So this was a *real* tweet with fraudulent information in it... how does that make it a "fake tweet"?
I think the "fake" part was not the misinformation (which is par for the course) but the fact that the tweet was supposedly a tweet from a Russian foreign minister, but actually was not.
I'm sure about his history. I was using CDE back during that time. My SPARCstation definitely had an 8-bit color display. It sounds like you didn't start using it until some of us had been using it for years. I never saw CDE in 24-bit color, I had moved on by the time that became anything under than uber-rare and extraordinarily expensive.
Not every individual has a Sterling moral code. plenty do, but sone believe they do, and in fact have a "morality" far more screwed up than the law. Therefore, the law is far better than individial judgments of morality, because the thugs in power have a lot more to be accountable for rhan a random thug on the street. Plus the law gets considered, refined, corrected. The "morality" of some random Joe comes from what exactly? You trust him more than a governmental system continually refined and corrected?
You're basic mistake is to assume that law and morality have anything at all to do with one another. The rule of law is for preserving order and harmony in society. It's what's necessary for people to live, work, etc, and institutions to function, a set of rules make it all possible. It's not about determining and enforcing any idea of what's morally right and wrong. Often the law may make illegal what is also immoral, but that's not the reason it's making it illegal, that's just happy coincidence. Morality is an orthogonal concept. Someone who looks to the law for judgements of morality is avoiding thinking about morality entirely, and it's a very dangerous nation to live in where the government gets into its head that it should legislate morality, as unfortunately happens in some countries.
It takes courage to stand up to that. And I don't want to imply politicians lack courage. They do, but it's not their fault. If they show courage, the voters murder them for it. In a democracy, we get the politicians we deserve...
We regards to stimulus to help the economy, you are right about that, but it should be noted that military spending is one of the least efficient ways to accomplish that goal. It works, but if that's the goal, there are far better options. Alas, not options immune to the deficit hawks, as you note...
Put another way, there's a reason we'll regime change Libya but have no balls when it comes to Iran's nukes.
Yes, and that reason was the existence of a credible organized resistance to the existing regime, making it possible to succeed. Not sure where you were going with that. Seems kinda tangential to the discussion at hand...
... The book is circa 300 pages, not circa 1000 like LoTR is.
A 300 page novel requires substantial cutting to fit into a movie. A short story makes a good two hour movie. Most novels can't fit in under 10 hours of screen time without leaving out large parts...
Either science and engineering is right or it isn't. If you think engineers can safely build a nuclear reactor and operate it for 40 years, why is 80 years different if they can demonstrate strong engineering judgement? And if 80 years isn't safe, then what arbitrary number is it that it becomes unsafe?
Risk does increase as equipment ages, regardless of how well engineered anythign else. The question you're dancing around is, "What is the acceptable level of risk?" Don't pretend there's a rational, objective, scientific answer to that question. It's a value judgement, pure and simple. There's no "right" answer, beyond "I'm a voter, this is a democracy, and this arbitrary line here is where you cross my comfort threshold."
A majority of open source projects are suffering from duplication.
Is there any evidence at all that any open source project is suffering from duplication? What are the supposed harms? Does software that does the same thing as another piece of software somehow split the psychic essence of the concept so that each is only half as effective?
I really wish we'd just kill this myth. There's little reason to suppose it's true, and not a single shred of evidence for it.
The reason often cited is that if the developers weren't re-inventing the wheel, they would be producing something better. But what reason do we have to suppose this? In an open source project, people work on what they want to. They're doing it for the fun of it. There's no more reason to assert that them working on this code is hurting progress on other code than there is to assert that it's hurting their progress to max level in Diablo III. Somewhat less, I would say.
This complaint, often heard, is every bit as stupid as complaining than a man is spending days in his garage with his woodworking tools making a chair when he could just buy one at the store in a matter of minutes. Sure, it's not the most efficient use of his time, but that's not the point. He's doing it because he likes woodworking as much as because he wants a chair, perhaps moreso.
tl;dr: No open source project suffers from duplication. Stop repeating this idiotic myth.
I think the point is not so much the swelling but the fact that this is a huge bunch of stuff to be thrown in during an RC cycle, between rc6 and rc7. You're not really supposed to be doing anything major to a release candidate...
Wow. Pretty much all completely false. Nearly all of the 9000+ members of the IAU are working astronomers actually using the scientific method. The whole process of deciding on the definition of "planet" was a peer driven. The objections were from a minority who were outvoted. The guy who discovered Eris, and had his own discovery demoted into non-planet status by the decision, admits it was the right decision to make. ("It was hard not to mourn the loss of my now ex-planet, except for the fact that I had to admit that kicking it out was the most scientifically sensible thing to happen to planetary classification since asteroids were also kicked out almost 200 years ago.") Far from arbitrary, it follows the very same rationale that was used to demote Ceres two hundred years ago, keeping the definition of planet as what we decided back then rather than expanding it in ways that would be incompatible with that. Alas, being consistent meant we need to correct the mistake we made with Pluto to begin with. In any case, it wasn't a proclamation by poseurs, it was the consensus of the working astronomers who actually do the work. The ones you want to load into your cannon include the very scientists making lasting contributions to the field. I think discovering Eris was contributing to the field, not sure why you insist people doing stuff like this should be shot into a passing asteroid. I understand you're emotionally upset about Pluto, but making up a largely false story about what actually happened here is silly...
It is a business decision and not a moral or philosophical one.
These are not mutually exclusive. It is a business decision, but it is also a moral one. Any decision that affects others (and arguably some that don't) are moral decisions. Pretending otherwise is a wonderful excuse for avoiding moral responsibility, though...
But to pay for it all, he's got to win cargo launch business first.
He's a brave man all right.
Yes, because history has shown there isn't room for more than one car company, more than one aircraft manufacturer, more than one game company, etc. You have to "win", be better than everyone else, or else you can't be profitable at all.
Absolutely. The more, the better. It's not simply a matter of trying to guess what language they're most likely to be able to understand... the value of the disk to them skyrockets due to all the languages they don't understand, or at least didn't until we provided them with the ultimate Rosetta Stone.
I think you are confused. Reread what the person you're replying to said. Most of what you said in no way contradicts it, nor do you explain what you think is "mistaken" about what he said. You pretty much just went off on a tangent and explains why people do use public transportation in cities that weren't designed for it, despite it not being more efficient (a fact OP mentioned).
Slashdot Mirror
So this was a *real* tweet with fraudulent information in it... how does that make it a "fake tweet"?
I think the "fake" part was not the misinformation (which is par for the course) but the fact that the tweet was supposedly a tweet from a Russian foreign minister, but actually was not.
Wow. It's "jingoism" to suggest Chinese workers deserve the same consideration, protection, and compensation as westerners? Just, wow...
Woz is a creator. So was Jobs. But they both needed Consumers - Jobs was more aware of that than Woz obviously.
Woz was his own consumer. He probably would have lived a perfectly happy life with none beyond that and maybe a few fellow enthusiasts.
OpenMotif has a "more liberal" license than Motif, but it's still proprietary.
I'm sure about his history. I was using CDE back during that time. My SPARCstation definitely had an 8-bit color display. It sounds like you didn't start using it until some of us had been using it for years. I never saw CDE in 24-bit color, I had moved on by the time that became anything under than uber-rare and extraordinarily expensive.
...and like many things I loved 20 years ago, I find upon revisiting that they have lost their appeal.
Not every individual has a Sterling moral code. plenty do, but sone believe they do, and in fact have a "morality" far more screwed up than the law. Therefore, the law is far better than individial judgments of morality, because the thugs in power have a lot more to be accountable for rhan a random thug on the street. Plus the law gets considered, refined, corrected. The "morality" of some random Joe comes from what exactly? You trust him more than a governmental system continually refined and corrected?
You're basic mistake is to assume that law and morality have anything at all to do with one another. The rule of law is for preserving order and harmony in society. It's what's necessary for people to live, work, etc, and institutions to function, a set of rules make it all possible. It's not about determining and enforcing any idea of what's morally right and wrong. Often the law may make illegal what is also immoral, but that's not the reason it's making it illegal, that's just happy coincidence. Morality is an orthogonal concept. Someone who looks to the law for judgements of morality is avoiding thinking about morality entirely, and it's a very dangerous nation to live in where the government gets into its head that it should legislate morality, as unfortunately happens in some countries.
It takes courage to stand up to that. And I don't want to imply politicians lack courage. They do, but it's not their fault. If they show courage, the voters murder them for it. In a democracy, we get the politicians we deserve...
So, more the Unix philosophy (many small, task-focused programs) vs. the do-everything App.
...of course he waited until he was leaving office to do so.
That's how it always works. You can't bad-mouth the boss until after you leave their employ.
We regards to stimulus to help the economy, you are right about that, but it should be noted that military spending is one of the least efficient ways to accomplish that goal. It works, but if that's the goal, there are far better options. Alas, not options immune to the deficit hawks, as you note...
Put another way, there's a reason we'll regime change Libya but have no balls when it comes to Iran's nukes.
Yes, and that reason was the existence of a credible organized resistance to the existing regime, making it possible to succeed. Not sure where you were going with that. Seems kinda tangential to the discussion at hand...
... The book is circa 300 pages, not circa 1000 like LoTR is.
A 300 page novel requires substantial cutting to fit into a movie. A short story makes a good two hour movie. Most novels can't fit in under 10 hours of screen time without leaving out large parts...
Either science and engineering is right or it isn't. If you think engineers can safely build a nuclear reactor and operate it for 40 years, why is 80 years different if they can demonstrate strong engineering judgement? And if 80 years isn't safe, then what arbitrary number is it that it becomes unsafe?
Risk does increase as equipment ages, regardless of how well engineered anythign else. The question you're dancing around is, "What is the acceptable level of risk?" Don't pretend there's a rational, objective, scientific answer to that question. It's a value judgement, pure and simple. There's no "right" answer, beyond "I'm a voter, this is a democracy, and this arbitrary line here is where you cross my comfort threshold."
Microsoft made a bad acquisition and they lost money. They have a long way to go before their situation gets dire.
I guess when you're big enough you can do a six billion dollar oops and nothing much happens.
Yup. Apple used to lose money all the bloody time. Not good for those particular years, but the company never evaporated because of it...
A majority of open source projects are suffering from duplication.
Is there any evidence at all that any open source project is suffering from duplication? What are the supposed harms? Does software that does the same thing as another piece of software somehow split the psychic essence of the concept so that each is only half as effective?
I really wish we'd just kill this myth. There's little reason to suppose it's true, and not a single shred of evidence for it.
The reason often cited is that if the developers weren't re-inventing the wheel, they would be producing something better. But what reason do we have to suppose this? In an open source project, people work on what they want to. They're doing it for the fun of it. There's no more reason to assert that them working on this code is hurting progress on other code than there is to assert that it's hurting their progress to max level in Diablo III. Somewhat less, I would say.
This complaint, often heard, is every bit as stupid as complaining than a man is spending days in his garage with his woodworking tools making a chair when he could just buy one at the store in a matter of minutes. Sure, it's not the most efficient use of his time, but that's not the point. He's doing it because he likes woodworking as much as because he wants a chair, perhaps moreso.
tl;dr: No open source project suffers from duplication. Stop repeating this idiotic myth.
I think the point is not so much the swelling but the fact that this is a huge bunch of stuff to be thrown in during an RC cycle, between rc6 and rc7. You're not really supposed to be doing anything major to a release candidate...
Wow. Pretty much all completely false. Nearly all of the 9000+ members of the IAU are working astronomers actually using the scientific method. The whole process of deciding on the definition of "planet" was a peer driven. The objections were from a minority who were outvoted. The guy who discovered Eris, and had his own discovery demoted into non-planet status by the decision, admits it was the right decision to make. ("It was hard not to mourn the loss of my now ex-planet, except for the fact that I had to admit that kicking it out was the most scientifically sensible thing to happen to planetary classification since asteroids were also kicked out almost 200 years ago.") Far from arbitrary, it follows the very same rationale that was used to demote Ceres two hundred years ago, keeping the definition of planet as what we decided back then rather than expanding it in ways that would be incompatible with that. Alas, being consistent meant we need to correct the mistake we made with Pluto to begin with. In any case, it wasn't a proclamation by poseurs, it was the consensus of the working astronomers who actually do the work. The ones you want to load into your cannon include the very scientists making lasting contributions to the field. I think discovering Eris was contributing to the field, not sure why you insist people doing stuff like this should be shot into a passing asteroid. I understand you're emotionally upset about Pluto, but making up a largely false story about what actually happened here is silly...
It's a far cry from the organization's original role: Cataloging astronomical objects.
Um, no. Deciding upon definitions is an absolutely necessary part of doing precisely that job.
It's not just the life of the astronaut, it's the pride of a nation...
He was probably sticking to just things that actually have value. :p
Well, "pride of a nation" does have some value, but it's more about political capital than actual capital.
Ro Bots.
Indeed. And people are always talking about spin-offs from space exploration; improving our robotic capabilities would be an excellent thing to do.
It is a business decision and not a moral or philosophical one.
These are not mutually exclusive. It is a business decision, but it is also a moral one. Any decision that affects others (and arguably some that don't) are moral decisions. Pretending otherwise is a wonderful excuse for avoiding moral responsibility, though...
But to pay for it all, he's got to win cargo launch business first.
He's a brave man all right.
Yes, because history has shown there isn't room for more than one car company, more than one aircraft manufacturer, more than one game company, etc. You have to "win", be better than everyone else, or else you can't be profitable at all.
Wait, what?
What language? All of them.
Absolutely. The more, the better. It's not simply a matter of trying to guess what language they're most likely to be able to understand... the value of the disk to them skyrockets due to all the languages they don't understand, or at least didn't until we provided them with the ultimate Rosetta Stone.
I think you are confused. Reread what the person you're replying to said. Most of what you said in no way contradicts it, nor do you explain what you think is "mistaken" about what he said. You pretty much just went off on a tangent and explains why people do use public transportation in cities that weren't designed for it, despite it not being more efficient (a fact OP mentioned).