If your work can be summarized that well, and you know the steps well enough to know that a better text editor wouldn't be of any use, nor a tool to calculate something, or better log/diagram your network layouts, etc, then it's time to hand it to a lesser skill person for the grunt work.
Because if I was doing all that I'd certainly be looking continuously, not just once a year, for new tools. If one was pointed out it'd be a huge pain to go a whole year doing something manually knowing it could be easier. A huge waste of money too.
But just because your world drifts by slowly enough doesn't mean you should recommend a slower response time to new ideas by those of us who could order a new product more than once a year. It's not a virtue.
I pick which resources I consume, tax is coerced out of me at gunpoint. Should I choose not to drive I'd pay less, only via commodity prices which reflect transport to some degree.
I'd prefer to pay R&D via companies' expectations of my future voluntary spending, rather than have a bunch of science-phobic politicians vote on which implausible technology they should dump my stolen money into.
No, just that many "Wikipedia Admins" (as opposed to active editors who don't seek special status) are sewer rejects who flock to Wikipedia because it lets them abuse power. Deletionists especially are a fucking retarded subclass of the rest, whose sole contribution to society is deleting something someone else did.
Wikipedia rocks. It's too bad so many people are dedicated to pissing all over it.
System Shock 2 was that way. One of the bits that stands out was finding survivors and then watching on the other side of an absolutely unbreakable door as they get slaughtered, seconds before you could have really interacted with them.
Neat game, but way too forced. It's only in comparison to the other FPS games of the era that it looked like a masterpiece.
I feel the same way about those two illegal actions and have the same (general) justification for it (potential harm). I was referring to people who scream 'Illegal!' as an argument against something.
I've had a few modded down enough to reach -1, while simultaneously pulling in enough positive mods to hit +5. There's simply no way to question religion that some people won't take as offensive.
Besides, that totally ignores that often the best way to make a point is to be so offensive that the person realizes they look like a moron and is so ashamed that they examine the events later.
I believe you're right about meta-mod, but it's not quite what I'm looking for because it reinforces group-think. I'd like the mod points to be scaled based on my opinion of them, not that of the other people who spend more time moderating than posting.
I prefer how Kur5hin does moderation - you can mod anytime and without limit, even while posting. But everyone can see who modded any given post and stop respecting that person's mods. (Though not with an automated tool, afaik.)
We're not going to replace oil in one fell swoop. Alternative energies that replaced it for travel could leave the plastics industry untouched and consuming oil.
The only way we'll have substitutes is if those develop naturally as the price rises on a free market. You can't mandate the discovery of new technologies.
Yes, this plan will be funded with tax, that you will be forced to pay. As opposed to the market funding this research because oil prices are high and consumers are willing to pay for alternatives. And because of artificially low oil prices, even if the alternatives are found they won't appear to be practical.
You mean, in order to NOT have liability. Any group of people have responsibility for their actions, only the corporate veil takes that away.
A truly libertarian society wouldn't have companies.
As for your property rights, you have the right to own a bullet but not to send it towards me at high speed. I don't see how you don't realize that everyone around you has a say in your "property rights". It's a communal swimming pool, you can do whatever stroke you want, but you can't pee in it without bothering others.
No speculation and looking forward are two different things.
Sure, if you define words to mean what you want and draw arbitrary lines in the sand about how my prediction is a guess and your prediction is fact-based (but you chose which facts...), then you can justify anything.
Of course, that means that all your conclusions are worthless...
But you're wrong, so it just makes you look stupid. There's a big difference between an oil spill where you live and one half a world away.
Besides, saving the oil until it's really valuable in the winning move. Listening to reactionary kooks like you would leave us right where we are - quickly burning through a limited commodity, hoping that this time scarcity won't equal higher prices.
Perhaps you should stop talking until you've got something rational to say. Hmmm?
Heard of the bus? If there was financial pressure against driving (gas prices) there'd be more market for mass transit. Why are you trying to drive transit companies out of business?
If it takes someone years to ditch their SUV and find more economical means of transport I think we could pretty fairly say that they deserve to be broke.
More oil merely delays the exact same thing - everyone who held off on switching until it became too expensive. So let's let the oil speculators do the environment a favor and drive up the cost of oil.
You think instead of doing nothing, we should do something we're sure won't work?
Hi Mr President. I didn't know you had a/. account.
If we're going to run out of oil at some point, why not now? Why will it be easier in 20 years when people have had another generation of blissful ignorance?
IMHO, the correct method of conservation is to stop playing these stupid price fixing games and let the actual price of the product dictate its use. If someone really wants to buy it all now and hoard it they're making the call that plastic futures will be worth more than vehicular propellant is now. They're probably right. And if not, they'll be bankrupt soon and selling that hoarded oil at a loss.
I'd propose stupid laws that would do nothing. I'd support the jailing of innocents for questioning those laws. I'd support the dismantling of our entire justice system for questionable benefits.
Why do people like you crawl out of the woodwork, just to inform actual useful people, that you don't have an issue with X?
You certainly would have an issue with that policy, if you did anything complex enough to require you to do something you didn't plan last year. All you're doing is making yourself look like someone who doesn't actually do anything, or who always does exactly the same thing.
No, you an be pretty sure that they will continue having a problem with it. They didn't say "But it's illegal, it'll take time to change the law", they (in this theoretical case) said "But it's illegal!" If they can't make the connection to the fact that it wouldn't be illegal they obviously aren't smart enough to change their mind on it when it actually isn't illegal. They don't show the requisite capacity to stop objecting irrationally because they're, well, irrational.
So unless the repealing of immigration laws causes magic pixies to change their mind for them, we can be pretty sure they won't change them themselves.
Also, I read the first part as, "the person who screams 'ILLEGAL' here is likely breaking many laws themselves". If they are, it certainly impacts their credibility for them to be using the argument against others (illegality trumps all) and ignoring it where it concerns them. Hypocritical.
If a troll is anything designed to elicit a negative response, how are you expected to every disagree with an idiot? Any sign of not agreeing pisses them off (negative response). Posting reasons and being correct just further pisses them off.
So yeah, I agree with GToo that most of what gets modded troll is really "He hurt my feelings by saying something I can't answer!"
I ignore/. moderation (often browsing in post order, at -1) because most of the people who moderate and those too stupid to post. (It's mod or post, not both, and if you don't have anything to say you're assumed to be capable of judging those who do...) It'll finally be useful when I can rate moderators. Perhaps not even with their name attached, but just to say "Whoever rated this a troll, give their mods 0 weight in the future - whoever modded it... give their mods 50% more weight."
To the degree that you could input that resolution, one of my first program on the school's Apple//+, in the early 80s, was to let you trace a series of shapes (moving the cursor, tracing a line) and play the shape back, save it, etc. One of the popular things people did with it was write their own name, in a 40x25 attempt at cursive writing.
It would be *far* easier to do this today. Open a canvas, accept mouse input and plot a pixel everywhere it's been, save the resulting image file by simply asking it to save itself. It was 200+ lines of BASIC, and would be 10 lines of Ruby + GTK, or something.
But you're missing the point. Saving someone's "digital ink" is the easy option. It's done by people who can't parse the handwriting. Nokia wants a patent on doing the most trivial thing - saving your scrawl directly into a field of a file format designed explicitly to hold picture data.
Patents aren't for things nobody has thought to do yet, they're for things nobody has figured out HOW TO DO yet.
I don't see why you say there is no having it both ways. In fact, I do respect publishers who don't cripple their products - those who attempt to provide actual value, despite that someone else will pirate their product. Those people aren't trying to punish me for someone else's actions.
But EA. No respect. They seem totally unconcerned about making a usable product, as long as they can charge for it. They're further totally unconcerned about anyone who is injured by their DRM.
I'm happily enjoying my two ways of having it. Disrespect thieves, respect honest craftsmen. The difference between the two is if they're willing to fuck me over in a futile attempt to reduce loss a tiny bit.
They don't enforce it, but they still place stupid arbitrary restrictions on what you can do.
If you have PostgreSQL on a machine and clone it, you're always fine. Even if you clone and keep the original, even if you clone a single-CPU install onto a quad-CPU computer, etc.
For a legit business ignoring their license isn't an option, you either do what they say or don't use their product.
So, yes, unless there's something very specific that you need Oracle for, I'd recommend not using it. It *is* the high-end product, but few organizations really need it.
Non-obvious? How? Doing this (the simplest thing) avoids them having to interpret your scrawl, and use the thumbnail functionality built into the exif format.
Maybe you just aren't a good judge of triviality...
I believe he was referring to how the company used to do something, but then stopped and now justifies its existence merely by being yet another middleman making the power that another company wants to use more expensive.
Had they just ceased to exist someone else could have used that power at the same rate they paid, thus making cheaper products and either profiting more or providing savings to consumers. Instead this profit goes to someone whose only value-add was playing keep-away.
Not evil, just not to be missed if a meteor wiped out the company.
Some amount of middle-men act like oil, lubricating society. For example, reselling power to someone the utility might have bypassed or not realized the uses. But they are also inefficiency and to be trimmed where possible.
"Evil" only comes in, imho, when they hang onto their position the the detriment of everyone around them.
And simple trivial things don't deserve patents... So while they could stuff a graphic of your handwriting into the thumbnail, so could anyone. It's what anyone would do, if asked to develop a handwriting image tagger.
It took no brainpower to generate the idea and deserves no protection. Their first-mover advantage is all they have, and all they deserve.
Slashdot Mirror
If your work can be summarized that well, and you know the steps well enough to know that a better text editor wouldn't be of any use, nor a tool to calculate something, or better log/diagram your network layouts, etc, then it's time to hand it to a lesser skill person for the grunt work.
Because if I was doing all that I'd certainly be looking continuously, not just once a year, for new tools. If one was pointed out it'd be a huge pain to go a whole year doing something manually knowing it could be easier. A huge waste of money too.
But just because your world drifts by slowly enough doesn't mean you should recommend a slower response time to new ideas by those of us who could order a new product more than once a year. It's not a virtue.
I pick which resources I consume, tax is coerced out of me at gunpoint. Should I choose not to drive I'd pay less, only via commodity prices which reflect transport to some degree.
I'd prefer to pay R&D via companies' expectations of my future voluntary spending, rather than have a bunch of science-phobic politicians vote on which implausible technology they should dump my stolen money into.
Talk about a sense of entitlement. Are you sure those donors ALL agree?
No, why don't you fuck off.
No, just that many "Wikipedia Admins" (as opposed to active editors who don't seek special status) are sewer rejects who flock to Wikipedia because it lets them abuse power. Deletionists especially are a fucking retarded subclass of the rest, whose sole contribution to society is deleting something someone else did.
Wikipedia rocks. It's too bad so many people are dedicated to pissing all over it.
System Shock 2 was that way. One of the bits that stands out was finding survivors and then watching on the other side of an absolutely unbreakable door as they get slaughtered, seconds before you could have really interacted with them.
Neat game, but way too forced. It's only in comparison to the other FPS games of the era that it looked like a masterpiece.
I feel the same way about those two illegal actions and have the same (general) justification for it (potential harm). I was referring to people who scream 'Illegal!' as an argument against something.
I've had a few modded down enough to reach -1, while simultaneously pulling in enough positive mods to hit +5. There's simply no way to question religion that some people won't take as offensive.
Besides, that totally ignores that often the best way to make a point is to be so offensive that the person realizes they look like a moron and is so ashamed that they examine the events later.
I believe you're right about meta-mod, but it's not quite what I'm looking for because it reinforces group-think. I'd like the mod points to be scaled based on my opinion of them, not that of the other people who spend more time moderating than posting.
I prefer how Kur5hin does moderation - you can mod anytime and without limit, even while posting. But everyone can see who modded any given post and stop respecting that person's mods. (Though not with an automated tool, afaik.)
It's not (quite) as expensive to kill a million people as provide services to 300 million? Go figure.
We're not going to replace oil in one fell swoop. Alternative energies that replaced it for travel could leave the plastics industry untouched and consuming oil.
The only way we'll have substitutes is if those develop naturally as the price rises on a free market. You can't mandate the discovery of new technologies.
Yes, this plan will be funded with tax, that you will be forced to pay. As opposed to the market funding this research because oil prices are high and consumers are willing to pay for alternatives. And because of artificially low oil prices, even if the alternatives are found they won't appear to be practical.
You're bafflingly dumb.
You mean, in order to NOT have liability. Any group of people have responsibility for their actions, only the corporate veil takes that away.
A truly libertarian society wouldn't have companies.
As for your property rights, you have the right to own a bullet but not to send it towards me at high speed. I don't see how you don't realize that everyone around you has a say in your "property rights". It's a communal swimming pool, you can do whatever stroke you want, but you can't pee in it without bothering others.
No speculation and looking forward are two different things.
Sure, if you define words to mean what you want and draw arbitrary lines in the sand about how my prediction is a guess and your prediction is fact-based (but you chose which facts...), then you can justify anything.
Of course, that means that all your conclusions are worthless...
But you're wrong, so it just makes you look stupid. There's a big difference between an oil spill where you live and one half a world away.
Besides, saving the oil until it's really valuable in the winning move. Listening to reactionary kooks like you would leave us right where we are - quickly burning through a limited commodity, hoping that this time scarcity won't equal higher prices.
Perhaps you should stop talking until you've got something rational to say. Hmmm?
Heard of the bus? If there was financial pressure against driving (gas prices) there'd be more market for mass transit. Why are you trying to drive transit companies out of business?
If it takes someone years to ditch their SUV and find more economical means of transport I think we could pretty fairly say that they deserve to be broke.
More oil merely delays the exact same thing - everyone who held off on switching until it became too expensive. So let's let the oil speculators do the environment a favor and drive up the cost of oil.
You think instead of doing nothing, we should do something we're sure won't work?
Hi Mr President. I didn't know you had a /. account.
If we're going to run out of oil at some point, why not now? Why will it be easier in 20 years when people have had another generation of blissful ignorance?
IMHO, the correct method of conservation is to stop playing these stupid price fixing games and let the actual price of the product dictate its use. If someone really wants to buy it all now and hoard it they're making the call that plastic futures will be worth more than vehicular propellant is now. They're probably right. And if not, they'll be bankrupt soon and selling that hoarded oil at a loss.
I'd propose stupid laws that would do nothing. I'd support the jailing of innocents for questioning those laws. I'd support the dismantling of our entire justice system for questionable benefits.
No. Not really.
Why do people like you crawl out of the woodwork, just to inform actual useful people, that you don't have an issue with X?
You certainly would have an issue with that policy, if you did anything complex enough to require you to do something you didn't plan last year. All you're doing is making yourself look like someone who doesn't actually do anything, or who always does exactly the same thing.
Why are you proud of being a do-nothing?
No, you an be pretty sure that they will continue having a problem with it. They didn't say "But it's illegal, it'll take time to change the law", they (in this theoretical case) said "But it's illegal!" If they can't make the connection to the fact that it wouldn't be illegal they obviously aren't smart enough to change their mind on it when it actually isn't illegal. They don't show the requisite capacity to stop objecting irrationally because they're, well, irrational.
So unless the repealing of immigration laws causes magic pixies to change their mind for them, we can be pretty sure they won't change them themselves.
Also, I read the first part as, "the person who screams 'ILLEGAL' here is likely breaking many laws themselves". If they are, it certainly impacts their credibility for them to be using the argument against others (illegality trumps all) and ignoring it where it concerns them. Hypocritical.
If a troll is anything designed to elicit a negative response, how are you expected to every disagree with an idiot? Any sign of not agreeing pisses them off (negative response). Posting reasons and being correct just further pisses them off.
So yeah, I agree with GToo that most of what gets modded troll is really "He hurt my feelings by saying something I can't answer!"
I ignore /. moderation (often browsing in post order, at -1) because most of the people who moderate and those too stupid to post. (It's mod or post, not both, and if you don't have anything to say you're assumed to be capable of judging those who do...) It'll finally be useful when I can rate moderators. Perhaps not even with their name attached, but just to say "Whoever rated this a troll, give their mods 0 weight in the future - whoever modded it ... give their mods 50% more weight."
To the degree that you could input that resolution, one of my first program on the school's Apple //+, in the early 80s, was to let you trace a series of shapes (moving the cursor, tracing a line) and play the shape back, save it, etc. One of the popular things people did with it was write their own name, in a 40x25 attempt at cursive writing.
It would be *far* easier to do this today. Open a canvas, accept mouse input and plot a pixel everywhere it's been, save the resulting image file by simply asking it to save itself. It was 200+ lines of BASIC, and would be 10 lines of Ruby + GTK, or something.
But you're missing the point. Saving someone's "digital ink" is the easy option. It's done by people who can't parse the handwriting. Nokia wants a patent on doing the most trivial thing - saving your scrawl directly into a field of a file format designed explicitly to hold picture data.
Patents aren't for things nobody has thought to do yet, they're for things nobody has figured out HOW TO DO yet.
I don't see why you say there is no having it both ways. In fact, I do respect publishers who don't cripple their products - those who attempt to provide actual value, despite that someone else will pirate their product. Those people aren't trying to punish me for someone else's actions.
But EA. No respect. They seem totally unconcerned about making a usable product, as long as they can charge for it. They're further totally unconcerned about anyone who is injured by their DRM.
I'm happily enjoying my two ways of having it. Disrespect thieves, respect honest craftsmen. The difference between the two is if they're willing to fuck me over in a futile attempt to reduce loss a tiny bit.
They don't enforce it, but they still place stupid arbitrary restrictions on what you can do.
If you have PostgreSQL on a machine and clone it, you're always fine. Even if you clone and keep the original, even if you clone a single-CPU install onto a quad-CPU computer, etc.
For a legit business ignoring their license isn't an option, you either do what they say or don't use their product.
So, yes, unless there's something very specific that you need Oracle for, I'd recommend not using it. It *is* the high-end product, but few organizations really need it.
Non-obvious? How? Doing this (the simplest thing) avoids them having to interpret your scrawl, and use the thumbnail functionality built into the exif format.
Maybe you just aren't a good judge of triviality...
I believe he was referring to how the company used to do something, but then stopped and now justifies its existence merely by being yet another middleman making the power that another company wants to use more expensive.
Had they just ceased to exist someone else could have used that power at the same rate they paid, thus making cheaper products and either profiting more or providing savings to consumers. Instead this profit goes to someone whose only value-add was playing keep-away.
Not evil, just not to be missed if a meteor wiped out the company.
Some amount of middle-men act like oil, lubricating society. For example, reselling power to someone the utility might have bypassed or not realized the uses. But they are also inefficiency and to be trimmed where possible.
"Evil" only comes in, imho, when they hang onto their position the the detriment of everyone around them.
And simple trivial things don't deserve patents... So while they could stuff a graphic of your handwriting into the thumbnail, so could anyone. It's what anyone would do, if asked to develop a handwriting image tagger.
It took no brainpower to generate the idea and deserves no protection. Their first-mover advantage is all they have, and all they deserve.