Ah, yes, the sort of strength Theo de Raadt has. Explains why OpenBSD is so much more advanced, so much more powerful, and runs on so many more architectures.
There's a difference between "I am Linus and I am your God" and driving off several of the core developers.
I rather suspect you have never been in that group, the best coders understand the difference between pride and arrogance. Since you apparently do not, I do not believe you to be one of the best, or even that good.
Nobody on the left objects to person. If you're attempting satire, don't bother. Leave it to experts - David Baddiel and Ross Noble have it down to a fine art.
Trust me, none of those you've listenable studied worth a damn and theirs is not the better way. They boast, brag and then rob you blind. If you genuinely want a better way, ignore those offering it. Look for the quiet ones who get the job done. If you need to advertise, you have failed.
Linux was spread by word of mouth, because it worked. That is how you know it was a good solution.
The covenant only says you have to judge code by the code and not by the contributor.
Not sure why anyone has a problem with that, beyond people seemingly wanting to have problems and not RTFMing.
Same goes for the "debate" described. Attitudes that focus on having problems with others.
This four digit UID has used Linux since 0.1 and 386BSD before that. I do not recall any antagonism towards a meritocracy in the USENET days. Maybe I'm too old for this. In my day, it was all about the code and the belief in the freedom of sharing. The covenant simply enforces what we, the free/libre/open source contributors hold to be true. It's no more onorous than the GPL.
But too many today think they know better. Maybe they do. They can prove it by founding their own communities. Parasites prove nothing.
Exemptions mean the billionaires pay less than their secretaries. Exemptions are supposed to encourage good behaviour. In fact, they don't. Besides, we pay government to look after civics and we can hold them responsible. We can't hold billionaires responsible and we have no stake in their vision.
Exemptions must be eliminated and taxes adjusted accordingly so that the working and middle classes aren't hurt.
Why have brackets? Seems stupid and creates anomalies on the boundaries.
Have a function that is asymptotic to both 0 (at the low end) and 60% (at the high end). A single function. Tax the nth dollar/pound/zlotty at the nth point on the curve, excluding benefits.
There are now no discontinuities, you don't have to have a book the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica to do your taxes, and you have an absolute guarantee you don't lose money by getting a raise.
Seems simple.
But won't people leave? Sweden charges 60% for the middle classes and plenty of rich people are moving there. My suggestion would approach 60%, for those earning $54 million or above (and people do get paid that).
Traditionally, this is offset by making the second house in government meritocratic. Those earning that much aught to have merit, so aught to have their stakeholder's say in governance. Someone without merit who earns a lot just pays the tax.
Unions are why you know how to type and aren't dying from a lung disease acquired down a mine.
Technology has moved on, yes, but it wasn't moved on by industry. It was moved on by the democratization of knowledge.
If you get health benefits (probable in the U.S.), remember that unions started off as health insurance brokers who made money by reducing accidents at work. So your health insurance is really from a (traditional) union.
That is why government should fund schools and provide a list of minimal standards at age 18, but otherwise have no say in how they are run. Only governments have the money needed and only governments have the power to ensure education of high quality is available to all regardless of circumstances.
Is this how it is done?
To an extent, yes, in Europe. It needs improving, but they have the right general idea.
It is vital to produce better workers, yes, but it's also vital to improving life expectancy (polyglots are resistant to dementia, for example), improving democracy and preventing blind subservience promotions.
An educated person can walk through the woods and know what is safe to eat. Yes, bushcraft is education. Those who think otherwise restrict education in order to create a category they can hate. I say can, because education isn't restrictive. Education is anything that shines a light on the ignorance and turns it to understanding.
An educated person has the skills to learn any new skill they so choose, for their own use or any other.
Education can never be achieved through for-profit schools. Their focus is on maximizing income, not learning.
I don't use LinkedIn, I just have an account. That's because you're discriminated against if you don't. But I've never used it and I've never heard of anyone else who does. It's cyberbling.
Do not blink. By the way, just because time is NOT a linear progression from cause to effect, do not try to kill statues by staring at them. On the other hand, I could be wrong. In which case, blink and you're dead.
Nope, nobody censors any of them. They're quite capable of speaking and they do get published. More than almost any other group. I can't think of a single such claim that has been backed by meaningful evidence and hard data. Probably because there isn't any.
Sorry, you need to come up with something better than unfounded claims, repeated allegations and baseless rumour.
The Guardian in Britain is hardly a bastion of right-wing thought but I've seen almost as many (uncensored) right-wing op-eds as left-wing. The BBC was recently censured for giving far more time to right-wing views than left, creating an unbalanced picture.
The fact is, the right censors the left far, far more than the other way around, and calls it good business. No. If it's censorship, it's always censorship, even when it's your side. If it's fine, it's always fine, even when you don't like it.
Other than deport them into war zones, lock them up indefinitely, place children into traumatic environments or isolation, deny them health or education, you mean?
And yes that's all happening to legal immigrants and even dark-skinned American nationals. The other thing happening to those is that cops are breaking into their apartments and gunning them down on the pretext that they're neighbours so it's ok.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes, the sort of strength Theo de Raadt has. Explains why OpenBSD is so much more advanced, so much more powerful, and runs on so many more architectures.
There's a difference between "I am Linus and I am your God" and driving off several of the core developers.
I rather suspect you have never been in that group, the best coders understand the difference between pride and arrogance. Since you apparently do not, I do not believe you to be one of the best, or even that good.
DO-178C
Nuff said.
Nobody on the left objects to person. If you're attempting satire, don't bother. Leave it to experts - David Baddiel and Ross Noble have it down to a fine art.
The standards are clear. Code is to be judged by quality and not by submitter.
I'm guessing the shrill screams are from those who can't compete on merit.
I dunno, maybe the ship changes size if you solve a complex maths problem.
At least Anthrax produces music.
I've seen tempers flare at Doctor Who conventions. If you like, imaginary currencies of imaginary races on imaginary worlds.
Humans have not evolved that much from their common ancestor with chimps, although we're capable of doing so if we like.
Trust me, none of those you've listenable studied worth a damn and theirs is not the better way. They boast, brag and then rob you blind. If you genuinely want a better way, ignore those offering it. Look for the quiet ones who get the job done. If you need to advertise, you have failed.
Linux was spread by word of mouth, because it worked. That is how you know it was a good solution.
The covenant only says you have to judge code by the code and not by the contributor.
Not sure why anyone has a problem with that, beyond people seemingly wanting to have problems and not RTFMing.
Same goes for the "debate" described. Attitudes that focus on having problems with others.
This four digit UID has used Linux since 0.1 and 386BSD before that. I do not recall any antagonism towards a meritocracy in the USENET days. Maybe I'm too old for this. In my day, it was all about the code and the belief in the freedom of sharing. The covenant simply enforces what we, the free/libre/open source contributors hold to be true. It's no more onorous than the GPL.
But too many today think they know better. Maybe they do. They can prove it by founding their own communities. Parasites prove nothing.
$1 to those on the margins is a big bite.
Sweden opts for 60%.
Exemptions mean the billionaires pay less than their secretaries. Exemptions are supposed to encourage good behaviour. In fact, they don't. Besides, we pay government to look after civics and we can hold them responsible. We can't hold billionaires responsible and we have no stake in their vision.
Exemptions must be eliminated and taxes adjusted accordingly so that the working and middle classes aren't hurt.
Why have brackets? Seems stupid and creates anomalies on the boundaries.
Have a function that is asymptotic to both 0 (at the low end) and 60% (at the high end). A single function. Tax the nth dollar/pound/zlotty at the nth point on the curve, excluding benefits.
There are now no discontinuities, you don't have to have a book the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica to do your taxes, and you have an absolute guarantee you don't lose money by getting a raise.
Seems simple.
But won't people leave? Sweden charges 60% for the middle classes and plenty of rich people are moving there. My suggestion would approach 60%, for those earning $54 million or above (and people do get paid that).
Traditionally, this is offset by making the second house in government meritocratic. Those earning that much aught to have merit, so aught to have their stakeholder's say in governance. Someone without merit who earns a lot just pays the tax.
Problem solved?
For-profit education will only ever be to boost profit, never education.
Unions are why you know how to type and aren't dying from a lung disease acquired down a mine.
Technology has moved on, yes, but it wasn't moved on by industry. It was moved on by the democratization of knowledge.
If you get health benefits (probable in the U.S.), remember that unions started off as health insurance brokers who made money by reducing accidents at work. So your health insurance is really from a (traditional) union.
That is why government should fund schools and provide a list of minimal standards at age 18, but otherwise have no say in how they are run. Only governments have the money needed and only governments have the power to ensure education of high quality is available to all regardless of circumstances.
Is this how it is done?
To an extent, yes, in Europe. It needs improving, but they have the right general idea.
It's not the amount that concerns people. It's the stunning and abysmal failure of for-profit education and the disaster that are academy schools.
It is vital to produce better workers, yes, but it's also vital to improving life expectancy (polyglots are resistant to dementia, for example), improving democracy and preventing blind subservience promotions.
An educated person can walk through the woods and know what is safe to eat. Yes, bushcraft is education. Those who think otherwise restrict education in order to create a category they can hate. I say can, because education isn't restrictive. Education is anything that shines a light on the ignorance and turns it to understanding.
An educated person has the skills to learn any new skill they so choose, for their own use or any other.
Education can never be achieved through for-profit schools. Their focus is on maximizing income, not learning.
Lines of code tells you how much work was put in.
The ratio of lines of code to code blocks tells you how maintainable the code is.
Defect density tells you the quality of the code.
A triple of these would give you a reasonable analysis.
I don't use LinkedIn, I just have an account. That's because you're discriminated against if you don't. But I've never used it and I've never heard of anyone else who does. It's cyberbling.
Do not blink. By the way, just because time is NOT a linear progression from cause to effect, do not try to kill statues by staring at them. On the other hand, I could be wrong. In which case, blink and you're dead.
That's been around for some time.
We know that there is no discrete space and time, only spacetime, which means uncertainty applies to spacetime.
So we've known things get interesting.
We know there are limits to just how interesting because information is conserved and time travel allows infinite information.
What we don't know is where between those limits things get. This will help.
Particles are uncertain in time. You cannot distinguish space and time, so uncertainty in one applies to the other.
Can we be sure? Yes. Time diffraction is well known. You can have a spacial or a temporal diffraction grating, they work identically.
My books for this month:
The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland
Craeft
Zend Frameworks 3
Nope, nobody censors any of them. They're quite capable of speaking and they do get published. More than almost any other group. I can't think of a single such claim that has been backed by meaningful evidence and hard data. Probably because there isn't any.
Sorry, you need to come up with something better than unfounded claims, repeated allegations and baseless rumour.
The Guardian in Britain is hardly a bastion of right-wing thought but I've seen almost as many (uncensored) right-wing op-eds as left-wing. The BBC was recently censured for giving far more time to right-wing views than left, creating an unbalanced picture.
The fact is, the right censors the left far, far more than the other way around, and calls it good business. No. If it's censorship, it's always censorship, even when it's your side. If it's fine, it's always fine, even when you don't like it.
Other than deport them into war zones, lock them up indefinitely, place children into traumatic environments or isolation, deny them health or education, you mean?
And yes that's all happening to legal immigrants and even dark-skinned American nationals. The other thing happening to those is that cops are breaking into their apartments and gunning them down on the pretext that they're neighbours so it's ok.