Indeed, this is how my dad encouraged me. We wrote Game of Life in Basic together. Visual stuff is very rewarding when programming - I wrote a lot of animations in Basic which was a lot of fun. In python or C there are probably good libraries that you could make a wrapper around and make it easy to draw and animate things.
Re:%75 as effective as a prescription 3% the price
on
Science vs. Homeopathy
·
· Score: 1
Scientifically useless, and only worthy of an anecdote or two. Well, it was worth my brother his life. Other than that, I agree.
Re:%75 as effective as a prescription 3% the price
on
Science vs. Homeopathy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The problem I have with scientific examination of pseudo-science, is that they lump everybody who does under the same umbrella and when doing research just pick the first best weirdo who says he knows the stuff. The reason pseudo-science is under such low regard is that most of the people doing are just schucks who want to make money without any education. But the reputation for the art comes from real masters who number just a few in the whole world. In Russia homeopathy is very widespread, but only a few are actually regarded specialists who know what they are talking about. Same with acupuncture. Most people doing it are just what you say, stress-relievers (sp?) and such. But there are a very few who actually know how the stuff works. The reason I'm convinced is that my brother was actually saved by one such "pseudo-doctor" from china when he was little. He was dying from a brain-condition and none of the ordinary doctors could do anything, but this guy could. Sounds freaky, but he could tell what was wrong with you just by looking at you. Quite different from the usual acupuncterists he never used more than 2-3 needles under 15-20 min. He had to sons and to his dismay one of the sons who had "the gift" didn't want to be a doctor and the other one didn't have it at all. I was 6-7 at the time so I definetely remember it all myself (no 'my moms uncle's friend told me'). Scientists are keen on disproving such things cause it's something they really don't understand and when something they don't understand works better than their own stuff it's not funny anymore. But I think it's great that they disprove the ordinary schucks who just try to make money out of it.
The problem I see is that they'll be collecting stats about what people are doing with gimp already, while I'm more interested what could be changed in gimp to make people do more stuff with it. They'll probably find that most people do simple photo-manipulation for the web and decide that gimp doesn't need color-management. Meself, I've been waiting for that feature since I started using gimp.
Pardon me, sir, are you suggesting that no great IP was produced during communism? Then you really should do some research. In Soviet Union there was tons of artists working for pennies just to create magnificent pieces of art, be it books, movies, poems or paintings. Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Mayakovsky, who is basically a proof that you can produce great art and instead of royalties get prison as reward. Just look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovjet#Culture and say what you said again, and say it to the faces of many great people who often sacrificed their lives for art.
This is the problem with US. Instead of seeing the overall social picture everybody looks to themselves instead. If everybody in the 3rd world becomes programmers, we'll have lots of really good software finally! Too much competition for you? Change business. Become a philosopher or painter. This is the free market forces you are talking about, the basics of the "great" US economy, right? Live as you teach.
I don't really think he is playing dumb. I kinda stopped reading closely after he said that an IP doesn't belong to a network-card but to the computer. That would mean I'd have a hard time setting up my gateway which amazingly has TWO network-cards with DIFFERENT IPs.
> You are no different then the last guy. Your mantra is "Be beneficial to me, bother other people if you must".
Btw, that is a personal attack. It doesn't belong in a mature discussion. If you have an argument, say it, but don't make witty remarks about other people. You know nothing about me, except what you think you have read out from my comments, so don't even try pretending that you do.
Maybe so. But just because of that you are saying that it's ok to inconveince everyone? I have a right to play music instruments at my home. No matter how or when I do it, it will probably be inconvenient for somebody. But if I do it during daytime and mute down the sound as much as I can, I won't disturb most of my neighbours. The few that do get disturbed won't be disturbed just as much and will probably just let it pass. My point is that even if you can't succeed with 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't try. You can't become a friend with everybody, but that doesn't mean you should become a fiend with everybody.
Did you actually read his comment? You don't seem to get this guys argument. I actually think he has a valid point. You seem to beleive that the only good protest is where people wreck havoc and make everyone go "my car/house/etc!!! wtf is going on?? I'm going to sue them!!!" That's a pretty lousy way to make friends, is what the original poster is trying to say. Now look at Gandhi. He wasn't violent and wasn't disturbing innocent bystanders. He just sat and wouldn't eat. That worked pretty well, don't you think?
Now if I saw a protest where they set trees on fire, I'd call them stupid and wouldn't bother checking with them what it was. But if I saw, say, a choir singing funny songs on a street corner, I'd come and listen for a while (they'd have to be good too). A protest doesn't have to be provoking to be a good protest. You only have to make people listen to you and you accomplish that best by being polite and unobtrusive.
>that happens to be my opinion, but that's beside the point
Apparently, not, because you seem to have missed the point of article.
>A: aquatic animals that exist today don't have arms >B: land animals that exist today do have arms >C: this animal appears to be aquatic and it also has arms >Conclusion: THIS MUST BE THE MISSING LINK!!!!11!!11
If you really read the article unbiased, it would be:
A: aquatic animals that existed 420M years ago didn't have arms, didn't had a strong enough sceleton to support their weight and didn't have lungs, so they couldn't function on land. B: land animals that existed 350M years ago had arms to walk the land, could support their weight and had lungs, so they could function on land C: There should be an animal between 420M and 350M years ago that would have a little bit of this and that so it could be function both in water and on land D: To find that timeperiod and that environment we would have to dig over there, so let's go and dig E: Woopsie-daisies! Here it lies! Has arms to walk the land, supports its weight and apparently had lungs, but still looks a lot like a fish! F: This must be the missing link we were looking for! Hooray! And what a wonderfull thing that we could predict not only the existens of it but also the timeperiod and location? This most certainly supports the evolution theory! Hooray again!
That would be great! All of the EU being forced to go alternatives, spending billions on the switch. Almost like another 2k-problem! Just imagine all the job-opportunities for us Open Source nerds!
They obviously read too much slashdot and thought that moderation-system was neat. So when are we going to hear about an even bigger secret of google - meta-eval.google.com?
Considering that half of the discussion has turned to a bundled/not bundled war, I thought I comment on the article itself.
I work at a software company and vendor-dependencies are a major problem, which is why we are running more an more OS-software now. Sticking with open standards is really important too. For instace at the moment we are very dependent on Lotus Notes, which is not good. Luckily, Notes supports standards as IMAP, LDAP, SMTP and has a java-interface, which means that we can start moving our services slowly to those standards while still running Lotus and soon we will not be dependend on Lotus but only on open standards. This gives a great advantage in the future, since you can choose and pick whatever server that supports those standards. Actually we get benefits right away - our office in Finland would rather use OpenLDAP and cyrus instead of Lotus and if we design our services based on LDAP and IMAP we can run them both here and in Finland without changing anything.
Buying proprietary software is not really a problem. The problem is when that software doesn't conform to open standards and you get locked in. Switching later will mean spending toooons of money. Unfortunately, many get seduced by bells and whistles of proprietary formats and later find themselves paying up a considerable amount to the vendor, without any possibility to switch.
The light-bulb was invented by a Russian scientist, A.N. Lodygin, who for the first time used it to light the streets of Petersburg. [...] A junior lieutnant of the Russian fleet, A.M. Chotinskij, while on a service trip to the USA demonstrated Lodygin's light-bulb (which he had taken with him) to T.Edison. Edison made use of Lodygin technical ideas, introduced some construction changes in his light-bulb, and patented it in 1879.
I agree with you, but this is a difficult matter since it conflicts with basic human emotions - greed and lazyness. A software company for instance, can put a lot of manhours on producing a product. They then want to earn back what they've put into it (you have to feed even the programmers sometimes, you know). The easiest way to do that is sell it on a CD. You just cram out a shitload of cds and put those in stores and if the product is any good, people will buy. Easy money.
Now you say that anyone should be able to distribute copies for free. That means that I can buy a CD, then make a shitload of copies and put them in piles outside the store. Nobody would then buy the product from the stores, since it's available for free right outside. The company wouldn't make any money out of it and all the programmers would starve to death. Another one bites the dust.
The solution is ofcourse to implement a different buissness model. For instance as http://www.mysql.com/ is doing - give away your product for free and charge for professional support. This is far from easy and requires good managing skills, something that many company-leaders lack.
What about music? A successfull artist could live of giving concerts to the fans, that download and share the music. Movies? The movie-hiring buissness would dissapear, so the only thing left would be movie-theaters. Wouldn't people stop going to theaters if you could download the movie? Not if you have reasonable prices and give a good experience. What experience? Well I don't know, it doesn't exist yet, cause nobody cared to come up with one since what we have now is "good enough". Myself, I'd even be happy with the current one, if only they'd lower the prices. As it is, I almost never go to movies.
With the old model, you can make lot of money fast. With the new one you have to struggle to make your living. The result? Big lazy companies lobbying for laws that will make it possible for them to continue to make loads of money fast and easy.
But I have a feeling that it will not last. If everybody on this planet were lazy stupid bums, the big companies would win and we would get lousy products for a high price and people would still eat it, since nobody cared. But obvously there are many that care and do something about it and I think that is enough to make sure that we are on the right track to the "Free Information" future =)// no I don't have a sig
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, this is how my dad encouraged me. We wrote Game of Life in Basic together. Visual stuff is very rewarding when programming - I wrote a lot of animations in Basic which was a lot of fun. In python or C there are probably good libraries that you could make a wrapper around and make it easy to draw and animate things.
The problem I have with scientific examination of pseudo-science, is that they lump everybody who does under the same umbrella and when doing research just pick the first best weirdo who says he knows the stuff. The reason pseudo-science is under such low regard is that most of the people doing are just schucks who want to make money without any education. But the reputation for the art comes from real masters who number just a few in the whole world. In Russia homeopathy is very widespread, but only a few are actually regarded specialists who know what they are talking about. Same with acupuncture. Most people doing it are just what you say, stress-relievers (sp?) and such. But there are a very few who actually know how the stuff works. The reason I'm convinced is that my brother was actually saved by one such "pseudo-doctor" from china when he was little. He was dying from a brain-condition and none of the ordinary doctors could do anything, but this guy could. Sounds freaky, but he could tell what was wrong with you just by looking at you. Quite different from the usual acupuncterists he never used more than 2-3 needles under 15-20 min. He had to sons and to his dismay one of the sons who had "the gift" didn't want to be a doctor and the other one didn't have it at all. I was 6-7 at the time so I definetely remember it all myself (no 'my moms uncle's friend told me'). Scientists are keen on disproving such things cause it's something they really don't understand and when something they don't understand works better than their own stuff it's not funny anymore. But I think it's great that they disprove the ordinary schucks who just try to make money out of it.
The problem I see is that they'll be collecting stats about what people are doing with gimp already, while I'm more interested what could be changed in gimp to make people do more stuff with it. They'll probably find that most people do simple photo-manipulation for the web and decide that gimp doesn't need color-management. Meself, I've been waiting for that feature since I started using gimp.
Pardon me, sir, are you suggesting that no great IP was produced during communism? Then you really should do some research. In Soviet Union there was tons of artists working for pennies just to create magnificent pieces of art, be it books, movies, poems or paintings. Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Mayakovsky, who is basically a proof that you can produce great art and instead of royalties get prison as reward. Just look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovjet#Culture and say what you said again, and say it to the faces of many great people who often sacrificed their lives for art.
This is the problem with US. Instead of seeing the overall social picture everybody looks to themselves instead.
If everybody in the 3rd world becomes programmers, we'll have lots of really good software finally!
Too much competition for you? Change business. Become a philosopher or painter. This is the free market forces
you are talking about, the basics of the "great" US economy, right? Live as you teach.
My computer chokes on 1080. =/
I bet that's what they said about oil too...
I don't really think he is playing dumb. I kinda stopped reading closely after he said that an IP doesn't belong to a network-card but to the computer. That would mean I'd have a hard time setting up my gateway which amazingly has TWO network-cards with DIFFERENT IPs.
Arrrggh! They gonna crash into the sun!
> You are no different then the last guy. Your mantra is "Be beneficial to me, bother other people if you must".
Btw, that is a personal attack. It doesn't belong in a mature discussion. If you have an argument, say it, but don't make witty remarks about other people. You know nothing about me, except what you think you have read out from my comments, so don't even try pretending that you do.
Maybe so. But just because of that you are saying that it's ok to inconveince everyone? I have a right to play music instruments at my home. No matter how or when I do it, it will probably be inconvenient for somebody. But if I do it during daytime and mute down the sound as much as I can, I won't disturb most of my neighbours. The few that do get disturbed won't be disturbed just as much and will probably just let it pass. My point is that even if you can't succeed with 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't try. You can't become a friend with everybody, but that doesn't mean you should become a fiend with everybody.
Did you actually read his comment? You don't seem to get this guys argument. I actually think he has a valid point. You seem to beleive that the only good protest is where people wreck havoc and make everyone go "my car/house/etc!!! wtf is going on?? I'm going to sue them!!!" That's a pretty lousy way to make friends, is what the original poster is trying to say. Now look at Gandhi. He wasn't violent and wasn't disturbing innocent bystanders. He just sat and wouldn't eat. That worked pretty well, don't you think?
Now if I saw a protest where they set trees on fire, I'd call them stupid and wouldn't bother checking with them what it was. But if I saw, say, a choir singing funny songs on a street corner, I'd come and listen for a while (they'd have to be good too). A protest doesn't have to be provoking to be a good protest. You only have to make people listen to you and you accomplish that best by being polite and unobtrusive.
>that happens to be my opinion, but that's beside the point
Apparently, not, because you seem to have missed the point of article.
>A: aquatic animals that exist today don't have arms
>B: land animals that exist today do have arms
>C: this animal appears to be aquatic and it also has arms
>Conclusion: THIS MUST BE THE MISSING LINK!!!!11!!11
If you really read the article unbiased, it would be:
A: aquatic animals that existed 420M years ago didn't have arms, didn't had a strong enough sceleton to support their weight and didn't have lungs, so they couldn't function on land.
B: land animals that existed 350M years ago had arms to walk the land, could support their weight and had lungs, so they could function on land
C: There should be an animal between 420M and 350M years ago that would have a little bit of this and that so it could be function both in water and on land
D: To find that timeperiod and that environment we would have to dig over there, so let's go and dig
E: Woopsie-daisies! Here it lies! Has arms to walk the land, supports its weight and apparently had lungs, but still looks a lot like a fish!
F: This must be the missing link we were looking for! Hooray! And what a wonderfull thing that we could predict not only the existens of it but also the timeperiod and location? This most certainly supports the evolution theory! Hooray again!
Cheers!
/ Storm
That would be great! All of the EU being forced to go alternatives, spending billions on the switch. Almost like another 2k-problem! Just imagine all the job-opportunities for us Open Source nerds!
They obviously read too much slashdot and thought that moderation-system was neat. So when are we going to hear about an even bigger secret of google - meta-eval.google.com?
Considering that half of the discussion has turned to a bundled/not bundled war, I thought I comment on the article itself.
I work at a software company and vendor-dependencies are a major problem, which is why we are running more an more OS-software now. Sticking with open standards is really important too. For instace at the moment we are very dependent on Lotus Notes, which is not good. Luckily, Notes supports standards as IMAP, LDAP, SMTP and has a java-interface, which means that we can start moving our services slowly to those standards while still running Lotus and soon we will not be dependend on Lotus but only on open standards. This gives a great advantage in the future, since you can choose and pick whatever server that supports those standards. Actually we get benefits right away - our office in Finland would rather use OpenLDAP and cyrus instead of Lotus and if we design our services based on LDAP and IMAP we can run them both here and in Finland without changing anything.
Buying proprietary software is not really a problem. The problem is when that software doesn't conform to open standards and you get locked in. Switching later will mean spending toooons of money. Unfortunately, many get seduced by bells and whistles of proprietary formats and later find themselves paying up a considerable amount to the vendor, without any possibility to switch.
The light-bulb was invented by a Russian scientist, A.N. Lodygin, who for the first time used it to light the streets of Petersburg. [...] A junior lieutnant of the Russian fleet, A.M. Chotinskij, while on a service trip to the USA demonstrated Lodygin's light-bulb (which he had taken with him) to T.Edison. Edison made use of Lodygin technical ideas, introduced some construction changes in his light-bulb, and patented it in 1879.
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Or at least according to this
I agree with you, but this is a difficult matter since it conflicts with basic human emotions - greed and lazyness. A software company for instance, can put a lot of manhours on producing a product. They then want to earn back what they've put into it (you have to feed even the programmers sometimes, you know). The easiest way to do that is sell it on a CD. You just cram out a shitload of cds and put those in stores and if the product is any good, people will buy. Easy money.
// no I don't have a sig
Now you say that anyone should be able to distribute copies for free. That means that I can buy a CD, then make a shitload of copies and put them in piles outside the store. Nobody would then buy the product from the stores, since it's available for free right outside. The company wouldn't make any money out of it and all the programmers would starve to death. Another one bites the dust.
The solution is ofcourse to implement a different buissness model. For instance as http://www.mysql.com/ is doing - give away your product for free and charge for professional support. This is far from easy and requires good managing skills, something that many company-leaders lack.
What about music? A successfull artist could live of giving concerts to the fans, that download and share the music. Movies? The movie-hiring buissness would dissapear, so the only thing left would be movie-theaters. Wouldn't people stop going to theaters if you could download the movie? Not if you have reasonable prices and give a good experience. What experience? Well I don't know, it doesn't exist yet, cause nobody cared to come up with one since what we have now is "good enough". Myself, I'd even be happy with the current one, if only they'd lower the prices. As it is, I almost never go to movies.
With the old model, you can make lot of money fast. With the new one you have to struggle to make your living. The result? Big lazy companies lobbying for laws that will make it possible for them to continue to make loads of money fast and easy.
But I have a feeling that it will not last. If everybody on this planet were lazy stupid bums, the big companies would win and we would get lousy products for a high price and people would still eat it, since nobody cared. But obvously there are many that care and do something about it and I think that is enough to make sure that we are on the right track to the "Free Information" future =)
Actually, his site was finished loading before your link was even resolved. He can now put a "passed the /. test"-banner on the site.