A threat to your employment? Wouldn't you have to go out of your way to be an especially bad employee for a contractor who costs 2.5 times what you do to the company to be a threat to your employment? What are these guys doing that you can't do anyway? If you are really worried about it why not just assume their duties and tell your bosses to get rid of the contractors?
You really start to lose people when you let your libertarian flag fly. Most folks just flat out don't buy into libertarianism because it could only succeed, like communism, in an artificial world of perfect circumstances, not the very imperfect yet very real world we actually live in.
And no, the dotcom boom isn't responsible for Google's rise. The money could have gone into any stock, it went to Google because Google earned and deserves it.
Someone losing a job due to new technology is actually a good thing because then costs come down and society benefits. As to your extremely unlikely scenario of people recieving grossly inflated estimated bills due to "network problems" are you on crack? As soon as the nodes report a problem the power company will be alerted and trying to figure out what the problem is. Thats the entire point of having an intelligent network. You don't look at it once a month and go "oh well we can't read it this month so lets just estimate it..." So no, lets NOT save some guy's job. Lets go full speed ahead with this thing.
Why would I want to form a militia? That would take up a lot of my own time and prevent me from pursuing the career and hobbies of my choosing. A professional military provides defense and free time for all. In addition to that, 50 small militias can't provide the same amount of force as one federal military can.
Characterizing a serviceman as a "cruel murderer" is extremely out of order. Coupled with your unhealthy fanatical reverence for strict constitutional constructionism I'm just going to have to conclude that you are not of sound mind.
Switching banks isn't trivial. For some folks every bill that comes into their house is paid through one bank. Switching all of those over to another requires a lot of effort. I myself maintain 3 bank accounts to make switching easier for me but I seriously doubt someone is going to jump banks beacuse of an extra $10 a month charge.
No that would be typical company behaviour and its to be expected. When you make a product that can do what you need it to do, you don't use any of your competitors instead. What is so hard to understand and accept about that?
After the invention of the television how can watching it cause the "dumbing down" of anyone? What did people used to do before the television arrived, do some more work on the farm? Go play stickball out in the streets? What do you possibly learn doing those physical things? By sitting on my ass in my house watching TV I can learn how doctors perform new surgeries on the Discovery Channel. I can learn how rich people live by watching the OC on Fox. I can learn how the United States Airforce protects the entire galaxy from evil on Stargate on the Sci-Fi channel. The possibilities are endless. Yet you would rather people limit themselves to crap like stickball.
Why do you consider it a moral issue to sell stuff to people? Have you ever considered that you may just have a mental illness? You can be honest and sell people stuff you know. It is very possible. The distrust of all things commercial isn't cool anymore. Its an indication of a fucked up mind in my book.
Re:End of the day, you don't eat good intentions
on
Nessus 3.0 discussed
·
· Score: 1
The nature of open sources gives way to far more leeches using your stuff than actual contributers contributing. And its not exactly a commodity. A true commodity is a commodity even to the company that sells it. With open source, some company out there is actually putting in the effort of creating the product which is then released for free (either GPL or BSD license) to the world. So for the rest of the world its a commodity, for the author its their creation and they need to profit from it regardless that its a commodity to others. So yeah there was something wrong with Tenable...they're the creators. The open source business model is great if your a leech. Leeching isn't limited to individuals. Whole companies can benefit via leeching. But if you are a creator open source basically screws you. For those who care more about information freedom then thats just fine. But if you have more head on the ground concerns then you need to find another business model and quick.
I'm going to have to beg to differ here. Starving artists are the ones who suck and should be starving. Successful artists are so rich that any one of them could feed all the starving artists in their state. Some idiot who went to art school and never produces something that people want to buy is not the same as Harrison Ford who makes $20 million per picture. They're both artists but only one is good at his job and produces things of value to society.
Yeah cause saving his son's life isn't a good reason for him to be there or anything....
Re:End of the day, you don't eat good intentions
on
Nessus 3.0 discussed
·
· Score: 1
The success rate of proprietary business models is far greater than that of open source business models. Its such an obvious tenent that most people don't even attempt open source business models to begin with because they know that 9 times out of 10 its an excersize in futility. So yes business is difficult no matter what strategy you follow but thats no reason to go about picking a business model even more likely to cause you to fail.
Re:End of the day, you don't eat good intentions
on
Nessus 3.0 discussed
·
· Score: 1
Actually it says EVERYTHING about the open source business model. If it is far easier to make money with the proprietary business model than the open source business model then that means the open source business model SUCKS.....at least for making money.
What it says about the decision makeer is that they're smart enough to realize that trying to make a crappy business model work is a waste of time.
Only those who read slashdot wish to be slashbots. Welcome to the collective.
The two definitions of nerd that you stated are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have a highly intelligent person who is not also socially underdeveloped and insecure.
The thing is if you are nerd thats worth any kind of a damn, you ought to be anti-MS and pro-Linux by birth. Microsoft's technology sucks and they only gained their dominant position via unscrupulous means.
I live in Boston, born and raised. This is a very expensive city. But in any expensive city there are less expensive areas you can find within that city. I'm not talking about the bad parts either. No one needs to live in the most exclusive parts and own the biggest house. If you're smart you can live in a big city and enjoy a higher salary and save more of it instead of being restricted to a lower salary just because the area is cheaper.
You are currently free to choose between Mac OS X, Windows, Solaris, AIX and many other proprietary operating systems. No open source necessary to maintain freedom of choice.
Come on man, its 2005. That "if you're good enough you can get away with anything" attitude died back in 2002. You know, back when geeks realized that their jobs could be outsourced?
See here's the thing. This is software, not the Civil Rights Movement. I'm not going to deprive myself of an enjoyable and easy to use computing experience provided by Apple (or even Microsoft) just so I can be "free" with "Only If Your Time Is Worthless Linux".
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but consoles are a one generation only kind of business. No one can predict what CPUs will be used in the next generation of consoles.
A threat to your employment? Wouldn't you have to go out of your way to be an especially bad employee for a contractor who costs 2.5 times what you do to the company to be a threat to your employment? What are these guys doing that you can't do anyway? If you are really worried about it why not just assume their duties and tell your bosses to get rid of the contractors?
You really start to lose people when you let your libertarian flag fly. Most folks just flat out don't buy into libertarianism because it could only succeed, like communism, in an artificial world of perfect circumstances, not the very imperfect yet very real world we actually live in.
And no, the dotcom boom isn't responsible for Google's rise. The money could have gone into any stock, it went to Google because Google earned and deserves it.
Yeah because the last thing we would want to do is be enlightened or anything...
Someone losing a job due to new technology is actually a good thing because then costs come down and society benefits. As to your extremely unlikely scenario of people recieving grossly inflated estimated bills due to "network problems" are you on crack? As soon as the nodes report a problem the power company will be alerted and trying to figure out what the problem is. Thats the entire point of having an intelligent network. You don't look at it once a month and go "oh well we can't read it this month so lets just estimate it..." So no, lets NOT save some guy's job. Lets go full speed ahead with this thing.
Why would I want to form a militia? That would take up a lot of my own time and prevent me from pursuing the career and hobbies of my choosing. A professional military provides defense and free time for all. In addition to that, 50 small militias can't provide the same amount of force as one federal military can.
Characterizing a serviceman as a "cruel murderer" is extremely out of order. Coupled with your unhealthy fanatical reverence for strict constitutional constructionism I'm just going to have to conclude that you are not of sound mind.
Switching banks isn't trivial. For some folks every bill that comes into their house is paid through one bank. Switching all of those over to another requires a lot of effort. I myself maintain 3 bank accounts to make switching easier for me but I seriously doubt someone is going to jump banks beacuse of an extra $10 a month charge.
Whats it like being the last hippie in America?
No that would be typical company behaviour and its to be expected. When you make a product that can do what you need it to do, you don't use any of your competitors instead. What is so hard to understand and accept about that?
Buy an external HD for backup.
After the invention of the television how can watching it cause the "dumbing down" of anyone? What did people used to do before the television arrived, do some more work on the farm? Go play stickball out in the streets? What do you possibly learn doing those physical things? By sitting on my ass in my house watching TV I can learn how doctors perform new surgeries on the Discovery Channel. I can learn how rich people live by watching the OC on Fox. I can learn how the United States Airforce protects the entire galaxy from evil on Stargate on the Sci-Fi channel. The possibilities are endless. Yet you would rather people limit themselves to crap like stickball.
Amazing.
Why do you consider it a moral issue to sell stuff to people? Have you ever considered that you may just have a mental illness? You can be honest and sell people stuff you know. It is very possible. The distrust of all things commercial isn't cool anymore. Its an indication of a fucked up mind in my book.
The nature of open sources gives way to far more leeches using your stuff than actual contributers contributing. And its not exactly a commodity. A true commodity is a commodity even to the company that sells it. With open source, some company out there is actually putting in the effort of creating the product which is then released for free (either GPL or BSD license) to the world. So for the rest of the world its a commodity, for the author its their creation and they need to profit from it regardless that its a commodity to others. So yeah there was something wrong with Tenable...they're the creators. The open source business model is great if your a leech. Leeching isn't limited to individuals. Whole companies can benefit via leeching. But if you are a creator open source basically screws you. For those who care more about information freedom then thats just fine. But if you have more head on the ground concerns then you need to find another business model and quick.
I'm going to have to beg to differ here. Starving artists are the ones who suck and should be starving. Successful artists are so rich that any one of them could feed all the starving artists in their state. Some idiot who went to art school and never produces something that people want to buy is not the same as Harrison Ford who makes $20 million per picture. They're both artists but only one is good at his job and produces things of value to society.
Yeah cause saving his son's life isn't a good reason for him to be there or anything....
The success rate of proprietary business models is far greater than that of open source business models. Its such an obvious tenent that most people don't even attempt open source business models to begin with because they know that 9 times out of 10 its an excersize in futility. So yes business is difficult no matter what strategy you follow but thats no reason to go about picking a business model even more likely to cause you to fail.
Actually it says EVERYTHING about the open source business model. If it is far easier to make money with the proprietary business model than the open source business model then that means the open source business model SUCKS .....at least for making money.
What it says about the decision makeer is that they're smart enough to realize that trying to make a crappy business model work is a waste of time.
You mean life as we know it. We have no idea how life would evolve on other worlds.
Only those who read slashdot wish to be slashbots. Welcome to the collective.
The two definitions of nerd that you stated are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have a highly intelligent person who is not also socially underdeveloped and insecure.
Well in movies you can but not in real life.
The thing is if you are nerd thats worth any kind of a damn, you ought to be anti-MS and pro-Linux by birth. Microsoft's technology sucks and they only gained their dominant position via unscrupulous means.
I live in Boston, born and raised. This is a very expensive city. But in any expensive city there are less expensive areas you can find within that city. I'm not talking about the bad parts either. No one needs to live in the most exclusive parts and own the biggest house. If you're smart you can live in a big city and enjoy a higher salary and save more of it instead of being restricted to a lower salary just because the area is cheaper.
I think his point is that he could get more than $35,000 from companies outside of Houston and therefor why should he settle for less?
You are currently free to choose between Mac OS X, Windows, Solaris, AIX and many other proprietary operating systems. No open source necessary to maintain freedom of choice.
Come on man, its 2005. That "if you're good enough you can get away with anything" attitude died back in 2002. You know, back when geeks realized that their jobs could be outsourced?
See here's the thing. This is software, not the Civil Rights Movement. I'm not going to deprive myself of an enjoyable and easy to use computing experience provided by Apple (or even Microsoft) just so I can be "free" with "Only If Your Time Is Worthless Linux".
Have fun not having fun.