That is what we spend in the US EVERY YEAR on the poor, the sick, and the lazy....and what have those people contributed to the world besides crime and cranking out babies who turn into even more poor, sick, and lazy people.
Better let those fuckers die of disease and starvation, right? "Fight hunger and poverty! Eat a poor person today!"
Now, here's an interesting point. Person A writes something, is accused of libel or defamation or something, is declared guilty. Can search engines be found guilty of enabling access to this "illegal" material, pretty much like napster?
The reason for this is because violent video games are fun for a large number of well-adjusted people,
That line of reasoning holds water until someone comes along and says that the definition of "not well-adjusted" includes "people who enjoy games in which the goal is to kill people and rewards useless violence" (yes, GTA, I'm looking at you!).
I don't think anyone could really be OK with having a consumer of child pornography around, the proof being that no one would hire such nice folks to babysit their children. But the line of reasoning is perfectly valid for those not afraid of following it to its limits: "today they come for four child-pron collection, tomorrow they'll come for your videogames, the day after they'll come for your rock-and-roll music..." and so on.
Because ad revenues for TV and newspapers have been plummeting for a couple years now and it's only commonsense to think that the same thing is going to happen with ad revenue on the web? Or are you one of those people who were trying to convince everyone that the dotcom bubble was non-existent or how real estate values could never possible go down?
The advertising market shifts format, but does not reduce total volume as long as production keeps a certain level. When and if the business model of sites such as Google begins to drain, it'd mean that a new advertising format has emerged.
As a thought experiment, it's not unimaginable that within a few years the movile phones will be one of the most widely chosen platform to deliver advertising along with entertainment content.
So, Google Inc. might survive even if Google.com dies; unlikely in the mid-term, but definitely possible.
I don't think the analogy with the real-state bubble is appropriate.
Why complain when you can bomb them? That seems like your standard foreing-policy to deal with all those half-naked, food-deprived, thirsty countries in the middle east.
Just because you happen to think the entire series is great doesn't mean everyone does or even should agree.
Just because you happen to think the entire series is not worth it doesn't mean everyone does or even should agree. Let us please not get into yet another discussion about subjective and objective value in artistic work. Please, not again.
Are you seriously citing Heinlein as a counter-example to the thesis that science fiction is crap? And "Time enough for love", in particular? Holy cow....
The quality of writing in science fiction is worse than in any other genre. Most people pick up something and are so turned off that they never want to read another one. I'm saying probably less than 1% of sci fi novels are worth reading. Of the most famous authors, Heinlein, for example, published around 100 novels. But of those 100, only 1 or 2 were good. And so it is for the rest. You pick one up at the bookstore and chances are, it is garbage. There is no filter for sorting through the drek.
The same short-sighted analysis could be made about any genre.
On the other hand, most of Heinlein's books are good, actually; some are very good - "Time enough for love", for instance. Asimov published who-knows-how-many books, and virtually all of them are excelent. Frank Herbert published the Dune series; if you didn't like those, I'd be inclined to distrust your judgement even further.
But by all means, do continue flamebaiting. It's fun to read.
What do you guys think of this? In Scala, things like throws are annotations (at least so I read here). In Ceylon, things like shared are annotations. In Java, though, they're "reserved words".
The Scala and Ceylon approach seems, at first glance, a consistent one, in the sense that those things are information about the code, which qualify to be called "meta-programming". What I mean is: if you strip all classes of those "private", "final" and "throws", they'd still do the same thing. Thus, it seems to fit the "meta-information" concept.
Just for fun, the last few weeks I've been toying with the syntax of a programming laguage in which all these things are meta-information. The programmer can, in fact, create his/her own annotations which and be directly used in the code, without a marker operator (such as Java's @) to make the task of the parser simpler. It would, in turn, make the language appear extensible.
In order to do this, the reserved word private, for instance, is removed from the list of the language's reserved words, and implemented as an annotation. That annotation is part of a library distributed with the compiler, pretty much like distributing the java.lang package along with the javac compiler, and making all of its classes usable without import statements. I borrowed the idea from the Scala "syntactic sugar" for operators. Scala folks cleverly say that this: 1+1 is syntactic sugar for this: 1.+(1).
My idea is to allow the programmer to use a simple syntax when applying an annotation on an artifac (a class, an interface) that looks, when reading the code, like it is part of the language. private final class MyClass would become an abbreviated form of this: @private(value=true) @final(value=true) class MyClass. In the Celyon slides, doc is an annotation, by is an annotation, and so on. So I think they beat me to it.
I'm far from pretending to be an expert in programming language or compiler design, nor have experience with a huge span of languages. But I believe the compiler should work for the programmer, and make his life easier, and not the other way around.
If he was even considering settling, he shouldn't have accepted donations for legal expenses.
People gave donations so that he could fight. He took the donations, then didn't fight. That is not cool.
Why not? Wouldn't he need counseling to even settle? Would you sign a settlement without a lawyer reading it first? Why do you demand of this schmuck something you wouldn't do yourself?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh really? Then we are A-OK!!
So yes you are right I am the idiot.
Glad we agree.
That is what we spend in the US EVERY YEAR on the poor, the sick, and the lazy....and what have those people contributed to the world besides crime and cranking out babies who turn into even more poor, sick, and lazy people.
Better let those fuckers die of disease and starvation, right? "Fight hunger and poverty! Eat a poor person today!"
You, sir, are an idiot.
[...]they said their favorite part of America was the food.
Were they starving to the point of almost-certain death? USA is famous for its awful, industrial-tasting, unhealthy food.
If they claim to do X when in fact they do not do X, or claim not to do X when in fact they do do X then you have deceptive trade practices.
Plato, is that you?
Would you please stop these "privacy concern" non-issues, Mr. Coward? I'm bored. Nobody cares about your boring fucking life.
will be archived and indexed by search engines
Now, here's an interesting point. Person A writes something, is accused of libel or defamation or something, is declared guilty. Can search engines be found guilty of enabling access to this "illegal" material, pretty much like napster?
I think a bunch of journalists all around the world would disagree with you, sir.
You need something to handle the base load.
Not if you stop wasting energy. Which is yet another thing those green hippies want.
Still, you have not answered the question. My question was simple, direct, and easy to understand. You lack an answer, maybe?
Why not?
The reason for this is because violent video games are fun for a large number of well-adjusted people,
That line of reasoning holds water until someone comes along and says that the definition of "not well-adjusted" includes "people who enjoy games in which the goal is to kill people and rewards useless violence" (yes, GTA, I'm looking at you!).
I don't think anyone could really be OK with having a consumer of child pornography around, the proof being that no one would hire such nice folks to babysit their children. But the line of reasoning is perfectly valid for those not afraid of following it to its limits: "today they come for four child-pron collection, tomorrow they'll come for your videogames, the day after they'll come for your rock-and-roll music..." and so on.
Because ad revenues for TV and newspapers have been plummeting for a couple years now and it's only commonsense to think that the same thing is going to happen with ad revenue on the web? Or are you one of those people who were trying to convince everyone that the dotcom bubble was non-existent or how real estate values could never possible go down?
The advertising market shifts format, but does not reduce total volume as long as production keeps a certain level. When and if the business model of sites such as Google begins to drain, it'd mean that a new advertising format has emerged.
As a thought experiment, it's not unimaginable that within a few years the movile phones will be one of the most widely chosen platform to deliver advertising along with entertainment content.
So, Google Inc. might survive even if Google.com dies; unlikely in the mid-term, but definitely possible.
I don't think the analogy with the real-state bubble is appropriate.
Google makes money from advertising. Are they all smucks over there at Google?
They aint rich
Curiously enough, you take the bus to go to the supermarket, they rent a Black Hawk.
A difference of five seconds. Brilliant!
Why complain when you can bomb them? That seems like your standard foreing-policy to deal with all those half-naked, food-deprived, thirsty countries in the middle east.
Just because you happen to think the entire series is great doesn't mean everyone does or even should agree.
Just because you happen to think the entire series is not worth it doesn't mean everyone does or even should agree. Let us please not get into yet another discussion about subjective and objective value in artistic work. Please, not again.
Are you seriously citing Heinlein as a counter-example to the thesis that science fiction is crap? And "Time enough for love", in particular? Holy cow....
Yes.
[...]but "virtually all are excellent" exaggerates his average quality.
Well, he exaggerated first, Mr. Animats!
The quality of writing in science fiction is worse than in any other genre. Most people pick up something and are so turned off that they never want to read another one. I'm saying probably less than 1% of sci fi novels are worth reading. Of the most famous authors, Heinlein, for example, published around 100 novels. But of those 100, only 1 or 2 were good. And so it is for the rest. You pick one up at the bookstore and chances are, it is garbage. There is no filter for sorting through the drek.
The same short-sighted analysis could be made about any genre.
On the other hand, most of Heinlein's books are good, actually; some are very good - "Time enough for love", for instance. Asimov published who-knows-how-many books, and virtually all of them are excelent. Frank Herbert published the Dune series; if you didn't like those, I'd be inclined to distrust your judgement even further.
But by all means, do continue flamebaiting. It's fun to read.
Oh no you did NOT...
Shut down your computer and go to the pub.
What do you guys think of this? In Scala, things like throws are annotations (at least so I read here). In Ceylon, things like shared are annotations. In Java, though, they're "reserved words".
The Scala and Ceylon approach seems, at first glance, a consistent one, in the sense that those things are information about the code, which qualify to be called "meta-programming". What I mean is: if you strip all classes of those "private", "final" and "throws", they'd still do the same thing. Thus, it seems to fit the "meta-information" concept.
Just for fun, the last few weeks I've been toying with the syntax of a programming laguage in which all these things are meta-information. The programmer can, in fact, create his/her own annotations which and be directly used in the code, without a marker operator (such as Java's @) to make the task of the parser simpler. It would, in turn, make the language appear extensible.
In order to do this, the reserved word private, for instance, is removed from the list of the language's reserved words, and implemented as an annotation. That annotation is part of a library distributed with the compiler, pretty much like distributing the java.lang package along with the javac compiler, and making all of its classes usable without import statements. I borrowed the idea from the Scala "syntactic sugar" for operators. Scala folks cleverly say that this: 1+1 is syntactic sugar for this: 1.+(1).
My idea is to allow the programmer to use a simple syntax when applying an annotation on an artifac (a class, an interface) that looks, when reading the code, like it is part of the language. private final class MyClass would become an abbreviated form of this: @private(value=true) @final(value=true) class MyClass. In the Celyon slides, doc is an annotation, by is an annotation, and so on. So I think they beat me to it.
I'm far from pretending to be an expert in programming language or compiler design, nor have experience with a huge span of languages. But I believe the compiler should work for the programmer, and make his life easier, and not the other way around.
If he was even considering settling, he shouldn't have accepted donations for legal expenses.
People gave donations so that he could fight. He took the donations, then didn't fight. That is not cool.
Why not? Wouldn't he need counseling to even settle? Would you sign a settlement without a lawyer reading it first? Why do you demand of this schmuck something you wouldn't do yourself?