This is standard Microsoft business practice. So shameful.
Well, no, not really. Traditionally, Microsoft has never been that litigious (yes, there's the FAT-patent-debacle, but that's an exception, not the rule). Hell, usually, they just buy up their competitors.
The fact that they're turning to patent litigation in order to make room for themselves in the market, though, is not a good sign for the company or current management, IMHO...
hg rollback doesn't touch other changes in your working copy.
Err, I think you still misunderstand what "git reset --soft" does.
Let's say you had these commits, which changed the corresponding files:
3 - X.txt 2 - Y.txt 1 - Z.txt
And your working copy was *clean*. Now, suppose you did this:
git reset --soft 1
If you did a "git status", it would show X.txt and Y.txt as *modified* and in your index. And if you did a "git diff --cached", you'd see the changes in commit 2 and 3. You could then do a "git commit", and you'd end up with a single changeset combining those modifications. Why? Because "git reset --soft" simply moves the HEAD to point to commit 1, without actually modifying the files on disk or the index.
Of course, "git reset --soft" will *also* not touch any current changes in your working copy, since... it doesn't change the files on disk or the index.:)
which one do you think is more intuitive and immediately apparent to the user?
Unless I'm confused, those don't do the same thing. From what I can tell, "hg rollback" is used:
"to revert changes that have been commited to the local repository but not been pushed to another repository yet. You can only rollback the last hg command."
"git reset" doesn't do that. "git reset --soft revnum" move the HEAD of the repository to a given position *without changing the staging area or working copy*. So, let's say I wanted to take 5 commits and roll them up into a single commit before I push them into the remote repo. I would do a
git reset --soft HEAD^5
This would move the HEAD of the repostory up, but *keep the changes in my working copy*. So a "git status" would show a bunch of file changed, namely all the files that had been modified in the commits after the referenced commit. I would then do a "git commit", and those changes would be committed as a single changeset.
Of course, all that said, these commands *are* equivalent (I think):
git reset --hard HEAD^ hg rollback
And obviously the latter is more easy to understand. OTOH, "hg rollback" can only rollback the previous commit, while a "git reset --hard" can move up to an arbitrary commit.
Your logic is that it's either perfect or imperfect and thus should fear it and regulate it. Which is absurd.
So the other position is... what?
Besides, markets have regulations, they're generated by the markets, you know, customers who get to choose what they want and there is competition.
Christ, do you have no short-term memory? Okay, fine, I'll repost what I said... let's see if you catch it:
Your position would allow for, as a topical example, antibiotic impregnated meat. 'cuz, you know, people will just not buy the dangerous products, right? Well, unless everyone in the industry is doing it in a race to the bottom
Can you see the flaw in your logic given the above example? Come on, you can do it.
You also make the assumption that government regulation is going to make problems better.
Yo make the assumption that government regulation is going to make problems worse.
Given the history of the free market, where in the past, fewer regulations meant unsafe workplaces, child labour, lead in paint, fake medicines, etc, etc, I think it's safe to say my position has more evidence supporting it.
But, of course, libertarianism, like communism, has nothing to do with "evidence", and everything to do with blind idealism...
So antibiotic-impregnated meat is *better* than the government regulating the use of antibiotics in livestock production?
Interesting...
And you wonder why libertarians remain on the fringe.
'course, ultimately, you didn't actually defend your original statement. You said you wondered why people were afraid of the market. I gave you a real, tangible reason why. You then responded with "well, I never said it was perfect"... switch which is it? Should we fear the market, or not? Is it imperfect, and thus in need of regulation, or perfect, and thus not?
Sorry, any legislation crammed through in the last few days of a session is bound to be crap. Which apparently this one was, as it excluded wireless providers from the rules applied to wired providers. I guess one group pays better than the other.
No, the argument, and it's a legitimate one, is that the wireless space is a sufficiently healthy, open market (doubly so given it has relatively low barriers of entry for new competition to step in) that such regulation is, at this point, premature.
This is in contrast to the wired ISP game where people have, if they're lucky, two providers available to them.
I guess i missed the part where i claimed it was perfect.
That's odd, you wrote it in another post. Here, let me quote you:
I argue for limited government. Government that is generally limited to contract enforcement (including things like fraud laws).
No one would take that position if they didn't feel the free market was perfect. An imperfect market requires government intervention beyond simple contract enforcement in order to protect the public good.
Your position would allow for, as a topical example, antibiotic impregnated meat. 'cuz, you know, people will just not buy the dangerous products, right? Well, unless everyone in the industry is doing it in a race to the bottom in the name of profit profit profit!
To me it's rather funny, how well the free market has worked...
Funny, didn't we *just* have an article about the dangers of antibiotic resistance in factory farming? Ahh, but I suppose that doesn't count as a failure for some reason, 'cuz otherwise your little absurd pet theory might not be correct... pesky cognitive dissonance.
And what is the problem with this, it is not like nicotine is a bio-accumulating substance.
What's your point? It's a toxic chemical, sprayed on your food. That's, like, bad and stuff, right? That's what all the pro-organic people tell me... despite the fact that pesticides are used in fairly large volume in organic farming, they just use different varieties that are, like, "all natural" and stuff.
People are not thinking any more than they were when they were covered in mud praying to the mouth of a cave.
So WTF does *science* have to do with it? People are stupid, short-sighted, and petty. And science hasn't changed that. Oooh, what a shocker!
Science is a tool, both to discover new things, as well as to evaluate the choices we make. How those discoveries are used, and whether those evaluations are heeded, is a question of public policy. And if your public policy favours short-term gains over long-term sustainability... well, you get antibiotic-resistant superbugs.
But blaming science for the stupid choices made by people and politicians is just fucking idiotic... well, unless your real goal was to troll Slashdot with "science == religion!" posts...
In this case, the term organic is referring to organic food and farming.
Absolutely right.
*Nicotine, OTOH, is used *heavily* in the organic food industry, as it's considered an "organic" pesticide. And because it's not as effective as common, "non-organic" pesticides... they have to use more! Woo!
People are blindly following the sciences, and that's a huge problem.
Yeah, here's a little hint: People blindly doing anything without considering the long-term consequences will likely fuck shit up. At least science provides us with the necessary tools to predict and evaluate those consequences.
I mean, you don't *really* think this whole "livestock superbug" thing is suddenly a new, entirely unpredicted discovery, do you?
As a vegetarian.... Actually, you know, I can't think what to write next.
Ah, let me help you:
As a vegetarian, I like to point out how smug you people all think I am, so as to defuse the rather apt observation that I am, in fact, a smug douchebag.
Or:
As a vegetarian, I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggonit, people like me!
Or:
As a vegetarian, my superiority complex fills me with the sense of self-satisfaction that my diet can't seem to provide.
Actually, it is not what is wrong with Capitalism.
What? It's exactly what's wrong with capitalism. Hell, you pointed out the problem yourself! Negative externalities are *specifically* a fundamental flaw in pure capitalism, which is why it must be tempered with some level of government intervention.
All your communications flow through a single operator. If you use GChat, it flows through Google. It might eventually end up in another network through federation, but Google sees it all. IRC? SMS? Telephone? Same fucking deal. So if you're paranoid about Skype, you should be paranoid about all of the above.
This is exactly my point. "Flavor of the month" for *six fucking years*, and *still* going strong. Honestly, people like you amuse me... so deluded, *convinced* that, because Facebook personally offends you, it must just be, like, a fad.
Look, I know *you* don't like Facebook. But guess what? The world is different, now, compared to when Myspace was all the rage. Today, grandma's and uncles are using Facebook. It's not simply some teenage fad, and has embedded itself firmly in our culture.
Will it eventually fade? Almost certainly, all things do in time. But I will take bets, right now, that in 5 years, Facebook will still be around, with hundreds of millions of active users.
Dude, that's explained right there in the FAQ. Skype uses a peer-to-peer model for routing call traffic. It's no different than a torrent client in that respect.
But the main thing I didn't like about either is that they are closed.
Well, good thing you don't use any instant messaging platforms, right? Or make a call on a POTS line or a cell phone? Or send a text message?
Enforcing any kind of sane network security policy with skype is impossible.
How is it any better or worse than any other peer-to-peer application? Honestly, I don't know, I've never had to deal with Skype on that level.
Verifying Skype message security is very difficult: we just have to take their word for it....
Skype head of security said "I will not say if we are listening in or not" when asked about eavesdropping. Apparently they have the means anyway....
why the fuck would anyone want to give control of a communication network to a single company
So, I can only assume you don't use IM (Google Chat, AIM, Facebook chat, or IRC) or SMS, nor do you make use of, say, an ISP or telephony company, right?
Okay, but a) I wasn't talking to you, and b) I'm not sure I give a shit about your grievances with individual client implementations.
And as an aside, Skype on Linux works just fine, I use it all the time. Skype on the iPhone, also very good. Android? No idea, and frankly, I don't really care.
Because you don't understand Godel's theorem, which is grossly misunderstood by basically everyone who's ever heard of it colloquially. Here, have a little read on how it's so wonderfully misunderstood, and so horribly misapplied.
Slashdot Mirror
They are made pluripotent - able to be reprogrammed into many other types of cells.
You answered the wrong question. Embryonic stem cells have these properties:
* their pluripotency, and
* their ability to replicate indefinitely.
Citation.
So, again: do these cells have the *second* ability?
This is standard Microsoft business practice. So shameful.
Well, no, not really. Traditionally, Microsoft has never been that litigious (yes, there's the FAT-patent-debacle, but that's an exception, not the rule). Hell, usually, they just buy up their competitors.
The fact that they're turning to patent litigation in order to make room for themselves in the market, though, is not a good sign for the company or current management, IMHO...
hg rollback doesn't touch other changes in your working copy.
Err, I think you still misunderstand what "git reset --soft" does.
Let's say you had these commits, which changed the corresponding files:
3 - X.txt
2 - Y.txt
1 - Z.txt
And your working copy was *clean*. Now, suppose you did this:
git reset --soft 1
If you did a "git status", it would show X.txt and Y.txt as *modified* and in your index. And if you did a "git diff --cached", you'd see the changes in commit 2 and 3. You could then do a "git commit", and you'd end up with a single changeset combining those modifications. Why? Because "git reset --soft" simply moves the HEAD to point to commit 1, without actually modifying the files on disk or the index.
Of course, "git reset --soft" will *also* not touch any current changes in your working copy, since... it doesn't change the files on disk or the index. :)
So, given these two commands:
git reset --soft HEAD^
hg rollback
which one do you think is more intuitive and immediately apparent to the user?
Unless I'm confused, those don't do the same thing. From what I can tell, "hg rollback" is used:
"to revert changes that have been commited to the local repository but not been pushed to another repository yet. You can only rollback the last hg command."
"git reset" doesn't do that. "git reset --soft revnum" move the HEAD of the repository to a given position *without changing the staging area or working copy*. So, let's say I wanted to take 5 commits and roll them up into a single commit before I push them into the remote repo. I would do a
git reset --soft HEAD^5
This would move the HEAD of the repostory up, but *keep the changes in my working copy*. So a "git status" would show a bunch of file changed, namely all the files that had been modified in the commits after the referenced commit. I would then do a "git commit", and those changes would be committed as a single changeset.
Of course, all that said, these commands *are* equivalent (I think):
git reset --hard HEAD^
hg rollback
And obviously the latter is more easy to understand. OTOH, "hg rollback" can only rollback the previous commit, while a "git reset --hard" can move up to an arbitrary commit.
Your logic is that it's either perfect or imperfect and thus should fear it and regulate it. Which is absurd.
So the other position is... what?
Besides, markets have regulations, they're generated by the markets, you know, customers who get to choose what they want and there is competition.
Christ, do you have no short-term memory? Okay, fine, I'll repost what I said... let's see if you catch it:
Can you see the flaw in your logic given the above example? Come on, you can do it.
You also make the assumption that government regulation is going to make problems better.
Yo make the assumption that government regulation is going to make problems worse.
Given the history of the free market, where in the past, fewer regulations meant unsafe workplaces, child labour, lead in paint, fake medicines, etc, etc, I think it's safe to say my position has more evidence supporting it.
But, of course, libertarianism, like communism, has nothing to do with "evidence", and everything to do with blind idealism...
So antibiotic-impregnated meat is *better* than the government regulating the use of antibiotics in livestock production?
Interesting...
And you wonder why libertarians remain on the fringe.
'course, ultimately, you didn't actually defend your original statement. You said you wondered why people were afraid of the market. I gave you a real, tangible reason why. You then responded with "well, I never said it was perfect"... switch which is it? Should we fear the market, or not? Is it imperfect, and thus in need of regulation, or perfect, and thus not?
Sorry, any legislation crammed through in the last few days of a session is bound to be crap. Which apparently this one was, as it excluded wireless providers from the rules applied to wired providers. I guess one group pays better than the other.
No, the argument, and it's a legitimate one, is that the wireless space is a sufficiently healthy, open market (doubly so given it has relatively low barriers of entry for new competition to step in) that such regulation is, at this point, premature.
This is in contrast to the wired ISP game where people have, if they're lucky, two providers available to them.
I guess i missed the part where i claimed it was perfect.
That's odd, you wrote it in another post. Here, let me quote you:
No one would take that position if they didn't feel the free market was perfect. An imperfect market requires government intervention beyond simple contract enforcement in order to protect the public good.
Your position would allow for, as a topical example, antibiotic impregnated meat. 'cuz, you know, people will just not buy the dangerous products, right? Well, unless everyone in the industry is doing it in a race to the bottom in the name of profit profit profit!
You know, I betcha early cable subscribers used to say the same thing about commercials on cable TV...
To me it's rather funny, how well the free market has worked...
Funny, didn't we *just* have an article about the dangers of antibiotic resistance in factory farming? Ahh, but I suppose that doesn't count as a failure for some reason, 'cuz otherwise your little absurd pet theory might not be correct... pesky cognitive dissonance.
My point made.
Which was what, exactly?
Science, as a process, doesn't exist to fix the foibles of humanity, and no scientist has ever claimed to have done so.
This contrasts nicely with religion, which *does* have such aspirations... it's just failed. Hard.
And what is the problem with this, it is not like nicotine is a bio-accumulating substance.
What's your point? It's a toxic chemical, sprayed on your food. That's, like, bad and stuff, right? That's what all the pro-organic people tell me... despite the fact that pesticides are used in fairly large volume in organic farming, they just use different varieties that are, like, "all natural" and stuff.
People are not thinking any more than they were when they were covered in mud praying to the mouth of a cave.
So WTF does *science* have to do with it? People are stupid, short-sighted, and petty. And science hasn't changed that. Oooh, what a shocker!
Science is a tool, both to discover new things, as well as to evaluate the choices we make. How those discoveries are used, and whether those evaluations are heeded, is a question of public policy. And if your public policy favours short-term gains over long-term sustainability... well, you get antibiotic-resistant superbugs.
But blaming science for the stupid choices made by people and politicians is just fucking idiotic... well, unless your real goal was to troll Slashdot with "science == religion!" posts...
In this case, the term organic is referring to organic food and farming.
Absolutely right.
*Nicotine, OTOH, is used *heavily* in the organic food industry, as it's considered an "organic" pesticide. And because it's not as effective as common, "non-organic" pesticides... they have to use more! Woo!
mother nature
Mother nature isn't a person or a thing. Quit anthropomorphizing reality. It's really fucking annoying, and makes you look like an idiot.
People are blindly following the sciences, and that's a huge problem.
Yeah, here's a little hint: People blindly doing anything without considering the long-term consequences will likely fuck shit up. At least science provides us with the necessary tools to predict and evaluate those consequences.
I mean, you don't *really* think this whole "livestock superbug" thing is suddenly a new, entirely unpredicted discovery, do you?
As a vegetarian.... Actually, you know, I can't think what to write next.
Ah, let me help you:
As a vegetarian, I like to point out how smug you people all think I am, so as to defuse the rather apt observation that I am, in fact, a smug douchebag.
Or:
As a vegetarian, I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggonit, people like me!
Or:
As a vegetarian, my superiority complex fills me with the sense of self-satisfaction that my diet can't seem to provide.
Actually, it is not what is wrong with Capitalism.
What? It's exactly what's wrong with capitalism. Hell, you pointed out the problem yourself! Negative externalities are *specifically* a fundamental flaw in pure capitalism, which is why it must be tempered with some level of government intervention.
None of the above tie me to a single operator.
All your communications flow through a single operator. If you use GChat, it flows through Google. It might eventually end up in another network through federation, but Google sees it all. IRC? SMS? Telephone? Same fucking deal. So if you're paranoid about Skype, you should be paranoid about all of the above.
Facebook is the flavor of the month
This is exactly my point. "Flavor of the month" for *six fucking years*, and *still* going strong. Honestly, people like you amuse me... so deluded, *convinced* that, because Facebook personally offends you, it must just be, like, a fad.
Look, I know *you* don't like Facebook. But guess what? The world is different, now, compared to when Myspace was all the rage. Today, grandma's and uncles are using Facebook. It's not simply some teenage fad, and has embedded itself firmly in our culture.
Will it eventually fade? Almost certainly, all things do in time. But I will take bets, right now, that in 5 years, Facebook will still be around, with hundreds of millions of active users.
I notice you didn't ask what was wrong with Facebook ;)
Eh, everyone around here bitches about Facebook, I assumed you were just another griefer drone. *shrug*
There's this
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2009/02/24/skype-steals-bandwidth-%E2%80%94-even-when-you-are-not-using-it/
Dude, that's explained right there in the FAQ. Skype uses a peer-to-peer model for routing call traffic. It's no different than a torrent client in that respect.
But the main thing I didn't like about either is that they are closed.
Well, good thing you don't use any instant messaging platforms, right? Or make a call on a POTS line or a cell phone? Or send a text message?
Enforcing any kind of sane network security policy with skype is impossible.
How is it any better or worse than any other peer-to-peer application? Honestly, I don't know, I've never had to deal with Skype on that level.
Verifying Skype message security is very difficult: we just have to take their word for it. ...
Skype head of security said "I will not say if we are listening in or not" when asked about eavesdropping. Apparently they have the means anyway. ...
why the fuck would anyone want to give control of a communication network to a single company
So, I can only assume you don't use IM (Google Chat, AIM, Facebook chat, or IRC) or SMS, nor do you make use of, say, an ISP or telephony company, right?
IOW, Slashbots are the hipsters of the geek world.
Gotcha.
Okay, but a) I wasn't talking to you, and b) I'm not sure I give a shit about your grievances with individual client implementations.
And as an aside, Skype on Linux works just fine, I use it all the time. Skype on the iPhone, also very good. Android? No idea, and frankly, I don't really care.
Because you don't understand Godel's theorem, which is grossly misunderstood by basically everyone who's ever heard of it colloquially. Here, have a little read on how it's so wonderfully misunderstood, and so horribly misapplied.