Yeah, but who are you to determine how someone else's money should be spent?
Seriously. If people want to spend money on Cable or Junk Food that's their choice. It's a matter of Liberty. Why should a 20 something worker not have cable so some retired person can? Why can retired people with plenty of investments still suck off my productivity?
Funny, the same generation that said "Don't trust anyone over 30" and who claim to be the first people fighting the man also happen to be worse than the man they were fighting. At least the political entities being railed against were comprised of people who were willing to pay their own damn bills. This damn Baby Boomer generation sold out their ideals, and then started behaving in the same way their parents did, but now have the gall to pass that buck to their kids.
Sorry, fuck that.
I would much rather take that 15% and start up a scholarship for a bright beam of hope instead of on some used up failure.
Morality claims to be the same thing - and often coincides - but is imposed by a religious oligarchy who may include their self-interest foremost.
Almost, but not necessarily.
I subscribe to no religious dogma, other than the one I made up myself, and that explicitly makes it an oligarchy - but of what power and influence? I can not impose my moral beliefs on anyone other than myself - even my girl thinks I'm nuts. I lack the ability to force compliance with my beliefs. This is true with many people. This is the crux of my position.
Just because you can cite examples of morality being an agent of an ancient belief system doesn't make it ubiquitously so. One could cite modern beliefs about climate change on both sides to counter that argument.
The root is in the emotions, not the source. Many Catholics have left the Church and then cited their morals as being different - explicitly so.
Minor correction, no better platform with a LOWER BARRIER TO ENTRY than that.
Its already pretty damn low on the PC. Flash based games cost a pittance to make. There are a number of "template" game dev environments out there for free. Although, XNA is really trying to lay a foundation for hobbyist console developers.
The biggest issue I see is the affect of the PC trifecta:
Graphics arms race is costly Diversity of systems = diversity of experiences Loss of minions to Apple and Linux
Whatever combination of distro and package code that enables PC gaming on Linux will BE the standard.
We can talk about standards being determined by an educated and enlightened board all we want, but people still code web pages to deal with IE quirks because most people us it - despite it NOT conforming to W3C standards.
Tell a gamer they can play any game they want on a free OS and make EASILY it work. You have the numbers you need to set the "social" standard.
The reality is ALL companies run like shit. They really do. People just have this weird ideal put into their head that business moves at the speed of light and everyone in the big tall building is working their ass off to get it done, until you reach the bottom of the food chain and then it's practically welfare.
This is just shit butt fuck all wrong.
Businesses often reach into their credit lines to get over the non productive periods and then pay it back when they get the revenue in. If they don't they just go bankrupt and "sorry to all of you we owe money to".
You got to look at companies the same way as the government does, as weird artificial constructs with all the rights of a person. Then take that person and make them over extended on their credit and living hand to mouth on a colossal scale.
Total Linux newbie here, so don't kill me if this is inaccurate, but can't you run IE6 under wine? If so, shouldn't you be able to view the streaming movies?
Then why is it considered by many for sex between two men to be immoral? The ancient Greeks had no problem with it. It used to be unethical to practice usury, now thats the standard.
I don't think it is as cut and dry as that. I think morals do happen to deal with the individual and its based on emotions. While people may speak of the concept of the "moral majority" they never say anything like the "ethical majority".
Actually, its funny that when I see a group of people talking about their morals, they seem to be like a mob of individuals all speaking their singular, personal beliefs. They just happen to be congruent with each other.
When people talk of ethics, they seem to speak as an individual communicating the the agreed terms of a larger community.
People don't seem to make ethics a personal deal, it's like they view it as a rule over many, but people see their morals as very individual and unique things.
Well,/. may not be balanced in this sense, but it definitely doesn't force you to stick with the base rules they provide.
You can alter your user preferences to give ACs an extra point to counteract the default 0 score. In fact, the options allow you to tweak post scoring into any formula you like. I could give flaimbaits +6 if I wanted to, superseding any other mod possible. It even goes as deep to allow me to assign a lesser value to those who have been members considered new to a threshold I determine. It's extremely fair.
And herein is a great little tool we can use to discuss the larger problem - the concepts of Fair and Balanced. For the sake of argument, let's use the current/. post scoring model as a base example of "balanced" , the preferences as "fair" and slashdot as "duh gubernment".
Well, many people would disagree that it is balanced. From their perspective, posts of a certain type shouldn't be given as harsh a penalty for their moderation as they do. For example, many may feel that trolls are ok, but flaimbait isn't. Now, that would be honkey-dory if we had a baseline absolute for what was flaimbait and what was a troll, but we don't. The population at large has varying "personal" definitions for those terms that they apply in a singular form, but that we discuss in an aggregate. If looked at from 10,000 feet you could probably come up with a functional distinction between the two. Unfortunately, we don't mod from 10,000 feet - we mod from ground zero and the perspective doesn't allow us to use the same definition. In order to overcome this problem,/. chose to allow us to implement our own scoring systems on an individual basis. Sounds great right? Liberty FTW!
Well, it's not so great. That's not entirely true, it's not so great for everyone. Wha...? Huh...?
Now we have discrepancies on how certain items are valued. From one perspective, the 10,000 ft. slashdot moderation trends have been changed to a value system reflecting a single perspective against the whole. Joe Shmoe can now see all trolls on equal footing as insightfuls and Nancy Neutral can value everything at Zero. This seems to morph the community's modding trends as a whole to reflect the trend of the individual, but it doesn't. It merely alters the presentation. Amy Applerulz still mods everything having to do with Apple as +1 Insightful and Manny McMicrosoft still gets pissed off that the post was modded this way and chooses to use the all powerful overated mod. The individuals respond to the content of the post, but their custom rulesets can only engage the framework of presentation. They both have exercised their liberty by changing the rules of scoring, but it doesn't work how they want it too. Manny wants more Pro Microsoft, and Amy wants the opposite.
So now we have two problems. A framework that distorts (changes) the community values for generalized categories to reflect the individual to that same individual and an individual who exercised their liberties (by altering the scoring system) and still feels that the system isn't "balanced". Here is where people start to use the term "fair", and it causes the most problems.
Amy Applerulez doesn't think being modded as overrated is "fair" and Manny McMicrosoft doesn't think anyone who votes insightful like a Pavlovian dog should be allowed to mod at all. So now they choose to become foes and ignore the shit outta each other. They aren't censoring the other person from speaking, no harm no foul - they just refuse to hear anything that the other has to say because they think that the other is an idiot. Great! Liberty FTW again!
Not really.
Now that Manny and Amy have fully exercised their liberties, in a non infringing manner to boot, they get their information in a "fair" and "balanced" manner from their singular ground zero perspective. Yet, if looked at from 10,000 feet these two have their heads in the fucking sand. There is no such thing as balance when these two individuals
Heheh, you seem(are) enlightened. Nice. Let's discuss.
Correction, the myth of free markets leading to the efficency relies on, among other things, the myth of the well-informed consumer.
I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make here, so I am going to talk to my assumption, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Logics aimed at the free market being a false ideal based on the existence, or lack of, of an "informed" consumer are somewhat fallacious. There is no such thing as a free market. ALL markets have regulations. The definition of an "informed" consumer is subjective to the item being purchased, the availability of information regarding said purchase type, and the actual culture of the purchasing entity. In purely economic terms, the culture element is barely recognized, but in a working definition - the observable behavior of the consumer is most definitely included in the definition of "informed".
The presence of trade in the short term does not disprove a market failure.
True. Most definitely true.
Right, but the existence of tools to help correlate that data, especially free and easy ones, certainly increases the likelihood that consumers will.
I have to vehemently disagree. It certainly increases the ability of the consumer to do research, but it doesn't mean they will. One of the cultural distortions I have noticed is that many people feel dumb when faced with the raw data they are given. They will actually STOP researching things once they feel they are out of their element. If you look at how specialized we have become as a whole (regarding employed function), people feel ignorant more often than not regarding consumer research. They know a lot about what it is they do, and fuck all about what they don't. People quit doing research once that research returns data they don't understand.
That'd be like expecting to pay the same price as the person at the next table in a restaurant
You may not pay the same price based on coupons, or "friend" hook-up, or after the inclusion of tip. I mean, tips aren't universally standardized.
or in line to buy a TV
If the "line" exists online, then it depends on which line you stand in. Many people who work for companies that have ADP handle their employee finances get discounts because ADP negotiates group purchasing agreements with many vendors.
or at a theater
Once again, depends on the online "line". You can get discount tickets if you purchase a bunch of passes to be used over a period of time. Depends on where, and how, you buy.
going to a football game
I can purchase season tickets that amount to a discount if compared to purchasing for each game. Same line - were talking online here.
Free markets rely on the myth of the well-informed consumer.
It's not a myth, it just doesn't meet your standard of well informed, which I am assuming is based around a data point of one (you).
It is highly likely that the "average" consumer is only as informed as they feel they need to be to make a decision of how they spend their money. That is how the free market works. If a person feels, and the key word here is feels, that they have enough information to make a decision regarding the way they spend their money - they spend. That's it. Free market working. The more, or less, information you make available is not intrinsically attached to how educated a purchaser feels they are. There may be a correlation to how much data is available to how much research is done by a consumer, but it doesn't actually force anyone to do more research.
Your statement kind of alludes that there is a standard definition of "well-informed". If that was true, consumers would (should) have to meet that standard pre-purchase, and that is the antithesis of free market.
Not that I disagree with your assertion that the "average" consumer is ignorant to all of the implications and conditions of their purchases, but to extend that opinion to a reasoning that the free market fails is a flat out wrong.
The Wii generates a profit from every console sold. The 360 sells at a loss to make revenue up on software licensing later.
If this talking point is limited to hardware only, then the argument is valid. If this is supposed to be a blow for blow comparison, then it's kind of inaccurate. You won't really know how successful the 360 is until they quit selling it, and even then only once they stop collecting revenue from licenses. The same goes for the PS3.
You give technical opinions to those who are ignorant. You train end users on a specific product. Whoop de fucking do. I pegged you, but you go ahead and put that into a perspective that makes you feel better.
And where did you get it into your head I don't think I have to learn?
The reality is that my team's understanding of international business as it relates to Asian markets trumps their ability to switch to a different user environment.
Rocking the boat for me isn't a matter of pissing off a few users, it's a matter of possibly losing a multi-year, multi-million dollar deal. It has the possibility of making a mistake in a trade agreement that gets my company in trouble for violating Federal Trade laws. In what I do, there are no calm waters.
As I posted before, I have reviewed the TCO for change over to a different user environment. The worth of my teams technical expertise is piss compared to 80 combined years first hand knowledge of business in the area. Now, go hire me more technically competent people with that skill set. Not so simple now.
The fact that you couldn't even imagine a scenario where business acumen would trump technical costs proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Now tell me, with a straight face, that the best way to guarantee international interoperability is to go open source. I don't control other peoples environments, but I do know they make 'em interoperable with Windows. I can't make that same claim for choose your favorite Linux distro.
Frankly, I respond to these trolls by ignorant posters because I'm tired of seeing a whole group of people classified as worthless based on a combination of their title and the huge lack of experience that technically minded people think their analytical skills make up for.
There is a very good reason my CIO doesn't fuck with me on this, and it's not because he thinks I'm an ignorant asshole.
And your understanding of the scale of my responsibilities is also false. I don't have Bosses, I have a CEO. There is no one higher in the organization than him.
In fact, I don't really answer to him either. My contract is with the owner. I advise the CEO on directions to take and manage my unit in executing the initiatives my executive group comes up with.
So, thanks for playing - let the big boys do their work and you get back to your desk.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but who are you to determine how someone else's money should be spent?
Seriously. If people want to spend money on Cable or Junk Food that's their choice. It's a matter of Liberty. Why should a 20 something worker not have cable so some retired person can? Why can retired people with plenty of investments still suck off my productivity?
Funny, the same generation that said "Don't trust anyone over 30" and who claim to be the first people fighting the man also happen to be worse than the man they were fighting. At least the political entities being railed against were comprised of people who were willing to pay their own damn bills. This damn Baby Boomer generation sold out their ideals, and then started behaving in the same way their parents did, but now have the gall to pass that buck to their kids.
Sorry, fuck that.
I would much rather take that 15% and start up a scholarship for a bright beam of hope instead of on some used up failure.
The linked page is self purporting. That's it's purpose.
If you are smart enough to see through it, you are smart enough to discredit it. In turn that makes it an example, not a message.
The problem with trying to communicate a message of the sort I link to is that the goal is to get you to scream "BULLSHIT!"
Parts apply and others don't, but they do provoke thought. Thought allows you to discard its catalyst for new ideas, but doesn't require it.
If you take the link as truth, you miss the point.
Morality claims to be the same thing - and often coincides - but is imposed by a religious oligarchy who may include their self-interest foremost.
Almost, but not necessarily.
I subscribe to no religious dogma, other than the one I made up myself, and that explicitly makes it an oligarchy - but of what power and influence? I can not impose my moral beliefs on anyone other than myself - even my girl thinks I'm nuts. I lack the ability to force compliance with my beliefs. This is true with many people. This is the crux of my position.
Just because you can cite examples of morality being an agent of an ancient belief system doesn't make it ubiquitously so. One could cite modern beliefs about climate change on both sides to counter that argument.
The root is in the emotions, not the source. Many Catholics have left the Church and then cited their morals as being different - explicitly so.
That's kinda the point moron.
Let me introduce you to the concept of context.
The point is to see what the populace thinks the relation is.
If you think google is the end all be all of absolute information then you already fail.
No better platform than the PC for that.
Minor correction, no better platform with a LOWER BARRIER TO ENTRY than that.
Its already pretty damn low on the PC. Flash based games cost a pittance to make. There are a number of "template" game dev environments out there for free. Although, XNA is really trying to lay a foundation for hobbyist console developers.
The biggest issue I see is the affect of the PC trifecta:
Graphics arms race is costly
Diversity of systems = diversity of experiences
Loss of minions to Apple and Linux
Whatever combination of distro and package code that enables PC gaming on Linux will BE the standard.
We can talk about standards being determined by an educated and enlightened board all we want, but people still code web pages to deal with IE quirks because most people us it - despite it NOT conforming to W3C standards.
Tell a gamer they can play any game they want on a free OS and make EASILY it work. You have the numbers you need to set the "social" standard.
Man, I would love to see the results if this technique was used for an ontological purpose.
Please type in the word from the choices below that most closely relates to this word: OLD
HISTORIC
LIFESPAN
Interesting shit indeed.
This is actually a very common phenomena.
The reality is ALL companies run like shit. They really do. People just have this weird ideal put into their head that business moves at the speed of light and everyone in the big tall building is working their ass off to get it done, until you reach the bottom of the food chain and then it's practically welfare.
This is just shit butt fuck all wrong.
Businesses often reach into their credit lines to get over the non productive periods and then pay it back when they get the revenue in. If they don't they just go bankrupt and "sorry to all of you we owe money to".
You got to look at companies the same way as the government does, as weird artificial constructs with all the rights of a person. Then take that person and make them over extended on their credit and living hand to mouth on a colossal scale.
Total Linux newbie here, so don't kill me if this is inaccurate, but can't you run IE6 under wine? If so, shouldn't you be able to view the streaming movies?
They're even cooler than just that.
I've been using them a long time with the 3 disk unlimited plan. One day my girl broke a dvd. Her response: "Let's just mark it as never arrived."
Being all into personal accountability and shit I told her "no, we'll say we broke it and pay for it. We did in fact break it."
Their response: "Do you want us to send a replacement?"
No charge for disk. Nothing. I guess if you don't abuse the shit they overlook the occasional accident.
Thank god.
All I could think of when I read the summary was "Elf shoots food."
Well, in his defense he was making it bigger to build all them damn fancy roads.
Then why is it considered by many for sex between two men to be immoral? The ancient Greeks had no problem with it. It used to be unethical to practice usury, now thats the standard.
I don't think it is as cut and dry as that. I think morals do happen to deal with the individual and its based on emotions. While people may speak of the concept of the "moral majority" they never say anything like the "ethical majority".
Actually, its funny that when I see a group of people talking about their morals, they seem to be like a mob of individuals all speaking their singular, personal beliefs. They just happen to be congruent with each other.
When people talk of ethics, they seem to speak as an individual communicating the the agreed terms of a larger community.
People don't seem to make ethics a personal deal, it's like they view it as a rule over many, but people see their morals as very individual and unique things.
Well, /. may not be balanced in this sense, but it definitely doesn't force you to stick with the base rules they provide.
You can alter your user preferences to give ACs an extra point to counteract the default 0 score. In fact, the options allow you to tweak post scoring into any formula you like. I could give flaimbaits +6 if I wanted to, superseding any other mod possible. It even goes as deep to allow me to assign a lesser value to those who have been members considered new to a threshold I determine. It's extremely fair.
And herein is a great little tool we can use to discuss the larger problem - the concepts of Fair and Balanced. For the sake of argument, let's use the current /. post scoring model as a base example of "balanced" , the preferences as "fair" and slashdot as "duh gubernment".
Well, many people would disagree that it is balanced. From their perspective, posts of a certain type shouldn't be given as harsh a penalty for their moderation as they do. For example, many may feel that trolls are ok, but flaimbait isn't. Now, that would be honkey-dory if we had a baseline absolute for what was flaimbait and what was a troll, but we don't. The population at large has varying "personal" definitions for those terms that they apply in a singular form, but that we discuss in an aggregate. If looked at from 10,000 feet you could probably come up with a functional distinction between the two. Unfortunately, we don't mod from 10,000 feet - we mod from ground zero and the perspective doesn't allow us to use the same definition. In order to overcome this problem, /. chose to allow us to implement our own scoring systems on an individual basis. Sounds great right? Liberty FTW!
Well, it's not so great. That's not entirely true, it's not so great for everyone. Wha...? Huh...?
Now we have discrepancies on how certain items are valued. From one perspective, the 10,000 ft. slashdot moderation trends have been changed to a value system reflecting a single perspective against the whole. Joe Shmoe can now see all trolls on equal footing as insightfuls and Nancy Neutral can value everything at Zero. This seems to morph the community's modding trends as a whole to reflect the trend of the individual, but it doesn't. It merely alters the presentation. Amy Applerulz still mods everything having to do with Apple as +1 Insightful and Manny McMicrosoft still gets pissed off that the post was modded this way and chooses to use the all powerful overated mod. The individuals respond to the content of the post, but their custom rulesets can only engage the framework of presentation. They both have exercised their liberty by changing the rules of scoring, but it doesn't work how they want it too. Manny wants more Pro Microsoft, and Amy wants the opposite.
So now we have two problems. A framework that distorts (changes) the community values for generalized categories to reflect the individual to that same individual and an individual who exercised their liberties (by altering the scoring system) and still feels that the system isn't "balanced". Here is where people start to use the term "fair", and it causes the most problems.
Amy Applerulez doesn't think being modded as overrated is "fair" and Manny McMicrosoft doesn't think anyone who votes insightful like a Pavlovian dog should be allowed to mod at all. So now they choose to become foes and ignore the shit outta each other. They aren't censoring the other person from speaking, no harm no foul - they just refuse to hear anything that the other has to say because they think that the other is an idiot. Great! Liberty FTW again!
Not really.
Now that Manny and Amy have fully exercised their liberties, in a non infringing manner to boot, they get their information in a "fair" and "balanced" manner from their singular ground zero perspective. Yet, if looked at from 10,000 feet these two have their heads in the fucking sand. There is no such thing as balance when these two individuals
Heheh, you seem(are) enlightened. Nice. Let's discuss.
Correction, the myth of free markets leading to the efficency relies on, among other things, the myth of the well-informed consumer.
I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make here, so I am going to talk to my assumption, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Logics aimed at the free market being a false ideal based on the existence, or lack of, of an "informed" consumer are somewhat fallacious. There is no such thing as a free market. ALL markets have regulations. The definition of an "informed" consumer is subjective to the item being purchased, the availability of information regarding said purchase type, and the actual culture of the purchasing entity. In purely economic terms, the culture element is barely recognized, but in a working definition - the observable behavior of the consumer is most definitely included in the definition of "informed".
The presence of trade in the short term does not disprove a market failure.
True. Most definitely true.
Right, but the existence of tools to help correlate that data, especially free and easy ones, certainly increases the likelihood that consumers will.
I have to vehemently disagree. It certainly increases the ability of the consumer to do research, but it doesn't mean they will. One of the cultural distortions I have noticed is that many people feel dumb when faced with the raw data they are given. They will actually STOP researching things once they feel they are out of their element. If you look at how specialized we have become as a whole (regarding employed function), people feel ignorant more often than not regarding consumer research. They know a lot about what it is they do, and fuck all about what they don't. People quit doing research once that research returns data they don't understand.
That'd be like expecting to pay the same price as the person at the next table in a restaurant
You may not pay the same price based on coupons, or "friend" hook-up, or after the inclusion of tip. I mean, tips aren't universally standardized.
or in line to buy a TV
If the "line" exists online, then it depends on which line you stand in. Many people who work for companies that have ADP handle their employee finances get discounts because ADP negotiates group purchasing agreements with many vendors.
or at a theater
Once again, depends on the online "line". You can get discount tickets if you purchase a bunch of passes to be used over a period of time. Depends on where, and how, you buy.
going to a football game
I can purchase season tickets that amount to a discount if compared to purchasing for each game. Same line - were talking online here.
As a Mick myself, I have to say this is partially true.
My family, our Irish friends, and all the cats I hang with in the pubs are fucking piss crazy.
Now, with insanity comes insight, but good luck getting anyone to buy into that.
Free markets rely on the myth of the well-informed consumer.
It's not a myth, it just doesn't meet your standard of well informed, which I am assuming is based around a data point of one (you).
It is highly likely that the "average" consumer is only as informed as they feel they need to be to make a decision of how they spend their money. That is how the free market works. If a person feels, and the key word here is feels, that they have enough information to make a decision regarding the way they spend their money - they spend. That's it. Free market working. The more, or less, information you make available is not intrinsically attached to how educated a purchaser feels they are. There may be a correlation to how much data is available to how much research is done by a consumer, but it doesn't actually force anyone to do more research.
Your statement kind of alludes that there is a standard definition of "well-informed". If that was true, consumers would (should) have to meet that standard pre-purchase, and that is the antithesis of free market.
Not that I disagree with your assertion that the "average" consumer is ignorant to all of the implications and conditions of their purchases, but to extend that opinion to a reasoning that the free market fails is a flat out wrong.
The Wii generates a profit from every console sold. The 360 sells at a loss to make revenue up on software licensing later.
If this talking point is limited to hardware only, then the argument is valid. If this is supposed to be a blow for blow comparison, then it's kind of inaccurate. You won't really know how successful the 360 is until they quit selling it, and even then only once they stop collecting revenue from licenses. The same goes for the PS3.
You give technical opinions to those who are ignorant. You train end users on a specific product. Whoop de fucking do. I pegged you, but you go ahead and put that into a perspective that makes you feel better.
And where did you get it into your head I don't think I have to learn?
The reality is that my team's understanding of international business as it relates to Asian markets trumps their ability to switch to a different user environment.
Rocking the boat for me isn't a matter of pissing off a few users, it's a matter of possibly losing a multi-year, multi-million dollar deal. It has the possibility of making a mistake in a trade agreement that gets my company in trouble for violating Federal Trade laws. In what I do, there are no calm waters.
As I posted before, I have reviewed the TCO for change over to a different user environment. The worth of my teams technical expertise is piss compared to 80 combined years first hand knowledge of business in the area. Now, go hire me more technically competent people with that skill set. Not so simple now.
The fact that you couldn't even imagine a scenario where business acumen would trump technical costs proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Now tell me, with a straight face, that the best way to guarantee international interoperability is to go open source. I don't control other peoples environments, but I do know they make 'em interoperable with Windows. I can't make that same claim for choose your favorite Linux distro.
Frankly, I respond to these trolls by ignorant posters because I'm tired of seeing a whole group of people classified as worthless based on a combination of their title and the huge lack of experience that technically minded people think their analytical skills make up for.
There is a very good reason my CIO doesn't fuck with me on this, and it's not because he thinks I'm an ignorant asshole.
Your post history reads like an angry engineer who doesn't get recognized often enough for his incredible genius.
There is a reason no one asks you to lead anything worth a damn.
Yes. I never said I didn't. I said I don't answer to the CEO. I clarified who it was I answered to.
Your assumption that I run an IT unit is false.
And your understanding of the scale of my responsibilities is also false. I don't have Bosses, I have a CEO. There is no one higher in the organization than him.
In fact, I don't really answer to him either. My contract is with the owner. I advise the CEO on directions to take and manage my unit in executing the initiatives my executive group comes up with.
So, thanks for playing - let the big boys do their work and you get back to your desk.
I don't run a tech department.
I don't run a programming unit.
Your post has absolutely fuck all to do with me.