Also, if you know a little greek, you know jack chick is full of shit in his Death Cookie tract, which says that IHS on the cookie that catholics eat at communion stand for Isis, Horus, and Seb, egyptian gods, and that it's pagan worship to be a catholic.
I don't know about IHS, but if you cut the beginning and the end off of that cartoon, it sure sums us the whole religion thing pretty darned well.
Make stuff up to control the masses. Destroy them if they argue. I also like the weasely, money-grubbing pope, which is just about nails the real pope perfectly. It's unfortunate that at the end, this cartoonist is only trying to convince you that one silly religion is false so he can fool you into believing his silly religion instead, rather than the more valuable lesson - that all religions are false.
Actually, before the nazis co-opted it, the swastika was known to stand for the 4 "l"s intertwined - Love, Life, Luck and Light. It was used in the same places the Red Cross is used these days, and often on correspondance like we use X's and O's in the US. For ages, one of India's most loved goes, Ganesha, uses the swastika as a personal symbol (although not as much these days.) It was used by the ancient greeks to indicate something was wholesome and trustworthy - and was remembered that way by the Europeans of the 20's and 30's. That's exactly why the fascists picked it.
In other words, the swastika is a symbol of love and light. Or it's symbolic of the evil of the Nazi party.
Or, in reality, yes - it's just a bunch of lines. Any power given to them is just silly and artificial.
Also, if someone finds a picture offensive, I'd recommend s/he not look at it. I'm getting sick of all of the P.C. thuggery that takes place and is claimed to be "tolerance." The candyasses that I encounter on a daily basis are making the modern world weak and unfit to survive. If we can't get it together, the developing world will replace us - and we'll deserve it.
I've never had a laptop, primarily because I'm so biased against them. I've always considered laptops to be disposable - extrememly expensive, underpowered, fragile and disposable. It's unfortunate that owners get screwed when they break, but... It's also exactly what I would expect.
I was hoping this was changing, but it sounds like it isn't.
The other shame is that with $10mm in cash waiting to be used by lawyers, some lawyer is essentially guaranteed to step up to the plate and use it, somehow.
Are you aware that this technology does not exist, and may in fact never exist? The costs of building a base on the moon using "old school" tech are dwarfed by the expense of even proving whether construction nanotech is or isn't viable - let alone actually developing and launching a nano industry capable of supporting the effort.
I'm a fan of window-in-window MDI, and any time I ask why it's not considered for interfaces in most Linux/UNIX apps, I'm told that
a) It's really bad.
and
b) Microsoft has stopped using it.
Can someone explain why it's so bad? Because it sure seems like a great way to associate windows and tools together into one cohesive group. The fact that MS does something is never a good enough reason for me to do something, that they stop doing something won't make me stop either.
I'd just like some clarity on why this interface is shunned - is it a technical problem preventing nested windows under X, as a random person told me in irc one day - or are there some hard-fact usability reasons?
Making a big score and living off of it is an unsustainable model for life that very few can benefit from.
An environment where working hard can allow you to make a living and save, creating personal wealth to support yourself in your latter years is a sustainable model - and one that anyone can follow.
Basically here's what I'm getting at. No operator (of any machine basically) knows as much about the machine as the designers. If an operator tells the machine to do something that will destroy it (and probably kill lots of people) then the machine should refuse. The only possible exceptions are things like military hardware, etc... No civilian machine should ever allow an operator to do something that it knows will kill people, end of story.
You're right. And, if a designer wants to fly every plane, then they would be the best person to make this decision. Since they would undoubtedly refuse to do so, it falls to the next-best qualified system onboard, the pilot.
Having a decision-making box designed by the designers is *not* the same as having the designers on the plane. When we decide pilots are no longer needed - because the autopilot is that good at both flying and decisionmaking, then we can get rid of them. Until then, the pilot is there for one reason: to wrangle the computers that actually control the avionics, and to take responsibility for getting the hardware and people on board home safely.
This thousand-carp batch's children will all be male.
That 10,000-carp batch's children will also all be male.
That 100,000-carp batch's children will also be male.
And so on. The existing males will have to work extra hard to find females, and eventually, one species (ether the GM ones or the non-GM ones, quickly followed by the GM ones) will die out, with considerably less fish left afterwards.
If my calculations are correct, it appears that 330,000 does lie between 0 and 117,427,200. This would imply that building a craft that can achieve the goals of X-Prize 1 would indeed be a stepping stone on the way to actual manned spaceflight.
This does not indicate that the winner of this prize can just "scale up" the winning craft and achieve orbit - no one involved thinks so.
The X-Prize is an attempt to spur private interest in building spaceships, and to provide cash incentives (or, more realistically, minimize the losses associated) for those who achieve specific goals, and provide heat to a smouldering private space market.
That's not a detailed changelog. If you want a real detailed changelog, prepared for you automatically by the computer, see diff. It's very good, but your comprehension may be lacking.
What you are seeing in this changelog is mostly a simplified (or maybe straight) dump of the comments associated with BK checkins maintainers made, or the description the satellite developer made when mailing the patch to the maintainer. Not a long document compiled by a single person at a single time, but instead a living document that grows over time, as patches are prepared, extending back through time to the first source submission.
If I code up a great game engine, and someone else makes $20 million using my engine, and I gave it away free, then I'm out a substantial amount of money.
No. Again, it costs you nothing for someone else to benefit from your work.
It may have cost you something to build the work - I'm not arguing that point. But it cost you nothing to give it away.
But, if, for instance, you and 15 other game developers chipped in a fraction of your 20 million to build an even better free game engine (release the code, not the content), then you'd all be far ahead.
If 200 other companies started to use your engine, and none of them gave back, you're still ahead. If the entire industry standardized on that engine? You're still ahead, because you got a better product, for much less than your planned cost.
Did you collect money from those other companies? No, but you are better off just the same - why do you need to?
No, actually, there is no marginal cost to me. My point, which I think you ignored, was that it costs me nothing for someone else to benefit from my work. It only costs those who commission me to produce further work - those with the greatest need, the furthest vision, or a sense of philanthropy.
For those that simply take my work and use it for whatever purpose they choose, I don't know what it may cost them - It doesn't matter, from my perspective.
If you feel gentoo is "done" then of course you wouldn't need to hire people to work on it before you released it. I don't fully understand your point. If I find tasty mushrooms in my backyard, I can certainly sell them for a profit, even though I didn't create them... as long as people don't acquire the skills to pick their own. If I want to add value, I may have to hire a cook, people to package, and supplies.
People do respond to incentives - how does this argue with anything I'm saying. My paycheck is my incentive - I get paid to write software, not to keep people from using it. If someday, all the software is "done" - ie, everything that will ever need to be written is written and running perfectly - then yes, I'll be out of a job.
Obviously. Like the buggy-whip manufacturers.
But the complaints that IBM should not be allowed to enjoy the same rights as a smaller company, or an individual wrt the use of software... Why not? If I feel exploited, I'll stop making free software. But as long as I give my IP liberty, I'm certainly not going to complain when it enjoys the freedom of use that that liberty provides it.
It's actually very simple, but can be made more complex if someone wants to misunderstand.
How much is IBM really giving you in this whole open source business?
Exactly how much they are required to: An amount between zero and infinity, inclusive.
Why do you think that IBM, or Hypocrite computers, for that matter, benefitting from work I was paid to produce hurts me in any way? There is also the mechanism for them to return the favor, but certainly not the requirement. Eventually (or at least statistically), they will need to fix something to work their way - Porting JFS, for instance. When they do that, and they follow the rules as the GPL lays them out, they benefit me, and a million others like me.
When I do something like fix an overflow oops in tty code, or find some dangling pointer deep in the bowels of some driver that only 50 people besides me care about, I help this community. I spend 5 minutes, and hundreds of people's lives are improved, including many who work for IBM.
If you wish to view OSS development from the perspective of a greedy person, then there is nothing here for you - there is no way, by design, to use the GPL to leverage money from a large organization.
If you, like me, work on OSS to pay your own bills, provide an outlet to challenge yourself, improve the technology you live with, and enjoy helping others in a cooperative community, then there's lots here for you.
I don't (and I don't think any OSS developers) "work free for IBM."
I give back to the Linux kernel, mozilla, apache and other projects not because I wish to get "kewl hacker cred" but because these are tools that affect my daily life, and I get paid by my clients for the time I spend improving them.
So does IBM. When you say things like "work free for IBM," you ignore the fact that in the exact same sense, IBM is also "working free for me".
We're all working to improve the technical commons, most of us are getting paid, and everyone gets more technology out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Make stuff up to control the masses. Destroy them if they argue. I also like the weasely, money-grubbing pope, which is just about nails the real pope perfectly. It's unfortunate that at the end, this cartoonist is only trying to convince you that one silly religion is false so he can fool you into believing his silly religion instead, rather than the more valuable lesson - that all religions are false.
All in all, thanks for the chuckle.
Actually, before the nazis co-opted it, the swastika was known to stand for the 4 "l"s intertwined - Love, Life, Luck and Light. It was used in the same places the Red Cross is used these days, and often on correspondance like we use X's and O's in the US. For ages, one of India's most loved goes, Ganesha, uses the swastika as a personal symbol (although not as much these days.) It was used by the ancient greeks to indicate something was wholesome and trustworthy - and was remembered that way by the Europeans of the 20's and 30's. That's exactly why the fascists picked it.
In other words, the swastika is a symbol of love and light. Or it's symbolic of the evil of the Nazi party.
Or, in reality, yes - it's just a bunch of lines. Any power given to them is just silly and artificial.
Also, if someone finds a picture offensive, I'd recommend s/he not look at it. I'm getting sick of all of the P.C. thuggery that takes place and is claimed to be "tolerance." The candyasses that I encounter on a daily basis are making the modern world weak and unfit to survive. If we can't get it together, the developing world will replace us - and we'll deserve it.
I've never had a laptop, primarily because I'm so biased against them. I've always considered laptops to be disposable - extrememly expensive, underpowered, fragile and disposable. It's unfortunate that owners get screwed when they break, but ... It's also exactly what I would expect.
I was hoping this was changing, but it sounds like it isn't.
The other shame is that with $10mm in cash waiting to be used by lawyers, some lawyer is essentially guaranteed to step up to the plate and use it, somehow.
I'm pretty sure Dean suggested a return to space first, back in November, at least. And he was planning it as part of a balanced budget.
Are you aware that this technology does not exist, and may in fact never exist? The costs of building a base on the moon using "old school" tech are dwarfed by the expense of even proving whether construction nanotech is or isn't viable - let alone actually developing and launching a nano industry capable of supporting the effort.
I'm a fan of window-in-window MDI, and any time I ask why it's not considered for interfaces in most Linux/UNIX apps, I'm told that
a) It's really bad.
and
b) Microsoft has stopped using it.
Can someone explain why it's so bad? Because it sure seems like a great way to associate windows and tools together into one cohesive group. The fact that MS does something is never a good enough reason for me to do something, that they stop doing something won't make me stop either.
I'd just like some clarity on why this interface is shunned - is it a technical problem preventing nested windows under X, as a random person told me in irc one day - or are there some hard-fact usability reasons?
Is this true or trolling?
For two grand? How much do transmeta's chips cost? I thought they were expensive.
Also, with it serving a million a minute, a billion a day isn't very hard...
Making a big score and living off of it is an unsustainable model for life that very few can benefit from.
An environment where working hard can allow you to make a living and save, creating personal wealth to support yourself in your latter years is a sustainable model - and one that anyone can follow.
Consumerism and laziness are killing all of us.
I think all three of these were not only intentional, but whimsically obvious nods to specific proprietary software.
Having a decision-making box designed by the designers is *not* the same as having the designers on the plane. When we decide pilots are no longer needed - because the autopilot is that good at both flying and decisionmaking, then we can get rid of them. Until then, the pilot is there for one reason: to wrangle the computers that actually control the avionics, and to take responsibility for getting the hardware and people on board home safely.
You're using the wrong definition of free.
I'm normally not one to pick on someone like this, but Daniel and I have had some personal emails back and forth over the FSF thing, and...
Is anyone else amazed to discover that he looks almost as dumb as the things he writes?
You realize that this link is actually in the article summary, right?
This thousand-carp batch's children will all be male.
That 10,000-carp batch's children will also all be male.
That 100,000-carp batch's children will also be male.
And so on. The existing males will have to work extra hard to find females, and eventually, one species (ether the GM ones or the non-GM ones, quickly followed by the GM ones) will die out, with considerably less fish left afterwards.
I read it - What's disgusting about it?
If my calculations are correct, it appears that 330,000 does lie between 0 and 117,427,200. This would imply that building a craft that can achieve the goals of X-Prize 1 would indeed be a stepping stone on the way to actual manned spaceflight.
This does not indicate that the winner of this prize can just "scale up" the winning craft and achieve orbit - no one involved thinks so.
The X-Prize is an attempt to spur private interest in building spaceships, and to provide cash incentives (or, more realistically, minimize the losses associated) for those who achieve specific goals, and provide heat to a smouldering private space market.
That's not a detailed changelog. If you want a real detailed changelog, prepared for you automatically by the computer, see diff. It's very good, but your comprehension may be lacking.
What you are seeing in this changelog is mostly a simplified (or maybe straight) dump of the comments associated with BK checkins maintainers made, or the description the satellite developer made when mailing the patch to the maintainer. Not a long document compiled by a single person at a single time, but instead a living document that grows over time, as patches are prepared, extending back through time to the first source submission.
No. Again, it costs you nothing for someone else to benefit from your work.
It may have cost you something to build the work - I'm not arguing that point. But it cost you nothing to give it away.
But, if, for instance, you and 15 other game developers chipped in a fraction of your 20 million to build an even better free game engine (release the code, not the content), then you'd all be far ahead.
If 200 other companies started to use your engine, and none of them gave back, you're still ahead. If the entire industry standardized on that engine? You're still ahead, because you got a better product, for much less than your planned cost.
Did you collect money from those other companies? No, but you are better off just the same - why do you need to?
Greed is killing us.
No, actually, there is no marginal cost to me. My point, which I think you ignored, was that it costs me nothing for someone else to benefit from my work. It only costs those who commission me to produce further work - those with the greatest need, the furthest vision, or a sense of philanthropy.
... as long as people don't acquire the skills to pick their own. If I want to add value, I may have to hire a cook, people to package, and supplies.
For those that simply take my work and use it for whatever purpose they choose, I don't know what it may cost them - It doesn't matter, from my perspective.
If you feel gentoo is "done" then of course you wouldn't need to hire people to work on it before you released it. I don't fully understand your point. If I find tasty mushrooms in my backyard, I can certainly sell them for a profit, even though I didn't create them
People do respond to incentives - how does this argue with anything I'm saying. My paycheck is my incentive - I get paid to write software, not to keep people from using it. If someday, all the software is "done" - ie, everything that will ever need to be written is written and running perfectly - then yes, I'll be out of a job.
Obviously. Like the buggy-whip manufacturers.
But the complaints that IBM should not be allowed to enjoy the same rights as a smaller company, or an individual wrt the use of software... Why not? If I feel exploited, I'll stop making free software. But as long as I give my IP liberty, I'm certainly not going to complain when it enjoys the freedom of use that that liberty provides it.
It's actually very simple, but can be made more complex if someone wants to misunderstand.
Why do you think that IBM, or Hypocrite computers, for that matter, benefitting from work I was paid to produce hurts me in any way? There is also the mechanism for them to return the favor, but certainly not the requirement. Eventually (or at least statistically), they will need to fix something to work their way - Porting JFS, for instance. When they do that, and they follow the rules as the GPL lays them out, they benefit me, and a million others like me.
When I do something like fix an overflow oops in tty code, or find some dangling pointer deep in the bowels of some driver that only 50 people besides me care about, I help this community. I spend 5 minutes, and hundreds of people's lives are improved, including many who work for IBM.
If you wish to view OSS development from the perspective of a greedy person, then there is nothing here for you - there is no way, by design, to use the GPL to leverage money from a large organization.
If you, like me, work on OSS to pay your own bills, provide an outlet to challenge yourself, improve the technology you live with, and enjoy helping others in a cooperative community, then there's lots here for you.
I don't (and I don't think any OSS developers) "work free for IBM."
I give back to the Linux kernel, mozilla, apache and other projects not because I wish to get "kewl hacker cred" but because these are tools that affect my daily life, and I get paid by my clients for the time I spend improving them.
So does IBM. When you say things like "work free for IBM," you ignore the fact that in the exact same sense, IBM is also "working free for me".
We're all working to improve the technical commons, most of us are getting paid, and everyone gets more technology out of it.
By GPLing your work, you recieve the right to use any derivatives of your work.
That has value, and that exchange is the basis of the GPL.