply" but for your future reference these are two totally unrelated terms. It is entirely impossible to imply something without intending to do it. A bluff (look it up!) would be one example. I have, in fact, non-violently bluffed my out of several situations by implying violence that I did not truly intend to commit. In several situations I have scared away threatening groups of people by waving around a baseball bat. Did I really intend to cave their heads in? Heck no, but it sure worked.So you've always been clueless when it comes to human interactions. Have you improved at all since you were 10? There's no justifying violence but you do understand that you provoked that, right? Human beings are living organisms with emotions, not lines of code.
I'm just trying to help you here. Clearly you lack basic human interation skills, as proved by your example above and further proved by the fact that nearly everybody on this thread thinks that your post was tacky and clueless. Might want to work on that. Or not. If it makes you feel any better, I agree with you that the Rails dude's "rant" was equally lame for different reasons.
You don't understand why this is threatening? If I "casually" mentioned that I know where you live and that I used to be a firefighter and know how to get away with arson and that I think you're somebody whose family deserves to suffer, you wouldn't think that was threatening?
(Note: I am entirely non-violent, have never been a firefighter, do not know where you live, and have no idea how to commit arson)
I understand what you're saying - you said you could hurt him, not that you would. I understood that when I read your post without reading your clumsy explanations.
What I am saying is that communication between human beings is not precise like code. You did not say that you would hurt him, but the implication was clear. Obviously, I don't think you have any intention of hurting him. It just makes you look like a typically clueless robot-like nerd, that's all. Try that kind of crap in the real world and you get beaten up and/or slapped with restraining orders and/or worse.
What a poor image you project for your employer!
The only confusing thing I can think of might have been the Voigt-Kampf tests. I didn't really understand quite what they actually were until I read the novel, although even without the benefit of having read the novel it seems pretty obvious that the V.K. is some kind of test to identify replicants.
For the record I saw the Director's Cut before seeing or reading any of the other versions and understood it with no problem. My sci-fi background at the time consisted of Hollywood sci-fi flicks and little to no reading. I still found the movie easy to follow. I am not a genius and that movie is not, by any standard, difficult. It's a Hollywood movie starring the guy from Star Wars, for heaven's sake.
The numbers he quoted were the number of software titles sold. Why would he subtracts "dollars lost per console sold" from "number of software titles sold?" They're not... the same units.
Powering boats with sunlight is nothing short of miraculous. I hope that some day we are able to propel ships with other elements, such as the wind, as well. What an incredible world our children shall surely inherit!
But today's programs are, in general, orders of magnitude more complex than those delightfully handcrafted versions of AppleWorks and WordPerfect from the 1980s you're feeling nostalgic for.
The effort required to build a piece of software does not scale linearly with the complexity - a piece of software that's twice as complex mostly likely takes something like four times the effort, if everything else (development toolchain, programmer skill) remains constant.
Simply put, you just couldn't build something like OpenOffice the way WordPerfect 5.1 was built.
Most of the software "bloat" isn't programmer laziness so much as it is the result of programmers using higher-level tools to manage and abstract away complexity just to keep a project reasonably manageable.
"Here is the AP's writeup"
:)
Damn. Did anybody else read that as "API writeup?"
I was ready to start coding since they were nice enough to document it and everything. Or so I thought for a blessed moment.
Well, I'll be darned. A little research says that you're right! Thanks for the correction. :)
For customers, maybe, but not for investors - and they're the ones that will see the ticker symbol. The workstation market is near-nonexistent. "Workstations" harken to the days of $10,000 desktop computers like the NeXT Cube and the like. Former workstation companies like SGI have collapsed financially and are scrambling to try and find other ways to make money.
So instead of naming themselves after one product category, they're naming themselves after another. Great! The name change makes some sense (who really wants the outdated "workstation" thing attached to their name?) but marketingspeak is just so silly sometimes.
Can't help but think they'll want to do this gain once Java is no longer their flagship product. If they're still around (and I hope they are!)
From what I have read in industry papers and from conversations with friends, the apps I have worked on just don't address scaling issues. Our maximum load during typical usage is far below the maximum potential load of the system, so we never spend time considering what would happen when there is an extreme load on the system.
Is it just me, or is the question hopelessly confused? He's using the term "availability" but it sounds like he's talking about "scalability."
Availability is basically percentage of uptime. You achieve that with hot spares, mirroring, redundancy, etc. Scalability is the ability to perform well as workloads increase. Some things (adding load-balanced webservers to a webserver farm) address both issues, of course, but they're largely separate issues.
The first thing this poster needs to do is get a firm handle on exactly WHAT he's trying to accomplish, before he can even think about finding resources to help him do it.
> by Seumas (6865) on Tuesday August 21, @01:08AM (#20300997)
:)
> My understanding is that HD-DVD does not do uncompressed audio
> like Blu-Ray. That alone is enough to sell me on Blu-Ray. I
> spent $20,000 on the audio system for my home entertainment
> center and I want the best quality media. I don't care if I
> can buy a HD-DVD player for $100 cheaper than a Blu-Ray --
> if the quality isn't there, it isn't of interest.
> by ResidntGeek (772730) on Tuesday August 21, @01:18AM (#20301043)
> HD-DVD does support mandatory Linear PCM, so no worries there.
I like how that guy spent $20,000 on audio equipment, but can't do 30 seconds of research. I really need some clients like him.
The most important thing I learned in public school is how to interact with so-called "normal" people on the level of an equal, not a brainiac who comes to intellectually lord over them. You know, stuff like "respect," and "politeness," and the concept of giving everybody a fair shot to prove their abilities.
Amen. Being smarter than 99% of the population doesn't make one better than 99% of the population.
Also, there's always somebody smarter than you. At some point, if you work hard and achieve, you will find yourself amongst intellectual equals and superiors.
I was bored in school, too - from nursery school through high school I was one of the top few brains in my school. This was generally true in college as well. I just had no idea what it was like to be in an environment where I wasn't smarter than most of the others.
But I never based my worldview around feelings of superiority. I would get frustrated with the slow pace of other students but I never thought they were "stupid violent monkeys" as the other poster said. And thank goodness I didn't base my whole existence around that kind of thinking... because once I got out of college and made my way in the field of software engineering, I *did* find myself in situations where everybody else was at least as sharp as me. That probably would have been a soul-destroying experience if feeling smarter than everybody else was what kept me going in life, because what happens when that rug gets pulled out from under you?
This gives me an advantage over others in my field, many of whom have a hard time interacting with "the norms" or "the mundanes" or whatever. I enjoy explaining concepts to and making software for people that don't necessarily have 130+ IQs. I can work with them and help them without being patronizing, and this has been hugely helpful to me and the people I work for. I'm certainly not the best coder but I'm a good one and when combined with people skills, it's a fairly rare combination.
Yes, and he gets crucified on a 3D-SuperCross.
Dude. Spoilers.
I'm a developer and I use a ton of Microsoft software. However, I never actually pay for any of it, through a combination of MSDN subscriptions and "borrowed" software. If I actually had to pay for Microsoft software. I'd be a heck of a lot more F/OSS oriented. And Microsoft's quote underscores why I don't feel bad about using their software for free. I realize (as do they, apparently) that by simply using their products I'm helping them - one less developer gone over to F/OSS.
.NET to Linux+MySQL+Ruby+Rails.
Before you bash me as a bad guy, I am making a concerted effort to move over to F/OSS personally and professionally. Right now I'm involved in an effort to convert a client from