Hey, yourmom16, there's an inaccuracy in your sig. I also quite enjoyed L. Neil Smiths's _The_Probability_Broach_, but it is Robert Lefevre who deserves the credit for the line you quote.
Here's another instance of L. Neil quoting Robert Lefevre.
When you give away your hard work, you devaule the hard work of every other developer who is trying to make a living. Now maybe you have some other career, but I'm counting on living off of my programming skills. With half of the jobs moving overseas the last thing I need is competion from someone who is just doing it for fun.
What stunning arrogance. So everybody else in the world should change their lives to accomodate your desire to make money in a particular way? Where did you get this monumentally misplaced sense of entitlement? Where do you get off telling other people how to spend their time?
Thanks a lot for ruining my career path you cold hearted, non-money loving, generous, fools!
Go fuck yourself. Nobody has the power to ruin your career but you. Take a little responsibility, you pussy.
Yes, people routinely violated the Prohibition laws and they were eventually overturned. Maybe the same will happen with marijuana some day.
Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment to start it, and another one to end it. Tell me, which Constitutional amendment authorizes prohibition of (some) drugs?
Nobody is under any obligation to obey laws that violate individual rights, whether they have been declared "unconstitutional" or not, and the enforcement of such laws is itself a grievous violation of individual rights.
I'm no goddamned paper-worshipping Constitutionalist. The one and only purpose of the Constitution is to protect and defend individuals against the government, and protecting and defending individual rights is supposedly the sole purpose of the government "authorized" by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is a failure. It has merely slowed the descent of the U.S. into tyranny, and will be no obstacle to the rest of the slide down this greased hill. It has also had at least one very bad effect--it seems to have caused many people to think that our rights are "granted" to us by the U.S. Constitution and/or the U.S. government. Many people seem to think that if some right is not explicitly named in the Constitution that it does not exist. Many people seem to think that non-U.S. citizens have different rights from U.S. citizens. I imagine part of the problem is the dilution of the word "right", which has been used as a synonym for "privilege" or "entitlement" by politicians so often that it has lost all meaning.
I've enjoyed every book by John Barnes I've ever read, starting with Mother of Storms, which is a terrific near-future disaster/redemption story which raises some interesting questions about humans fusing with technology. If you like that, read everything else he's written.
I find it amazing the you think _The_Moon_is_a_Harsh_Mistress_ is leftist. I must have missed the part where Wyoming picked up her welfare check. I think the best description for the politics in TMiaHM is anarchist.
There is a fairly consistent thread of libertarian philosophy that runs through most of Heinlein's work, with a strong sense of individualism and anti-authoritarianism. I don't think that's anyone's idea of "conservative" or "leftist".
You are confused about who bears the burden of proof in this matter. The allegations that Mr. Mitnik is so upset about were made by Mr. Markoff with no proof or corroboration, and presented as fact. If I write here that you are currently wearing lacy pick crotchless panties, does that mean it should be assumed true until you pull your pants down?
I really think that most people are unjustifiably pessimistic about Microsoft's influence in the software market. They are already being undone by their arrogance and inflexibility. Windows users, even if they are a mob of subhumans as so many slashbots seem to think, are sick and tired of the unending Microsoft "upgrade" treadmill. Microsoft is making a fatal error in increasing the churn of this process because of sagging Windows sales which are due to--surprise!--sagging PC sales. People are used to having to pay for Windows when they buy a new computer, yes. People are not used to having to buy a new version of Windows to put on the Dell they just bought six months ago. Microsoft is showing its inflexibility by trying to force consumers to buy their product, instead of by making them want it. It's already the beginning of the end for Windows, and Microsoft will probably be the last to know.
An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
I guess since a free market has never existed anywhere, ever you have a point that I don't have history on my side. Do you think we have a free market in the United States? I don't. This isn't my theory, it started with Adam Smith.
My definition of temporary is 'not permanent', so, yeah, 'decades long' qualifies.
Your idea that a free market would be achieved by "really put[ting] the shackles on Microsoft" is interesting. In a truly free market system, being one in which there is no government intervention in the economy, monopolies can exist only as temporary aberrations. If you think Windows costs too much now, why don't you go ahead add to that sticker price the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money that the DOJ and the states are spending on these pointless lawsuits, the outcomes of which will be totally irrelevant by the time the suits are settled.
The meaning of the "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" is not that if "[y]ou get enough people, you'll find all of the bugs." It's folk statistics. Every time a person uses a piece of software, there is a chance that they will observe a bug. The exact magnitude of that probability is irrelevant, as long as it is non-zero. Since bug-free software is about as common as unicorns, I think that is a very safe assumption. Ergo, the probability that bugs will be observed in any given piece of software is higher the more it used, in terms of how many people use it and how much time they each spend using the software. In fact, the probabilities are additive, since they are independent. If there is a non-zero probability that some user who observes a bug will be motivated to fix it (another safe assumption, given the existence open source software projects), and if there is also a non-zero probability that the user who is motivated to fix the bug is able to do so, i.e. they have access to the source code of the software in question, and the appropriate tools and skills, then, statistically, there is a higher chance that bugs will be found and fixed in the software. Q.E.D.
IANASBIDHAMD (I Am Not A Statistician, But I Do Have A Math Degree)
Actually, it was the "While you all are fattening yourselves like pigs, people are dying" comment that I found objectionable. The fact that the poster is near enough to a computer and an internet connection to post to Slashdot implies that he is also "fattening [himself] like a pig", and not working at a refugee camp in Afghanistan, like he apparently thinks we should all be doing. He should shut the hell up because he is a hypocrite.
Yeah, yeah, the U.S. sucks. That is a very fashionable opinion to hold, particularly in Europe. But everywhere else sucks worse.
What channel is showing a Twin Peaks marathon? This is very fortuitous timing, because I just bought a Twin Peaks DVD boxed set that is supposed to be the whole first season, but which omits the pilot! Can you believe that crap?
Don't go on about how you don't have to pay license fees for the OS and how this makes Linux a vastly cheaper alternative. Most people realise the fact that OS licenses, in the real world, are a minor factor in the total cost of ownership compared to maintainance, management and training.
Yes and no. Using MS software leaves a business open to being audited by MS, like the city of Virginia Beach was last year. Even if your company has only legal copies of Windows, and most do, the time and expense involved in proving it is considerable. I work for the government, and we should all fear the day MS decides to audit the DoD.
I seem to remember Magneto saying that he wasn't strong enough to send the field out a far as was needed in order to execute his plan, and that was why he needed Rogue. I'm almost positive. I mean, it took almost all the strength he had to make the field when he used it to mutate the senator. BTW, I don't think the senator is dead. Remember when Storm said she saw him die, and Magneto said "Did you?" or something like that.
Even Source code. yes. NBC can get the source code to windows if they ask for it. Sure it costs money but not nearly as much as that enterprise wide site license.
Do you have some sort of proof that this statement is true? What makes you think that it is?
Do you really think that is why people reimplement closed source software as open source? To avoid paying for it? I think you are suffering from free beer vs. Free Speech confusion.
Many, many people who have posted on the topic of gender inequality in the last few days have brought up the received wisdom that girls get less attention in school. Read this and then think about it some more.
Apes and dolphins, maybe. Dogs and pigs could probably be made a smart as apes and dolphins are now, but parrots? Why, because they seem to be able to talk? There's no way, their brains are waaaaay too small.
I'm not talking about doomsday scenarios, like that stupid-ass movie with the "smart sharks" - but don't you think that a bunch of smart mice, or houseflies, or cats, could get a little annoying?
I think you're vastly overestimating how smart animals can really be made, even if we fully understood intelligence and learning. All they were really able to do was give the mice slightly better memories by making their brains produce higher levels of a particular neurotransmitter which is associated with memory formation.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, yourmom16, there's an inaccuracy in your sig. I also quite enjoyed L. Neil Smiths's _The_Probability_Broach_, but it is Robert Lefevre who deserves the credit for the line you quote.
Here's another instance of L. Neil quoting Robert Lefevre.
What stunning arrogance. So everybody else in the world should change their lives to accomodate your desire to make money in a particular way? Where did you get this monumentally misplaced sense of entitlement? Where do you get off telling other people how to spend their time?
Go fuck yourself. Nobody has the power to ruin your career but you. Take a little responsibility, you pussy.
Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment to start it, and another one to end it. Tell me, which Constitutional amendment authorizes prohibition of (some) drugs?
Nobody is under any obligation to obey laws that violate individual rights, whether they have been declared "unconstitutional" or not, and the enforcement of such laws is itself a grievous violation of individual rights.
I'm no goddamned paper-worshipping Constitutionalist. The one and only purpose of the Constitution is to protect and defend individuals against the government, and protecting and defending individual rights is supposedly the sole purpose of the government "authorized" by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is a failure. It has merely slowed the descent of the U.S. into tyranny, and will be no obstacle to the rest of the slide down this greased hill. It has also had at least one very bad effect--it seems to have caused many people to think that our rights are "granted" to us by the U.S. Constitution and/or the U.S. government. Many people seem to think that if some right is not explicitly named in the Constitution that it does not exist. Many people seem to think that non-U.S. citizens have different rights from U.S. citizens. I imagine part of the problem is the dilution of the word "right", which has been used as a synonym for "privilege" or "entitlement" by politicians so often that it has lost all meaning.
I've enjoyed every book by John Barnes I've ever read, starting with Mother of Storms, which is a terrific near-future disaster/redemption story which raises some interesting questions about humans fusing with technology. If you like that, read everything else he's written.
I find it amazing the you think _The_Moon_is_a_Harsh_Mistress_ is leftist. I must have missed the part where Wyoming picked up her welfare check. I think the best description for the politics in TMiaHM is anarchist.
There is a fairly consistent thread of libertarian philosophy that runs through most of Heinlein's work, with a strong sense of individualism and anti-authoritarianism. I don't think that's anyone's idea of "conservative" or "leftist".
You are confused about who bears the burden of proof in this matter. The allegations that Mr. Mitnik is so upset about were made by Mr. Markoff with no proof or corroboration, and presented as fact. If I write here that you are currently wearing lacy pick crotchless panties, does that mean it should be assumed true until you pull your pants down?
Can't you see that it is changing?
I really think that most people are unjustifiably pessimistic about Microsoft's influence in the software market. They are already being undone by their arrogance and inflexibility. Windows users, even if they are a mob of subhumans as so many slashbots seem to think, are sick and tired of the unending Microsoft "upgrade" treadmill. Microsoft is making a fatal error in increasing the churn of this process because of sagging Windows sales which are due to--surprise!--sagging PC sales. People are used to having to pay for Windows when they buy a new computer, yes. People are not used to having to buy a new version of Windows to put on the Dell they just bought six months ago. Microsoft is showing its inflexibility by trying to force consumers to buy their product, instead of by making them want it. It's already the beginning of the end for Windows, and Microsoft will probably be the last to know.
free market
n.
An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
I guess since a free market has never existed anywhere, ever you have a point that I don't have history on my side. Do you think we have a free market in the United States? I don't. This isn't my theory, it started with Adam Smith.
My definition of temporary is 'not permanent', so, yeah, 'decades long' qualifies.
Your idea that a free market would be achieved by "really put[ting] the shackles on Microsoft" is interesting. In a truly free market system, being one in which there is no government intervention in the economy, monopolies can exist only as temporary aberrations. If you think Windows costs too much now, why don't you go ahead add to that sticker price the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money that the DOJ and the states are spending on these pointless lawsuits, the outcomes of which will be totally irrelevant by the time the suits are settled.
IANASBIDHAMD (I Am Not A Statistician, But I Do Have A Math Degree)
Yeah, yeah, the U.S. sucks. That is a very fashionable opinion to hold, particularly in Europe. But everywhere else sucks worse.
And I'm sure you'll be working in a refugee camp this New Year's Day, right? If not, then shut the hell up.
What channel is showing a Twin Peaks marathon? This is very fortuitous timing, because I just bought a Twin Peaks DVD boxed set that is supposed to be the whole first season, but which omits the pilot! Can you believe that crap?
Yes and no. Using MS software leaves a business open to being audited by MS, like the city of Virginia Beach was last year. Even if your company has only legal copies of Windows, and most do, the time and expense involved in proving it is considerable. I work for the government, and we should all fear the day MS decides to audit the DoD.
That is very interesting, but how do you determine the fixed price you charge the customer?
Not to mention the fact that there is no clinical evidence of a causal link between violent entertainment and violent behavior.
This review of Cyberselfish is from Reason magazine, which is a libertarian publication.
I seem to remember Magneto saying that he wasn't strong enough to send the field out a far as was needed in order to execute his plan, and that was why he needed Rogue. I'm almost positive. I mean, it took almost all the strength he had to make the field when he used it to mutate the senator. BTW, I don't think the senator is dead. Remember when Storm said she saw him die, and Magneto said "Did you?" or something like that.
Do you really think that is why people reimplement closed source software as open source? To avoid paying for it? I think you are suffering from free beer vs. Free Speech confusion.
Many, many people who have posted on the topic of gender inequality in the last few days have brought up the received wisdom that girls get less attention in school. Read this and then think about it some more.
Evolution produces "good enough" solutions, not optimal ones.
Apes and dolphins, maybe. Dogs and pigs could probably be made a smart as apes and dolphins are now, but parrots? Why, because they seem to be able to talk? There's no way, their brains are waaaaay too small.