and furthermore, 'getting rich' by 'hard work' is the biggest piece of fraud that is perpetrated by current system. can you think that someone who is owning majority or even noticeable share on a megacorporation, got rich through 'hard work' ?
Sure they did. The only catch is that all of that hard work was done by lots of other people.
I don't think this particular outcome is inevitable. What could happen instead is that the economy just throws the poorest people (in other words, workers least in demand) overboard, effectively reducing the size of the economy while maintaining stable productivity and keeping essential assets and almost all money in the system. The economy will remain strong but actually serve less people. This kind of economic shrinking might go for quite a while before it even barely touches the IT sector. Mostly because the advances IT sector essentially enabled this phenomenon to take place.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should put the tech genie back in the bottle. Those advances did break the system, but we have to stop trying to put it back together the way it was. We have to reassemble the pieces in a new way that will work better. But that won't happen when those who have the means to put it back together still get the most profit from keeping it the way it is.
The director of KGB gives an interview and answers a question about freedom of speech: "Our country has complete freedom of speech. But freedom after speech, that's a whole different matter."
And if enough people value free software over the "killer feature", it won't matter or it will get re-implemented. And if they don't, well then, it seems a little unreasonable to attempt to "legislate" things otherwise.
Complete waste of time and resources. That's my point you're apparently not getting. Why have a handful of developers working on upstream and gazillion developers working on closed forks each twice the size of upstream when we could have gazillion developers working more or less directly on upstream?
Your listing of Webkit among Apple's contributions to community is a big fail. Webkit is GPL'd and it had to be GPL'd all the way back when Apple forked it from KHTML. And if you still don't understand, I'm not talking about releasing a few apps and libraries here and there while keeping the system core proprietary. I'm talking about getting complete system build without reimplementing a proprietary decade of development history from scratch.
You can't do that with BSD software either, since you can't close the source at all. You can fail to share the source, naturally - but anyone who wants it can go and get it from the same place you got it from. You, as an individual (or company) get to decide what license your code is released in, or even if its released at all - which is the same freedom that the original author of the BSD package you're using had.
Yeah, but the one killer feature that you've added to your version is not in the upstream version that others can get.
Look at it this way: In the GPL world, work can be done in both upstream and downstream but there's very little duplication of effort because different downstream branches can copy features from each other and most features quickly reach upstream when they mature. The upstream is the central point of all development. In the BSD world, upstream is nothing more than foundations for others to build on. It's very common that there are multiple proprietary products built on common upstream base but each has to reinvent the wheel independently and none of the resulting implementations will probably reach upstream.
That's why GPL software can keep up with proprietary software (built on top of BSD licensed code or not). When you want to get something done as proprietary software, you have to throw a mountain of money at it from your own pocket. When you want to get the same thing done under GPL, the mountain of money thrown will be pretty much the same size, but it's going to come from a lot more pockets.
Just look at Apple - the company with the most worth in the whole world - selling software that was built upon FreeBSD.
And not contributing anything back to the community. Should Apple fall one day or just discontinue its BSD-based products, all their achievements will be lost. On the other hand, when a big GPL vendor falls or discontinues a product, anybody can come in and keep it alive from the last public release.
Most of the time, in-house software is something very specific to the unique needs of an organization, and something that nobody else will have a need for; rather, it's more likely that the organization can end up inadvertantly spilling out details of its internal workings - something you definitely don't want your competition to know.
And more often than not, considering how disgusting kludge it tends to be, the upstream devs wouldn't touch the in-house code with a ten foot pole.
I completely agree that Hitchens' writings were top notch. The above poster's comment was just so ambiguous that I misunderstood it as an attack against Hitchens (given the amount of religious hatred against him).
Religion is like just about anything else. It can be used for good (e.g. helping the poor) or for evil (e.g. killing "heathens" who won't convert). In both cases, the credit or blame should go to the person doing the actions, not the religion itself.
Well, that depends a lot on whether or not you include religious leaders who tell believers what to do as part of the religion itself. It's not particularly important whether those leaders are still alive today or they died hundreds of years ago.
If you're trying to use that as an argument against quality of Hitchens' writings, you fail spectacularly. I personally know a computer scientist who writes code faster than most people read. I've actually seen him in action a few times. Nevertheless, the quality of his code is outstanding by any standard.
No, there was no separate checkbox for Jedi. There were three checkboxes: non-religious, religious but not belonging to any church, religious and belonging to the following church (with a space for writing the name of your church). That news article just says that the statistical office won't file you under "other" when you write "Jedi".
I'm multiplying something by 75 and then dividing it by 25. So I'll throw those away and multiply by 3. Leaving me with 47 * 3
ah, 47 again. Well it's close enough to 50. So I'll do 50*3 giving me 150.
Finally time for the correction to my not knowing my 47 times table. I knocked off 3*3 to give me the easy 150, so just need to take the 9 off to give the 141.
I genuinely wonder if everybody else worked that out the same way, but it's now just the way my head works.
I personally did the first part the same way (47*3) but then did the multiplication directly (47*3=120+21=141). I did use the round+add/subtract afterwards in the 29-hour-wage question though.
Better yet, rather than testing the student with the question and just getting a boolean pass/fail - the teacher should ask the pupil around their thought processes when they look at the problem - "talk me through it".
Here in Czech republic, 7th or 8th graders do this in geometry. Part of the year is spent over writing down instructions how to construct given shapes (for example 30 degree angle using only compass and staightedge) or following such instructions in practice.
So how about I show you five different laptops from five different brands and ask you to say which one is an HP. And if you can't tell the difference from 10 feet, does that mean the other four brands clone the look of HP laptops?
its memory footprint is smaller than OS X or Ubuntu.
Get real man, I have a working desktop Linux on a machine from 1998 which has only 96 megs of RAM and 266MHz CPU. Even XP wouldn't run on something that old. And with the right choice of desktop environment, the machine can still run a lot of modern desktop software.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously don't realize just how small the middle class is right now and it keeps getting smaller.
and furthermore, 'getting rich' by 'hard work' is the biggest piece of fraud that is perpetrated by current system. can you think that someone who is owning majority or even noticeable share on a megacorporation, got rich through 'hard work' ?
Sure they did. The only catch is that all of that hard work was done by lots of other people.
I don't think this particular outcome is inevitable. What could happen instead is that the economy just throws the poorest people (in other words, workers least in demand) overboard, effectively reducing the size of the economy while maintaining stable productivity and keeping essential assets and almost all money in the system. The economy will remain strong but actually serve less people. This kind of economic shrinking might go for quite a while before it even barely touches the IT sector. Mostly because the advances IT sector essentially enabled this phenomenon to take place.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should put the tech genie back in the bottle. Those advances did break the system, but we have to stop trying to put it back together the way it was. We have to reassemble the pieces in a new way that will work better. But that won't happen when those who have the means to put it back together still get the most profit from keeping it the way it is.
The director of KGB gives an interview and answers a question about freedom of speech: "Our country has complete freedom of speech. But freedom after speech, that's a whole different matter."
And if enough people value free software over the "killer feature", it won't matter or it will get re-implemented. And if they don't, well then, it seems a little unreasonable to attempt to "legislate" things otherwise.
Complete waste of time and resources. That's my point you're apparently not getting. Why have a handful of developers working on upstream and gazillion developers working on closed forks each twice the size of upstream when we could have gazillion developers working more or less directly on upstream?
Your listing of Webkit among Apple's contributions to community is a big fail. Webkit is GPL'd and it had to be GPL'd all the way back when Apple forked it from KHTML. And if you still don't understand, I'm not talking about releasing a few apps and libraries here and there while keeping the system core proprietary. I'm talking about getting complete system build without reimplementing a proprietary decade of development history from scratch.
Nice. So if I download all that and build it properly, do I get a complete working MacOS X build? If the answer is "no", I rest my case.
You can't do that with BSD software either, since you can't close the source at all. You can fail to share the source, naturally - but anyone who wants it can go and get it from the same place you got it from. You, as an individual (or company) get to decide what license your code is released in, or even if its released at all - which is the same freedom that the original author of the BSD package you're using had.
Yeah, but the one killer feature that you've added to your version is not in the upstream version that others can get.
Look at it this way: In the GPL world, work can be done in both upstream and downstream but there's very little duplication of effort because different downstream branches can copy features from each other and most features quickly reach upstream when they mature. The upstream is the central point of all development. In the BSD world, upstream is nothing more than foundations for others to build on. It's very common that there are multiple proprietary products built on common upstream base but each has to reinvent the wheel independently and none of the resulting implementations will probably reach upstream.
That's why GPL software can keep up with proprietary software (built on top of BSD licensed code or not). When you want to get something done as proprietary software, you have to throw a mountain of money at it from your own pocket. When you want to get the same thing done under GPL, the mountain of money thrown will be pretty much the same size, but it's going to come from a lot more pockets.
Just look at Apple - the company with the most worth in the whole world - selling software that was built upon FreeBSD.
And not contributing anything back to the community. Should Apple fall one day or just discontinue its BSD-based products, all their achievements will be lost. On the other hand, when a big GPL vendor falls or discontinues a product, anybody can come in and keep it alive from the last public release.
Most of the time, in-house software is something very specific to the unique needs of an organization, and something that nobody else will have a need for; rather, it's more likely that the organization can end up inadvertantly spilling out details of its internal workings - something you definitely don't want your competition to know.
And more often than not, considering how disgusting kludge it tends to be, the upstream devs wouldn't touch the in-house code with a ten foot pole.
If this was an issue with those projects in questions, they would be under Affero GPL. But since they are under vanilla GPL or LGPL, it's a non-issue.
I am perfectly happy with people and even big evil corporations profiting from my GPL'd code as long as I get paid in publicly available patches.
Use Affero GPL for the project in question in the first place. Problem solved.
Or our expectations.
I completely agree that Hitchens' writings were top notch. The above poster's comment was just so ambiguous that I misunderstood it as an attack against Hitchens (given the amount of religious hatred against him).
Fail. "Computer scientists" maybe don't. But actual computer scientists who are any good do. Remember, Donald Knuth is a computer scientist.
Do you see the word "code" at the end of the sentence you're referring to? No, you don't, because I didn't write it there for a reason.
Religion is like just about anything else. It can be used for good (e.g. helping the poor) or for evil (e.g. killing "heathens" who won't convert). In both cases, the credit or blame should go to the person doing the actions, not the religion itself.
Well, that depends a lot on whether or not you include religious leaders who tell believers what to do as part of the religion itself. It's not particularly important whether those leaders are still alive today or they died hundreds of years ago.
If you're trying to use that as an argument against quality of Hitchens' writings, you fail spectacularly. I personally know a computer scientist who writes code faster than most people read. I've actually seen him in action a few times. Nevertheless, the quality of his code is outstanding by any standard.
And let's be honest, pretty much 100% of people who put down Jedi did so because it was funny.
I myself put down "Jedi" because I find other people's superstitions ridiculous beyond belief.
And I can already see those flamebait and troll mods coming.
No, there was no separate checkbox for Jedi. There were three checkboxes: non-religious, religious but not belonging to any church, religious and belonging to the following church (with a space for writing the name of your church). That news article just says that the statistical office won't file you under "other" when you write "Jedi".
I'm multiplying something by 75 and then dividing it by 25. So I'll throw those away and multiply by 3. Leaving me with 47 * 3 ah, 47 again. Well it's close enough to 50. So I'll do 50*3 giving me 150. Finally time for the correction to my not knowing my 47 times table. I knocked off 3*3 to give me the easy 150, so just need to take the 9 off to give the 141. I genuinely wonder if everybody else worked that out the same way, but it's now just the way my head works.
I personally did the first part the same way (47*3) but then did the multiplication directly (47*3=120+21=141). I did use the round+add/subtract afterwards in the 29-hour-wage question though.
Better yet, rather than testing the student with the question and just getting a boolean pass/fail - the teacher should ask the pupil around their thought processes when they look at the problem - "talk me through it".
Here in Czech republic, 7th or 8th graders do this in geometry. Part of the year is spent over writing down instructions how to construct given shapes (for example 30 degree angle using only compass and staightedge) or following such instructions in practice.
You know the saying: Cheap, good, fast. Pick two.
So how about I show you five different laptops from five different brands and ask you to say which one is an HP. And if you can't tell the difference from 10 feet, does that mean the other four brands clone the look of HP laptops?
its memory footprint is smaller than OS X or Ubuntu.
Get real man, I have a working desktop Linux on a machine from 1998 which has only 96 megs of RAM and 266MHz CPU. Even XP wouldn't run on something that old. And with the right choice of desktop environment, the machine can still run a lot of modern desktop software.