And the same Americans who are violently against cloning humans, but are **flabbergasted** to hear that identical twins are as identical as clones. (This one from a roommate of mine. He was *not* a science major.)
So, um does this mean if I find one of your fingernails I can grow a couple hundred copies of you to keep in my personal slave pit? They'll be mostly superfluous, I'll just gut one everytime I see an obvious troll like this.
useless bloody morons
Of course, I can't help but admit, nuclear *is* the best modern source of power.
"Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
Of course, maybe that's my problem if capitalism really means "property[power] concetrated into the hands of the few" then I've been reading the wrong dictionary.
So, "libertarian capitalists", are for the "free" market, unfortuneately everyone has a different definition of "free". Personally I think free means, only a few simple rules that equally apply to everyone and don't attempt to favor the big over the little or the strong over the weak or vice versa. Most importantly, libertarians favor the government staying out of production/distribution and any other "economic" affairs as much as possible. In fact, libertarians are for having a weak little government that can't do much more than keep people from hurting each other, or mucking about with each other's property. Of course things always get dicey when "property" goes into the equation.
Corporations are always trying to get more out of this: "Please, gov'ment protect our land, please gov'ment protect our banks. please, gov'ment protect our ideas." It's funny, but you never heard the settlers or individualist entrepreneurs whining for more government assistance. Instead, a settler would be saying: "Please gov'ment, let me protect myself and my property, and let my peers[fellow man] judge when I've done wrong."
Of course, a corporation is just a bunch of people who want to use money (not effort) to get more money... The only difference between them and those on the street with a hand out are that they have some money to begin with, and know how to keep it when they get it.
The first author decides to offer his book *only* in this format. Now all of a sudden there's a book you can't read without renting and that libraries can't offer on their shelves.
From what I can tell this license is saying the only software that can use this patent for free is GPL software. (or RTLinux, but that's beside my point)
So, none of the linux distros fit this criterion, because even if you stay with only the free branches, you're still going to have artistic, BSD, and other open licenses commingled. (see the gnu website for more info on the GPL and free vs open software)
That's if you interpret the license to mean *all* software used with it must be GPL'ed. However, I believe the author's intent is that the software implementing his patented algorithm must be GPL'ed, which would mean he's forcing the GPL seed into any project that wants to use it for free.
I think it's a great idea for "content owners" to hire bounty hunters that go after those infringing on their copyrights.
However, someone needs to educate these companies on what that really means, because right now they are merely discriminating against those running certain software.
Instead, they should be downloading everything offered by a particular site. Then nailing the site for trafficking in illegal copies instead of this "trafficking in circumvention" BS. Also, once a site (warez or P2P or whatever) has been "caught" in the act, they should get lessened fines if they co-operate by continuing to offer contraband, but then logging all those dirty downloaders. Once the downloaders of the copyrighted works are identified, they can then be individually prosecuted for fines or whatever. Obviously, sneaky downloaders will be tough to catch, so you need technically excellent bounty hunters and a system that double and triple checks to be sure the guilty really are that.
This would be a more "sane" war on copyright infringement, instead of the current war on creativity/freedom/competition we've got going.
Of course, much like the war on drugs, this will open up the system to abuses, like putting contraband on somebody's machine to get them in trouble. So, some care will need to be taken in the actual implementation thereof. Currently since it's impossible to get a warrant to search a person's hard-drive unless you're the FBI, I don't think there's much risk of lost freedoms with this scheme.
Now, this is starting to get really long, but I'd also like to point out the current "scheme"(DMCA) used to protect copyright mostly goes after competitors to the large conglomerates instead of going after the customers(infringers) themselves. You really think the RIAA wants to arrest that 16 year old warez site owner who buys 5 CD's a month, goes to tons of movies and generally spends all his/her disposable income on RIAA stuff?
Translation: They already know infringement is a great form of advertising.
I just checked out your site. If I hadn't gone there specifically to see your tip jar, I wouldn't have found it at all. It doesn't even exist on your main page(where people are most impressionable). Besides that, it's hardly readable and doesn't look much like a jar at all.
And do what that last poster said and put it in your copyright statement not up at the top of the page. I bet many of those emailers would have tipped if they'd have found the crazy *jar*.
Also, keep in mind, since CPM's are around $1 lately you'd have made about the same amount with banner adds if you served 78,000 impressions in the last 7 months.
I think the references to Revelation came due to a combination of factors:
There's the one about the new "no Free tools" MS EULA.
There's the one about smart-tags.
There's the one about MS Money and VISA.
Oh yeah, and there's the one about the MS sales department hanging license audits over the heads of those who don't "upgrade" their products.
Also, I happen to be an MSDN subscriber... The new EULA for that essentially says you have to sign up on MSDN online, or you forfeit your license rights.
Now, to make life easier MS has decided to help us all by requiring the same log on for developer docs and MSDN.
Basically Microsoft has their fingers in a ton of different pies, they have a really big stick to hit with(software licensing), and not many checks or balances on that power. Even if they had a saintly history, I'd still be worried.
It doesn't help that Microsoft has a pay structure that requires continued growth to continue working... Hard to sell more OS's when you're already at 95% market share, then the whole market begins to peak.
Microsoft isn't the only company I'm worried about, they've just got the biggest stick. Perhaps we'll pass some sane copyright laws next time around?
Hmm... sure, the part about not allowing a developer to distribute with GPL seems reasonable enough on the surface. In fact it simply helps further enforce the terms of the GPL in this respect. It's the part about the tools that gets me.
You see, they want to say what tools you can/can't use when you're also using their software. To get at the core of the issue, here's an example:
Bob's new EULA:
You can use this software any way you like as long as you don't ever use any Microsoft software again. If you ever again use Microsoft software after agreeing to this license, you've broken it's terms and must quit using this software.
Also, you can't use this software if you have a blue desktop, eat meat, or happen to be of Anglo-Saxon descent.
To me, it seems obvious all of these things are ludicrous. At what point do we draw the line and say, "Those terms are un-enforceable?" Or perhaps do we revisit copyright and decide that the current legal trend of "licensing" doesn't make nearly as much sense as everyone seems to think it does.
I'd REALLY love to hear from a lawyer on what is and is not enforceable for copyright licensing. I'm curious about things in the past, now, and in the projected future.
First off... this isn't DLL hell, it's update hell. It's not DLL hell because Linux doesn't have that problem, since it keeps all "in use" versions of every "DLL" that ever existed. So, you'll never have the problem of apps that want differing special dll versions and not be able to get them working....
As for where to put libraries... it's one of two places. If you're feeling prude, put it in/usr/local/lib. If you're feeling promiscuis put it in/usr/lib. It's a security thing. Any program that doesn't find a library in one of those two places (given a non trashed distribution) doesn't deserve to run successfully.
Next, there is a problem here. It's the fact that the makers of GnuCash (if they want a production/useable version of their product) should make a distro that includes all needed libraries, or at least an update on their site with all the needed libraries. This would make life easy for all of us in luser land out here who might actually want to, gasp, *use* their program.
This is one reason I use Debian, once a package is on their list, it will grab everything you need with it automagically. Assuming of course you can get through their half assed effort at an interface called dselect... no update hell there, of course the latest gnucash available from debian's site is 1.3.4-3. You could try something newer off the GnuCash site if you want... but uh... good luck.
Now, to aleviate the last problem that of cluelessness on the web in general as well as here on Slashdot, maybe we should require a course called "denewbie" as an addendum to the GPL. That way people would know this stuff or they'd be running Linux illegally!
Oh, wait a second, I almost forgot. LINUX DOCUMENTATION SUCKS!! The closest thing to it is a bunch of MAN pages and HowTos that quite frankly require an expert to even BEGIN using!!!! (note: If anyone has some docs they think are readable... please tell me about them, and I'll be happy to *review* them. I'm talking about whole system install and use from the ground up docs here.)
(JoeNewbie_Rant)
Um... I've been a professional C/C++/x86 Assembly programmer on dos/windows for 5 years. I just bought this new CD that says "Red Hat" on it cause I heard it was neat.
What's this super user account thingie the install wants me to make... and uh... why should I need another account anyways?
And uh... Now I"m running enlightenment and I want to install the latest version of this neat app I found called GnuCash, but I need 60 libraries that I have to download one at a time cause I don't know any better way to get them. By the way, what does "unstable" mean?
Since I didn't understand what windows DLL hell was in the first place, maybe this is shared library hell?
Also, once I get the libraries where the heck do I put them. I've heard the directory is called "lib", but which one?
/lib
/usr/lib
/usr/local/lib
/var/lib
This must be a problem in the Linux directory structure. It should just have one folder like windows has. Hey, we could even call it "System"!!
(/JoeNewbie_Rant)
For any interested parties... in all intents and purposes I *am* (or was) Joe Newbie in this case. I was a programmer for 3 years professionally before I started using GNU/Linux/Unix/BSD. It's been a year and a half since then, and I'm still learning a lot of things. Now, I haven't had time to devote to *work* on linux, I've just tried to use it in a useful way, so that eventually it'll save me enough time that I have some to *work* on it. I figure that's a fair tradeoff. But so far, documentation has always been on the lacking side of the fence, quite close to his brother standardization actually. (Currently I only use Linux on internet appliances... you know, file/web servers, firewalls and the like, I've done no more than *play* with workstations)
If you're supposed to be a manager, give me a firm set of requirements up front and access to the customer(s) or get out of my way!
You put the words "technologically innovative", and "easy-to-use" in my requirements, and I'll be putting the words "resume" and "job-searching" on my website.
It's not what the GPL will do TO you. It's what the GPL will do FOR you.
Use Open source as much as you can. There might be GPL or other OSS alternatives to the $oftware you're currently using to develop. As you fix things in the tools you're using, publish those fixes to the OSS community.
If you're $3 million behind already, be greedy with your own licenses, don't open anything you don't have to. Hire a lawyer if you need to, but make sure you use the OSS licenses appropriately. Once you're ahead instead of behind, think about OSSing your old stuff to keep the competition on it's toes. (moving on to the next product)
As for making money with new OSS, experiment on a small scale. Try it with a sub product see how customers like it and if you still get enough related service money and/or fame to make it worth your while.
If someone tries to tell you what you "owe" the open source community, laugh in their face. The only reason to open source code is to get more people using it, and to make other peoples lives better. Understanding why this is beneficial is difficult for many individuals and most corporations. But in the long run, believe me, it's the best policy. (I'm talking about helping others, not expecting them to help you!!)
Industry has methods of testing that are supposed to simulate long term real life usage. But my guess is they're not as good as people would like to think they are. Lasers are easy to test, but how well will those CD-R's *really* hold up in 100 years??
Humans love to look at the world and try to throw chunks of it into a bin they have labeled "understanding". The problem is, some people are not as picky as others about what gets thrown into this bin.
So, every once in a while, it becomes necessary to dig back into that "understanding" bin for large chunks of life that need to be broken down into smaller pieces. This wouldn't be too bad if people had similar ideas about the meaning of their label.
Personally, I prefer to spend my time hucking things into a bin I have marked "accurate predictions". Many of the same theories go into this bin, but it makes me feel less deluded when I have to go back into it and pull things out.
As a book its fine, but...
on
Republic.Com
·
· Score: 1
It would just be really scary if somebody got a bright idea and decided to implement actual LAWS like this.
That is why this line of reasoning is a bit uncomfortable for those of us who happen to actually BELIEVE in something, and even those who realize that everyone believes in SOMETHING.
Call belief a human trait if you like.
What an awesome troll
on
Republic.Com
·
· Score: 1
I think this is a work of art, not a troll.
What a short awesome job of showing the problems with Republic.com and it's bias.
It poisons the people. I LOVE this post!!! I gather from the last line, the author may not even agree with what he's saying, but I still love it!
Liberals/left wingers what have you, are really after control by society. They think individuals should defer to societies viewpoint(s) whenever it has one and for whatever reason.
Right wingers/conservatives whatever generally believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility.
This book is proposing that the government, or "SOCIETY" get to decide what people put into their brains. Rather than the people themselves deciding what goes in. The lines of what is/isn't radical will be drawn by the government, the choices of what people "need" to be exposed to would be chosen by the government. (ie Democratic society, the whim of the populous at large with guns behind it)
This idea is a liberal's wet dream, of course it's biased. But, the liberals say, we're going to put stuff up there we DON'T agree with too. Yeah, right I believe you. So, um would this post I'm replying to be one of the things "required" on "extreme liberal" sites? Oh, there's no "extreme liberal" category? How did that get left out? Oh, yeah, liberals don't believe anything strongly, except that no one else should either. Huh, that makes sense.
Why do liberals(particularly the leaders) like things this way? Because they are generally good politicians, and good arguers, so it makes it easy for them to get their way.
So, I have Northpoint DSL with Verio as my ISP no less. What do you recommend I do?
Covad DSL and Quest(uswest) RADSL are the only two options I know of left to me. And don't think I'm going to pay the $89/mo for a 144kbps line.
If Quest(USWest) can offer me a reasonable price ($50/mo or less) and a reasonable speed (around 200kbps or more) I'm going to jump on it.
If Verio (who I've been very happy with so far) wants to keep my business, they better be looking hard for alternative providers for me. But, after talking with one of their reps on the phone today, I get the feeling they aren't really looking.
So far, it looks like I'll be going back to 56kbps at $12/mo...
BTW, I have no love for Quest, you want to come up with a plan for showing them the error of their ways, I'm happy to join in(I remember a notion of buying stock and attending meetings etc once upon a time, ala "hack" corporate america). But not when it hurts my bottom line this much.
Mathematics doesn't really have the kind of assumptions you can disagree with.
There is more than one perspective on the fundamentals of mathematics. Perhaps you've never heard of the law of the excluded middle, or of a Dr. Brouwer. The law of the excluded middle may not pertain to 2+2=4, but it does pertain, and there are other precepts to mathematics. Perhaps it would be useful to teach them along with the applications.
I believe the whole point of the referenced article was a particular researcher's quest to prove a couple of limits to what mathematics is capable of. I am not a mathematician, but these limits are tied up with several fundamental math concepts.
Hence, my earlier statement. Freedom is the freedom to say, "I don't know, and here's why I don't think you do either." You obviosly know something but you may not know what you think you know.
Granted, this stuff has been around a while, (since 1933) but I think the point perhaps is that one fundumental tennant of math/science is on it's heals.
The idea of Scientific Naturalism. The idea that math/science/human brains will eventually be able to "understand" everything "meaningful" in the universe.
The fact of the matter is there are things that can be demonstrabably "proved" that we don't know, and we will NEVER know(because they can't be known!!)! So, faith in human understanding of EVERYTHING is at best misplaced.
The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have it. If science/math/colleges everywhere can admit they have a problem, that of bad philosophy. Perhaps they can begin to reverse the damage to creative minds, deflate egos, and begin to get some useful work done.
Does this mean 2+2=4 is not a useful concept? No. Does this mean 2+2=4 is TRUTH? I'm only human, what's TRUTH?
Freedom is the freedom to say, "I don't know, and here's why I don't think you do either."
I think intellectual honesty is very important. When we teach 2+2=4, we should also teach the underlying assumptions.
Disagreeing with the assumptions, does not excuse one from responsibility for the subject matter. But, it should not be a reason to flunk, browbeat or otherwise attack the party in disagreement either.
Hmm... out of work just out of college? Didn't you do an internship? Great way to get a first job, especially if you do well.
All is not lost if you haven't. Throw up a web page. If you're "damn good" at the languages you mentioned put up some code samples of the projects you weened yourself on. Make the page nice and thoughtful, and be sure to include a resume. Point prospective employers to it.
In the mean time, take advantage of this time to learn/do whatever it is you have an itch for. Write some open source, learn a new language, or tackle that big project you've dreamed of and never had time for. Some of the biggest names in the industry (who wrote winamp again?) Spent a summer or more sleeping on a relatives couch whilst they perfected their trademark project(s).
If you're single, and able to "leech" someone, I greatly envy you, I always wish for some time to get back to writing what I want for fun, rather than what someone else decides they want in order to put food on the table.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, 80-90% of people will stop thinking.
Such a useless activity anyway, unless it's for profit.
And the same Americans who are violently against cloning humans, but are **flabbergasted** to hear that identical twins are as identical as clones. (This one from a roommate of mine. He was *not* a science major.)
So, um does this mean if I find one of your fingernails I can grow a couple hundred copies of you to keep in my personal slave pit? They'll be mostly superfluous, I'll just gut one everytime I see an obvious troll like this.
useless bloody morons
Of course, I can't help but admit, nuclear *is* the best modern source of power.
From www.m-w.com:
"Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
Of course, maybe that's my problem if capitalism really means "property[power] concetrated into the hands of the few" then I've been reading the wrong dictionary.
So, "libertarian capitalists", are for the "free" market, unfortuneately everyone has a different definition of "free". Personally I think free means, only a few simple rules that equally apply to everyone and don't attempt to favor the big over the little or the strong over the weak or vice versa. Most importantly, libertarians favor the government staying out of production/distribution and any other "economic" affairs as much as possible. In fact, libertarians are for having a weak little government that can't do much more than keep people from hurting each other, or mucking about with each other's property. Of course things always get dicey when "property" goes into the equation.
Corporations are always trying to get more out of this: "Please, gov'ment protect our land, please gov'ment protect our banks. please, gov'ment protect our ideas." It's funny, but you never heard the settlers or individualist entrepreneurs whining for more government assistance. Instead, a settler would be saying: "Please gov'ment, let me protect myself and my property, and let my peers[fellow man] judge when I've done wrong."
Of course, a corporation is just a bunch of people who want to use money (not effort) to get more money... The only difference between them and those on the street with a hand out are that they have some money to begin with, and know how to keep it when they get it.
The first author decides to offer his book *only* in this format. Now all of a sudden there's a book you can't read without renting and that libraries can't offer on their shelves.
Kinda like proprietary software is now.
Hmm... didn't Agatha Christie write some of her books in the 20th century?
Nothing has entered the public domain by its full term since 1920 or so. About the time "Steamboat Willie" came out.
IANAL but...
From what I can tell this license is saying the only software that can use this patent for free is GPL software. (or RTLinux, but that's beside my point)
So, none of the linux distros fit this criterion, because even if you stay with only the free branches, you're still going to have artistic, BSD, and other open licenses commingled. (see the gnu website for more info on the GPL and free vs open software)
That's if you interpret the license to mean *all* software used with it must be GPL'ed. However, I believe the author's intent is that the software implementing his patented algorithm must be GPL'ed, which would mean he's forcing the GPL seed into any project that wants to use it for free.
Exactly right.
I think it's a great idea for "content owners" to hire bounty hunters that go after those infringing on their copyrights.
However, someone needs to educate these companies on what that really means, because right now they are merely discriminating against those running certain software.
Instead, they should be downloading everything offered by a particular site. Then nailing the site for trafficking in illegal copies instead of this "trafficking in circumvention" BS. Also, once a site (warez or P2P or whatever) has been "caught" in the act, they should get lessened fines if they co-operate by continuing to offer contraband, but then logging all those dirty downloaders. Once the downloaders of the copyrighted works are identified, they can then be individually prosecuted for fines or whatever. Obviously, sneaky downloaders will be tough to catch, so you need technically excellent bounty hunters and a system that double and triple checks to be sure the guilty really are that.
This would be a more "sane" war on copyright infringement, instead of the current war on creativity/freedom/competition we've got going.
Of course, much like the war on drugs, this will open up the system to abuses, like putting contraband on somebody's machine to get them in trouble. So, some care will need to be taken in the actual implementation thereof. Currently since it's impossible to get a warrant to search a person's hard-drive unless you're the FBI, I don't think there's much risk of lost freedoms with this scheme.
Now, this is starting to get really long, but I'd also like to point out the current "scheme"(DMCA) used to protect copyright mostly goes after competitors to the large conglomerates instead of going after the customers(infringers) themselves. You really think the RIAA wants to arrest that 16 year old warez site owner who buys 5 CD's a month, goes to tons of movies and generally spends all his/her disposable income on RIAA stuff?
Translation: They already know infringement is a great form of advertising.
I just checked out your site. If I hadn't gone there specifically to see your tip jar, I wouldn't have found it at all. It doesn't even exist on your main page(where people are most impressionable). Besides that, it's hardly readable and doesn't look much like a jar at all.
And do what that last poster said and put it in your copyright statement not up at the top of the page. I bet many of those emailers would have tipped if they'd have found the crazy *jar*.
Also, keep in mind, since CPM's are around $1 lately you'd have made about the same amount with banner adds if you served 78,000 impressions in the last 7 months.
I think the references to Revelation came due to a combination of factors:
There's the one about the new "no Free tools" MS EULA.
There's the one about smart-tags.
There's the one about MS Money and VISA.
Oh yeah, and there's the one about the MS sales department hanging license audits over the heads of those who don't "upgrade" their products.
Also, I happen to be an MSDN subscriber... The new EULA for that essentially says you have to sign up on MSDN online, or you forfeit your license rights.
Now, to make life easier MS has decided to help us all by requiring the same log on for developer docs and MSDN.
Basically Microsoft has their fingers in a ton of different pies, they have a really big stick to hit with(software licensing), and not many checks or balances on that power. Even if they had a saintly history, I'd still be worried.
It doesn't help that Microsoft has a pay structure that requires continued growth to continue working... Hard to sell more OS's when you're already at 95% market share, then the whole market begins to peak.
Microsoft isn't the only company I'm worried about, they've just got the biggest stick. Perhaps we'll pass some sane copyright laws next time around?
Hmm... sure, the part about not allowing a developer to distribute with GPL seems reasonable enough on the surface. In fact it simply helps further enforce the terms of the GPL in this respect. It's the part about the tools that gets me.
You see, they want to say what tools you can/can't use when you're also using their software. To get at the core of the issue, here's an example:
Bob's new EULA:
You can use this software any way you like as long as you don't ever use any Microsoft software again. If you ever again use Microsoft software after agreeing to this license, you've broken it's terms and must quit using this software.
Also, you can't use this software if you have a blue desktop, eat meat, or happen to be of Anglo-Saxon descent.
To me, it seems obvious all of these things are ludicrous. At what point do we draw the line and say, "Those terms are un-enforceable?" Or perhaps do we revisit copyright and decide that the current legal trend of "licensing" doesn't make nearly as much sense as everyone seems to think it does.
I'd REALLY love to hear from a lawyer on what is and is not enforceable for copyright licensing. I'm curious about things in the past, now, and in the projected future.
I've seen tons of crashes caused by IIS, J++, and Microsoft Message Queue. All written by Microsoft.
Of course, today, that programming seems like it was in another age. I think the only one of those still around is IIS.
First off... this isn't DLL hell, it's update hell. It's not DLL hell because Linux doesn't have that problem, since it keeps all "in use" versions of every "DLL" that ever existed. So, you'll never have the problem of apps that want differing special dll versions and not be able to get them working....
/usr/local/lib. If you're feeling promiscuis put it in /usr/lib. It's a security thing. Any program that doesn't find a library in one of those two places (given a non trashed distribution) doesn't deserve to run successfully.
As for where to put libraries... it's one of two places. If you're feeling prude, put it in
Next, there is a problem here. It's the fact that the makers of GnuCash (if they want a production/useable version of their product) should make a distro that includes all needed libraries, or at least an update on their site with all the needed libraries. This would make life easy for all of us in luser land out here who might actually want to, gasp, *use* their program.
This is one reason I use Debian, once a package is on their list, it will grab everything you need with it automagically. Assuming of course you can get through their half assed effort at an interface called dselect... no update hell there, of course the latest gnucash available from debian's site is 1.3.4-3. You could try something newer off the GnuCash site if you want... but uh... good luck.
Now, to aleviate the last problem that of cluelessness on the web in general as well as here on Slashdot, maybe we should require a course called "denewbie" as an addendum to the GPL. That way people would know this stuff or they'd be running Linux illegally!
Oh, wait a second, I almost forgot. LINUX DOCUMENTATION SUCKS!! The closest thing to it is a bunch of MAN pages and HowTos that quite frankly require an expert to even BEGIN using!!!! (note: If anyone has some docs they think are readable... please tell me about them, and I'll be happy to *review* them. I'm talking about whole system install and use from the ground up docs here.)
(JoeNewbie_Rant)
Um... I've been a professional C/C++/x86 Assembly programmer on dos/windows for 5 years. I just bought this new CD that says "Red Hat" on it cause I heard it was neat.
What's this super user account thingie the install wants me to make... and uh... why should I need another account anyways?
And uh... Now I"m running enlightenment and I want to install the latest version of this neat app I found called GnuCash, but I need 60 libraries that I have to download one at a time cause I don't know any better way to get them. By the way, what does "unstable" mean?
Since I didn't understand what windows DLL hell was in the first place, maybe this is shared library hell?
Also, once I get the libraries where the heck do I put them. I've heard the directory is called "lib", but which one?
/lib
/usr/lib
/usr/local/lib
/var/lib
This must be a problem in the Linux directory structure. It should just have one folder like windows has. Hey, we could even call it "System"!!
(/JoeNewbie_Rant)
For any interested parties... in all intents and purposes I *am* (or was) Joe Newbie in this case. I was a programmer for 3 years professionally before I started using GNU/Linux/Unix/BSD. It's been a year and a half since then, and I'm still learning a lot of things. Now, I haven't had time to devote to *work* on linux, I've just tried to use it in a useful way, so that eventually it'll save me enough time that I have some to *work* on it. I figure that's a fair tradeoff. But so far, documentation has always been on the lacking side of the fence, quite close to his brother standardization actually. (Currently I only use Linux on internet appliances... you know, file/web servers, firewalls and the like, I've done no more than *play* with workstations)
It ain't just insecure, it's unusable!
But seriously...
If you're supposed to be a manager, give me a firm set of requirements up front and access to the customer(s) or get out of my way!
You put the words "technologically innovative", and "easy-to-use" in my requirements, and I'll be putting the words "resume" and "job-searching" on my website.
It's not what the GPL will do TO you. It's what the GPL will do FOR you.
Use Open source as much as you can. There might be GPL or other OSS alternatives to the $oftware you're currently using to develop. As you fix things in the tools you're using, publish those fixes to the OSS community.
If you're $3 million behind already, be greedy with your own licenses, don't open anything you don't have to. Hire a lawyer if you need to, but make sure you use the OSS licenses appropriately. Once you're ahead instead of behind, think about OSSing your old stuff to keep the competition on it's toes. (moving on to the next product)
As for making money with new OSS, experiment on a small scale. Try it with a sub product see how customers like it and if you still get enough related service money and/or fame to make it worth your while.
If someone tries to tell you what you "owe" the open source community, laugh in their face. The only reason to open source code is to get more people using it, and to make other peoples lives better. Understanding why this is beneficial is difficult for many individuals and most corporations. But in the long run, believe me, it's the best policy. (I'm talking about helping others, not expecting them to help you!!)
It's actually a very good question...
Industry has methods of testing that are supposed to simulate long term real life usage. But my guess is they're not as good as people would like to think they are. Lasers are easy to test, but how well will those CD-R's *really* hold up in 100 years??
should I be scared I agree with you so much?
Aww well, at least I get bread and circuses. My ancestors didn't have those... Are you sure you could live without them?
Humans love to look at the world and try to throw chunks of it into a bin they have labeled "understanding". The problem is, some people are not as picky as others about what gets thrown into this bin.
So, every once in a while, it becomes necessary to dig back into that "understanding" bin for large chunks of life that need to be broken down into smaller pieces. This wouldn't be too bad if people had similar ideas about the meaning of their label.
Personally, I prefer to spend my time hucking things into a bin I have marked "accurate predictions". Many of the same theories go into this bin, but it makes me feel less deluded when I have to go back into it and pull things out.
It would just be really scary if somebody got a bright idea and decided to implement actual LAWS like this.
That is why this line of reasoning is a bit uncomfortable for those of us who happen to actually BELIEVE in something, and even those who realize that everyone believes in SOMETHING.
Call belief a human trait if you like.
I think this is a work of art, not a troll.
What a short awesome job of showing the problems with Republic.com and it's bias.
It poisons the people. I LOVE this post!!! I gather from the last line, the author may not even agree with what he's saying, but I still love it!
Liberals/left wingers what have you, are really after control by society. They think individuals should defer to societies viewpoint(s) whenever it has one and for whatever reason.
Right wingers/conservatives whatever generally believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility.
This book is proposing that the government, or "SOCIETY" get to decide what people put into their brains. Rather than the people themselves deciding what goes in. The lines of what is/isn't radical will be drawn by the government, the choices of what people "need" to be exposed to would be chosen by the government. (ie Democratic society, the whim of the populous at large with guns behind it)
This idea is a liberal's wet dream, of course it's biased. But, the liberals say, we're going to put stuff up there we DON'T agree with too. Yeah, right I believe you. So, um would this post I'm replying to be one of the things "required" on "extreme liberal" sites? Oh, there's no "extreme liberal" category? How did that get left out? Oh, yeah, liberals don't believe anything strongly, except that no one else should either. Huh, that makes sense.
Why do liberals(particularly the leaders) like things this way? Because they are generally good politicians, and good arguers, so it makes it easy for them to get their way.
So, I have Northpoint DSL with Verio as my ISP no less. What do you recommend I do?
Covad DSL and Quest(uswest) RADSL are the only two options I know of left to me. And don't think I'm going to pay the $89/mo for a 144kbps line.
If Quest(USWest) can offer me a reasonable price ($50/mo or less) and a reasonable speed (around 200kbps or more) I'm going to jump on it.
If Verio (who I've been very happy with so far) wants to keep my business, they better be looking hard for alternative providers for me. But, after talking with one of their reps on the phone today, I get the feeling they aren't really looking.
So far, it looks like I'll be going back to 56kbps at $12/mo...
BTW, I have no love for Quest, you want to come up with a plan for showing them the error of their ways, I'm happy to join in(I remember a notion of buying stock and attending meetings etc once upon a time, ala "hack" corporate america). But not when it hurts my bottom line this much.
Mathematics doesn't really have the kind of assumptions you can disagree with.
There is more than one perspective on the fundamentals of mathematics. Perhaps you've never heard of the law of the excluded middle, or of a Dr. Brouwer. The law of the excluded middle may not pertain to 2+2=4, but it does pertain, and there are other precepts to mathematics. Perhaps it would be useful to teach them along with the applications.
I believe the whole point of the referenced article was a particular researcher's quest to prove a couple of limits to what mathematics is capable of. I am not a mathematician, but these limits are tied up with several fundamental math concepts.
Hence, my earlier statement. Freedom is the freedom to say, "I don't know, and here's why I don't think you do either." You obviosly know something but you may not know what you think you know.
I'd email you but you don't seem to have an email address posted.
You seem to have rendered my comment following redundant. Guess I should read more thoroughly before posting.
I'm curious if there are places to get more information on Brouwer without buying a $150 book.
I'm very interested in good philosophy, and the lack thereof in our educational system as well as my country (USA) as a whole.
My email is "beby@leveltwo.com" for response (if any).
Granted, this stuff has been around a while, (since 1933) but I think the point perhaps is that one fundumental tennant of math/science is on it's heals.
The idea of Scientific Naturalism. The idea that math/science/human brains will eventually be able to "understand" everything "meaningful" in the universe.
The fact of the matter is there are things that can be demonstrabably "proved" that we don't know, and we will NEVER know(because they can't be known!!)! So, faith in human understanding of EVERYTHING is at best misplaced.
The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have it. If science/math/colleges everywhere can admit they have a problem, that of bad philosophy. Perhaps they can begin to reverse the damage to creative minds, deflate egos, and begin to get some useful work done.
Does this mean 2+2=4 is not a useful concept? No. Does this mean 2+2=4 is TRUTH? I'm only human, what's TRUTH?
Freedom is the freedom to say, "I don't know, and here's why I don't think you do either."
I think intellectual honesty is very important. When we teach 2+2=4, we should also teach the underlying assumptions.
Disagreeing with the assumptions, does not excuse one from responsibility for the subject matter. But, it should not be a reason to flunk, browbeat or otherwise attack the party in disagreement either.
Hmm... out of work just out of college? Didn't you do an internship? Great way to get a first job, especially if you do well.
All is not lost if you haven't. Throw up a web page. If you're "damn good" at the languages you mentioned put up some code samples of the projects you weened yourself on. Make the page nice and thoughtful, and be sure to include a resume. Point prospective employers to it.
In the mean time, take advantage of this time to learn/do whatever it is you have an itch for. Write some open source, learn a new language, or tackle that big project you've dreamed of and never had time for. Some of the biggest names in the industry (who wrote winamp again?) Spent a summer or more sleeping on a relatives couch whilst they perfected their trademark project(s).
If you're single, and able to "leech" someone, I greatly envy you, I always wish for some time to get back to writing what I want for fun, rather than what someone else decides they want in order to put food on the table.