And yet companies do this all the time. They're called skunkworks
Please list the names of 30 people, in 10 to 15 groups, who are "kids in a garage" to work as the "skunkworks" of a company, and the company that hired them.
So, because "it does some things well", things are working out well for the people of Cuba? Meanwhile, Cubans repeatedly risk their lives to leave Cuba. Sounds like a paradise.
Yes, teach people how to go from being arrested for committing a misdemeanor which might amount to time served and might be dismissed to committing several felonies which can earn one a stiff fine, a lengthy jail sentence or prison time, and possibly get them shot in the process. Wonderful idea, keep up the good work.
If Cubans have it so well, why are so many still risking their lives to leave Cuba by traveling in make-shift boats across 90 miles of treacherous ocean?
When was the last time you went to Cuba or talk to a Cuban or someone with relatives in Cuba?
It is interesting that you compare Cuba to Haiti. Why not compare Cuba to the Dominican Republic, Trinadad and Tobago, or Puerto Rico?
When you say free-market theory, I am assuming that you are referring to laissez-faire capitalism, which suffers from the same "everyone has to cooperate at all times" defect, as does "trickle-down economics". Everything in life needs limits and sometimes those limits need to be enforced by law.
The thing I hate in these arguments is "$policy1 isn't working so we should all change to $policy2." where $policy1 suffers from obvious defects and $policy2 is the exact and extreme opposite of $policy1 and suffers from the same or similar defects of $policy1.
Yeah, we have seen how well that worked out. Just look at the USSR, Cuba, etc.
Seriously, you are an idiot for thinking something that requires all people, especially those with power, to do the right thing all the time will ever work.
From what I see, they are trying to force Sony to make changes by attacking Sony.
terrorism noun \ter-r-i-zm\ : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
terror noun \ter-r, te-rr\ : 1)a state of intense fear. 2) violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Aren't theses acts and attacks committed against Sony, in an attempt coerce Sony into behaving in a specific manner, designed to be destructive to Sony, it's reputation, and it's business?
If one answers "yes" to the former, one is admitting to beating one's wife. If one answers "no" to the former, one is admitting to beating one's wife.
If one answers "yes" to the former, one is stating the TSA isn't doing a good job, regardless of whether they are responsible for the number of airplanes flown into buildings. If one answers "no" to the former, one is stating the TSA is doing a good job, regardless of whether they are responsible for the number of airlanes flown into buildings.
The answer "Yes, that is what I am saying" is a valid answer and doesn't imply that the TSA is responsible for airplanes flown into buildings. Rather, the asker is using one criteria for success and one can state there is other criteria for success e.g. "None, but in doing so, they have violated the privacy and personal rights of thousands of people, which is a failure."
The TSA does not increase security. They are so busy looking for "oversize" 4oz bottles of shampoo that commonly show up that they miss guns that rarely show up. They are so busy patting down grandmas and children there is no time to evaluate those that may pose a threat.
Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!
Did you quit beating your wife today?
Those two are not equivalent. The second question is a "trick question" while the first is not. A yes-or-no answer to the second question creates an implicit admission of spouse abuse regardless of the answer. The first quote, on the other hand, esentially asks a question with a known answer, zero, which undermines the asked persons stance. But, if there were a different truthful answer, the answer would not imply anything negative.
Oh, and the proper answer to "Did you quit beating your wife today?" is "I do not now, nor have I ever beaten my wife, nor do I plan to do so in the future."
First, the asteroid is approximated as a spherical object 1000km in diameter (the asteroid is quoted as being the size of Texas) that splits into two equal sized hemispheres
Yet, in the movie it is clearly not a spherical object. C) In the movie, it is clearly stated they are going to use the bombs to split the asteroid on a natural frature plain. This would decrease the required force significantly. D) It was a fucking movie. It was fiction, not a factual account of an actual event. They use movie physics. They flew the space shuttle to the asteriod and it behaves like an airplane in space for crying out loud. They had a chamber that simulated weightlessness in space by creating a vaccuum.
How can we say something is abnormal when we don't look at the actual big picture? Why would we be extinct in a millennium, besides the fact that many species go extinct? Global warming? Chances are we won't go extinct from that, at least not directly. Humans are adaptable enough to survive climate change itself, it will just result in a smaller population. The bigger threat is war for ever dwindling resources.
He based his conclusions on a 60 year time frame. 60 years is statistically insignificant when looked at on geologic time scales. It is the equivalent of stating a person's average life-time activity level by looking at what said person did over the last minute.
You left out the part where the Linux market is seen, rightly, as one that is reluctant, if not totally opposed on ideological grounds, to paying for software, especially closed-source software. A market where one cannot make a sale is not a market where one can succeed.
And, remember, Linux is seen as a pirate-friendly ecosystem. Would you try to make your living selling in a market where people will try to take your product, duplicate it at little to no cost, and then give your product away for free considering you have little chance of stopping them?
The proliferation of games that require internet connectivity and DLC is directly attributable to unauthorized, illegal copying. And, you think they are going to spend time and effort to develop and market their games to a group of people who use an operating system seen as the preferred tool of people directly opposed to their business model and who have a reputation for making illegal copies? Especially when they will capture a good portion of that same market by focusing on the operating system with 90+% of the market share? Little, if anything, to gain and much to lose. The business case just isn't there.
And, Nvidia will not care what the FOSS community does. 90+% of Nvidia's customers don't use FOSS at all. So many people forget that FLOSS is, at best, a niche market and as such has little influence on business decisions.
Specifically, the size of the company. If you are a director and will have to "crawl under cobwebby desks to check that equipment is properly plugged in", your company is not big enough for you to worry too much about your day to day dress at the office unless your superiors have a tendency to bring by big, important clients.
So, your day to day dress should be what you think is appropriate for the work you do and meets the requirements of the company dress code, which may not even exist. For days when you will be meeting with clients, etc. you should wear business attire, possibly even a suit.
Oh, and keep a set of working clothes at the office just in case you have to do some work on a day you need to dress up.
You are mistaking technical acumen with business acumen. From what I read, he is not talking about the technical merrits, but rather about the realities of business.
You seem to be mistaking "speaking the truth" with "advocating". Also, it seems to me that Romero is saying that in today's climate of "give it to me for free", games on Andriod will not be able to make any money because it is so open.
If the game developers of the 80s couldn't make money off their first games, none of the other games would have followed.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet companies do this all the time. They're called skunkworks
Please list the names of 30 people, in 10 to 15 groups, who are "kids in a garage" to work as the "skunkworks" of a company, and the company that hired them.
I became a computer system engineer. I work with whatever is needed for the job. Solaris, HP-UX, Windows, Linux whatever the job requires.
So, because "it does some things well", things are working out well for the people of Cuba? Meanwhile, Cubans repeatedly risk their lives to leave Cuba. Sounds like a paradise.
It is not a red herring. Perhaps if you had a brain you would know that, Mr. Troll.
Yes, teach people how to go from being arrested for committing a misdemeanor which might amount to time served and might be dismissed to committing several felonies which can earn one a stiff fine, a lengthy jail sentence or prison time, and possibly get them shot in the process. Wonderful idea, keep up the good work.
If Cubans have it so well, why are so many still risking their lives to leave Cuba by traveling in make-shift boats across 90 miles of treacherous ocean?
When was the last time you went to Cuba or talk to a Cuban or someone with relatives in Cuba?
It is interesting that you compare Cuba to Haiti. Why not compare Cuba to the Dominican Republic, Trinadad and Tobago, or Puerto Rico?
When you say free-market theory, I am assuming that you are referring to laissez-faire capitalism, which suffers from the same "everyone has to cooperate at all times" defect, as does "trickle-down economics". Everything in life needs limits and sometimes those limits need to be enforced by law.
The thing I hate in these arguments is "$policy1 isn't working so we should all change to $policy2." where $policy1 suffers from obvious defects and $policy2 is the exact and extreme opposite of $policy1 and suffers from the same or similar defects of $policy1.
Obligatory quote
I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.
''
Ah, Peter, we know how it goes.
Yeah, we have seen how well that worked out. Just look at the USSR, Cuba, etc.
Seriously, you are an idiot for thinking something that requires all people, especially those with power, to do the right thing all the time will ever work.
From what I see, they are trying to force Sony to make changes by attacking Sony.
terrorism noun \ter-r-i-zm\ : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
terror noun \ter-r, te-rr\ : 1)a state of intense fear. 2) violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Aren't theses acts and attacks committed against Sony, in an attempt coerce Sony into behaving in a specific manner, designed to be destructive to Sony, it's reputation, and it's business?
What, exactly, is Anonymous attempting to do by hacking Sony? What, exactly, started them hacking Sony and what was their end goal?
Yes, you approve of their illegal methods. Otherwise, you wouldn't be defending them.
Spotlighting and misleading vividness are fallacies.
OK, that is one instance out of how many? Or, is it required that they be 100% perfect, 100% of the time? What is the percentage of failure?
That is called anecdotal evidence, btw, which is not valid evidence.
If one answers "yes" to the former, one is admitting to beating one's wife.
If one answers "no" to the former, one is admitting to beating one's wife.
If one answers "yes" to the former, one is stating the TSA isn't doing a good job, regardless of whether they are responsible for the number of airplanes flown into buildings.
If one answers "no" to the former, one is stating the TSA is doing a good job, regardless of whether they are responsible for the number of airlanes flown into buildings.
The answer "Yes, that is what I am saying" is a valid answer and doesn't imply that the TSA is responsible for airplanes flown into buildings. Rather, the asker is using one criteria for success and one can state there is other criteria for success e.g. "None, but in doing so, they have violated the privacy and personal rights of thousands of people, which is a failure."
The TSA does not increase security. They are so busy looking for "oversize" 4oz bottles of shampoo that commonly show up that they miss guns that rarely show up. They are so busy patting down grandmas and children there is no time to evaluate those that may pose a threat.
Prove your assertions with valid evidence.
Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!
Did you quit beating your wife today?
Those two are not equivalent. The second question is a "trick question" while the first is not. A yes-or-no answer to the second question creates an implicit admission of spouse abuse regardless of the answer. The first quote, on the other hand, esentially asks a question with a known answer, zero, which undermines the asked persons stance. But, if there were a different truthful answer, the answer would not imply anything negative.
Oh, and the proper answer to "Did you quit beating your wife today?" is "I do not now, nor have I ever beaten my wife, nor do I plan to do so in the future."
A) It was a movie.
B) FTA:
First, the asteroid is approximated as a spherical object 1000km in diameter (the asteroid is quoted as being the size of Texas) that splits into two equal sized hemispheres
Yet, in the movie it is clearly not a spherical object.
C) In the movie, it is clearly stated they are going to use the bombs to split the asteroid on a natural frature plain. This would decrease the required force significantly.
D) It was a fucking movie. It was fiction, not a factual account of an actual event. They use movie physics. They flew the space shuttle to the asteriod and it behaves like an airplane in space for crying out loud. They had a chamber that simulated weightlessness in space by creating a vaccuum.
How can we say something is abnormal when we don't look at the actual big picture? Why would we be extinct in a millennium, besides the fact that many species go extinct? Global warming? Chances are we won't go extinct from that, at least not directly. Humans are adaptable enough to survive climate change itself, it will just result in a smaller population. The bigger threat is war for ever dwindling resources.
He based his conclusions on a 60 year time frame. 60 years is statistically insignificant when looked at on geologic time scales. It is the equivalent of stating a person's average life-time activity level by looking at what said person did over the last minute.
You left out the part where the Linux market is seen, rightly, as one that is reluctant, if not totally opposed on ideological grounds, to paying for software, especially closed-source software. A market where one cannot make a sale is not a market where one can succeed.
And, remember, Linux is seen as a pirate-friendly ecosystem. Would you try to make your living selling in a market where people will try to take your product, duplicate it at little to no cost, and then give your product away for free considering you have little chance of stopping them?
The proliferation of games that require internet connectivity and DLC is directly attributable to unauthorized, illegal copying. And, you think they are going to spend time and effort to develop and market their games to a group of people who use an operating system seen as the preferred tool of people directly opposed to their business model and who have a reputation for making illegal copies? Especially when they will capture a good portion of that same market by focusing on the operating system with 90+% of the market share? Little, if anything, to gain and much to lose. The business case just isn't there.
And, Nvidia will not care what the FOSS community does. 90+% of Nvidia's customers don't use FOSS at all. So many people forget that FLOSS is, at best, a niche market and as such has little influence on business decisions.
Specifically, the size of the company. If you are a director and will have to "crawl under cobwebby desks to check that equipment is properly plugged in", your company is not big enough for you to worry too much about your day to day dress at the office unless your superiors have a tendency to bring by big, important clients.
So, your day to day dress should be what you think is appropriate for the work you do and meets the requirements of the company dress code, which may not even exist. For days when you will be meeting with clients, etc. you should wear business attire, possibly even a suit.
Oh, and keep a set of working clothes at the office just in case you have to do some work on a day you need to dress up.
You are mistaking technical acumen with business acumen. From what I read, he is not talking about the technical merrits, but rather about the realities of business.
You seem to be mistaking "speaking the truth" with "advocating". Also, it seems to me that Romero is saying that in today's climate of "give it to me for free", games on Andriod will not be able to make any money because it is so open.
If the game developers of the 80s couldn't make money off their first games, none of the other games would have followed.