And probably cameras, gps devices, and robot puppies too.
Next question.
Re:Uh...it's still there, you know
on
The Web We Lost
·
· Score: 1
This article was a load a horse shit. In the first item, he talks about how RSS is no longer used, and my eyes popped out of my head a little. Just because it's ubiquitous, and nobody's really excited about it doesn't mean that it isn't there. In fact, I would make the argument that the number of rss feeds on the web today is an order of magnitude higher than it's ever been, and expanding daily. It's just built into everything, so you don't really notice it.
I think people are worrying about the wrong problem. It's not that technology erodes employment. And if it did, who cares? Technology has also made it a simple matter of filing LLC paperwork to get into business for yourself with no capital. So let me re-iterate. You can now go into business for yourself with technology, with no money above and beyond the ability to acquire the technology, and make a living through technology. And you could theoretically be unemployed the whole time you do it, too. We live in a day and age where any idea can become a viable business on the web. Computers may be replacing our brains, but their ideas suck. Ideas are one thing people are very good at it. Look there.
Well, you know... you can make cheese with any number of things that don't involve milk, or even dairy products at all, for that matter. Figure that's worth some mod points? I do. And might I add that anyone who mods this up is both brilliant and good looking?
It's not commercialism that's the problem with Ubuntu. Commercialism is useful and valuable to hackers and programmers, and the people that help them put food on the table. Redhat is a commercial distro, and very few people complain about it. The problem is that Mark Shuttleworth thinks he's Steve Jobs. He's not. I don't even think Steve Jobs was Steve Jobs, honestly.
I may have written this one. Or maybe one of it's ancestors. Back in 2005, a marketing company in Minneapolis asked me to figure this out. So I did. Haven't thought about it since. If I did write this one, don't feel bad. I got paid a premium for it. So at least they're treating their programmers well. That should make you feel at least a little better about permanently losing your privacy, don't you think?
Yes, but do you see what you're doing there? You're throwing money at a problem, to get away from inherently poor architecture and bad design. Dude, you can make anything work if you throw enough hardware at the problem. You shouldn't have to scale your hardware to use basic features (Perl had this figured out in 1996) like parallelism. It's asinine.
I strongly disagree. There's nothing wrong with avoiding taxes in places where the taxes are too high. If tax rates were a little more reasonable in the US and Europe, companies wouldn't have to get creative to be profitable. It's all this anti-business, and anti-entrepreneurism that we see in the US and Europe that is the issue. Harsher policies are what caused this crap to begin with. Do you people honestly mean to tell me that the solution is policies that are even harsher than the ones that are already too harsh? Christ! Everybody needs to stop drinking the Kool-aide on this one. Taxes are too high. The IRS has too much power as it is. Corporate taxes need to be lowered, and productivity needs to be incentivized. Not punished.
I disagree. Anyone who uses the product is a customer. You are paying for the product, even if it's not with cash. The whole thing is a giant ad for Amazon. That means that it should be important to him what you think of it, because he's selling your attention. If by some quirk, you're dumb enough to use Ubuntu in the first place, you are Shuttleworth's customer. And Ubuntu is certainly a product. RMS is a crazy old man.
If you're not willing to do real work to achieve the outcome you believe in, then you're just another empty vessel with an opinion. And as the saying goes, opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one. What matters is the people who are willing to knuckle down and do real work to make a difference.
As expected, Mark Shuttleworth is again demonstrating his obtuse ceaselessness. People get upset when their voices are ignored. In this case, like it or not, these are his customers that he's ignoring. But, thankfully, he doesn't see it that way. They're just empty vessels with assholes, and if you don't like the way Ubuntu does things, you can GTFO. Intentionally alienating your users/customers is the worst possible thing he could do for the adoption of his product. I've said it before. I'll say it again. Only a an absolute moron would run his business this way.
Right. I think it's fair to turn government logic back on them in this case. If they are telling the truth about their intentions, and they are not doing anything the public would object to, then why the secret meetings and media silence on the whole thing? Since they're being secretive and quiet, one can only reasonably assume that they're up to no good, and that they need to be monitored.
I don't know what RMS would say on this, but it's my opinion that protectionism of any kind runs contrary to capitalism and the free market. All goods should be able to be sold and resold freely, without restriction. Intellectual property is a kind of a protectionism, that distorts markets by creating artificial scarcities. Like tariffs and other forms of protectionism, they do not help capitalism or the markets. Instead, they create new forms of censorship and tyranny.
RMS is big on protecting the freedom of software. But let's be realistic here. The only time a work is ever truly free, is when it's part of the public domain.
The role that people 40 and above play in Silicon Valley is that of the Angel Investor.
Nonsense.
They post one of these every month or so. Maybe my perspective is off because I've worked more with Fortune 50 companies there, but I've never seen a real life age bias out there. Intel, for example, when I was there, hired a few really talented people in their 40's as contractors. So did HP, when I was there. In fact, most everywhere I went, there were at least a few 40ish or over 40 people working hard on project work. Same with the Microsoft related entities. Getting an orange badge is easy if you're smart enough to get through the interview. I haven't worked for Facebook, but I would assume, based on what I've seen that it's the same there, too.
Then again, I do my best never to work for startups. My wife doesn't like the horrible instability it brings.
I think, as a general rule, there are more kids that are scared of one day becoming totally obsolete on Slashdot, than there are working professionally in the Valley. When age is an issue, it's usually mainly their issue. Not really anyone else's. Experience in production counts. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit.
Heh, it's more like: 1) can we break this 2) is it easy to do so 3) can we get away with it 4) get we something out of it (real or assumed) if all 4 can be answered with yes, then a lot of people do so, even the reward is just a giggle. Hence vandalism, animal torture, uprooted plants, names scratched in objects/trees, shop lifting, graffiti, you name it.
Like cat blockers! Yes! They make the web a much more adorable place.
Advertising is always obnoxious no matter how subtle it's done.
I disagree. Unsolicited, untargeted irrelevant advertising is always annoying, yes. But not all advertising is untargeted or unsolicited. Take sites like GroupOn for example. People sign up for that one all time, and they go there to get deals on advertised products, essentially lending their "permission" to the system. I find GroupOn far less annoying than Google Deals, for example. Then there are targeted mailing lists. I subscribe to several. They're always advertising something. But I read them with vigor because I am deeply interested in the subjects they cover, and the products they're trying to sell me. It's because they're not interrupting something I do naturally. They're part of the content cycle for me, not a distraction from it. I think the distinction is key.
Nobody's trying to stop people from getting ads they want, that are useful to them.
Seems to me that if an advertising scheme is so obnoxious that an entire category of software arises to block it, then it's the fault of the medium of advertising being too invasive, too obnoxious. Not the fault of the people who block it.
Slashdot Mirror
And probably cameras, gps devices, and robot puppies too.
Next question.
This article was a load a horse shit. In the first item, he talks about how RSS is no longer used, and my eyes popped out of my head a little. Just because it's ubiquitous, and nobody's really excited about it doesn't mean that it isn't there. In fact, I would make the argument that the number of rss feeds on the web today is an order of magnitude higher than it's ever been, and expanding daily. It's just built into everything, so you don't really notice it.
I think people are worrying about the wrong problem. It's not that technology erodes employment. And if it did, who cares? Technology has also made it a simple matter of filing LLC paperwork to get into business for yourself with no capital. So let me re-iterate. You can now go into business for yourself with technology, with no money above and beyond the ability to acquire the technology, and make a living through technology. And you could theoretically be unemployed the whole time you do it, too. We live in a day and age where any idea can become a viable business on the web. Computers may be replacing our brains, but their ideas suck. Ideas are one thing people are very good at it. Look there.
Well, you know... you can make cheese with any number of things that don't involve milk, or even dairy products at all, for that matter. Figure that's worth some mod points? I do. And might I add that anyone who mods this up is both brilliant and good looking?
Dude, you're spelling it wrong. That's going to be flagged for sure.
I swear I was thinking the same thing!
It's not commercialism that's the problem with Ubuntu. Commercialism is useful and valuable to hackers and programmers, and the people that help them put food on the table. Redhat is a commercial distro, and very few people complain about it. The problem is that Mark Shuttleworth thinks he's Steve Jobs. He's not. I don't even think Steve Jobs was Steve Jobs, honestly.
I think in general, we need to stop looking at them as bugs. We need to start looking at them as performance art.
I may have written this one. Or maybe one of it's ancestors. Back in 2005, a marketing company in Minneapolis asked me to figure this out. So I did. Haven't thought about it since. If I did write this one, don't feel bad. I got paid a premium for it. So at least they're treating their programmers well. That should make you feel at least a little better about permanently losing your privacy, don't you think?
Yes, but do you see what you're doing there? You're throwing money at a problem, to get away from inherently poor architecture and bad design. Dude, you can make anything work if you throw enough hardware at the problem. You shouldn't have to scale your hardware to use basic features (Perl had this figured out in 1996) like parallelism. It's asinine.
I strongly disagree. There's nothing wrong with avoiding taxes in places where the taxes are too high. If tax rates were a little more reasonable in the US and Europe, companies wouldn't have to get creative to be profitable. It's all this anti-business, and anti-entrepreneurism that we see in the US and Europe that is the issue. Harsher policies are what caused this crap to begin with. Do you people honestly mean to tell me that the solution is policies that are even harsher than the ones that are already too harsh? Christ! Everybody needs to stop drinking the Kool-aide on this one. Taxes are too high. The IRS has too much power as it is. Corporate taxes need to be lowered, and productivity needs to be incentivized. Not punished.
I disagree. Anyone who uses the product is a customer. You are paying for the product, even if it's not with cash. The whole thing is a giant ad for Amazon. That means that it should be important to him what you think of it, because he's selling your attention. If by some quirk, you're dumb enough to use Ubuntu in the first place, you are Shuttleworth's customer. And Ubuntu is certainly a product. RMS is a crazy old man.
Dude, if Javascript is your only skill, you're in serious trouble.
Yeah, but you're suicidal if you put it on anything with traffic.
Or how about, how to make your http requests stand in line for a half hour while they're parsed individually?
Ubuntu's repositories are more complete. But yes, I see your point.
If you're not willing to do real work to achieve the outcome you believe in, then you're just another empty vessel with an opinion. And as the saying goes, opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one. What matters is the people who are willing to knuckle down and do real work to make a difference.
As expected, Mark Shuttleworth is again demonstrating his obtuse ceaselessness. People get upset when their voices are ignored. In this case, like it or not, these are his customers that he's ignoring. But, thankfully, he doesn't see it that way. They're just empty vessels with assholes, and if you don't like the way Ubuntu does things, you can GTFO. Intentionally alienating your users/customers is the worst possible thing he could do for the adoption of his product. I've said it before. I'll say it again. Only a an absolute moron would run his business this way.
Right. I think it's fair to turn government logic back on them in this case. If they are telling the truth about their intentions, and they are not doing anything the public would object to, then why the secret meetings and media silence on the whole thing? Since they're being secretive and quiet, one can only reasonably assume that they're up to no good, and that they need to be monitored.
It may be a glass of frosty piss, but it's a delicious and tantalizing glass of frosty piss. Hats off to the hucksters.
I don't know what RMS would say on this, but it's my opinion that protectionism of any kind runs contrary to capitalism and the free market. All goods should be able to be sold and resold freely, without restriction. Intellectual property is a kind of a protectionism, that distorts markets by creating artificial scarcities. Like tariffs and other forms of protectionism, they do not help capitalism or the markets. Instead, they create new forms of censorship and tyranny.
RMS is big on protecting the freedom of software. But let's be realistic here. The only time a work is ever truly free, is when it's part of the public domain.
You see that everywhere there, though. It's not age, it's the fact that there are just too many techies competing for the same jobs.
The role that people 40 and above play in Silicon Valley is that of the Angel Investor.
Nonsense.
They post one of these every month or so. Maybe my perspective is off because I've worked more with Fortune 50 companies there, but I've never seen a real life age bias out there. Intel, for example, when I was there, hired a few really talented people in their 40's as contractors. So did HP, when I was there. In fact, most everywhere I went, there were at least a few 40ish or over 40 people working hard on project work. Same with the Microsoft related entities. Getting an orange badge is easy if you're smart enough to get through the interview. I haven't worked for Facebook, but I would assume, based on what I've seen that it's the same there, too.
Then again, I do my best never to work for startups. My wife doesn't like the horrible instability it brings.
I think, as a general rule, there are more kids that are scared of one day becoming totally obsolete on Slashdot, than there are working professionally in the Valley. When age is an issue, it's usually mainly their issue. Not really anyone else's. Experience in production counts. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit.
Yes, but then you have to wait for it to ship.
Heh, it's more like: 1) can we break this 2) is it easy to do so 3) can we get away with it 4) get we something out of it (real or assumed) if all 4 can be answered with yes, then a lot of people do so, even the reward is just a giggle. Hence vandalism, animal torture, uprooted plants, names scratched in objects/trees, shop lifting, graffiti, you name it.
Like cat blockers! Yes! They make the web a much more adorable place.
Advertising is always obnoxious no matter how subtle it's done.
I disagree. Unsolicited, untargeted irrelevant advertising is always annoying, yes. But not all advertising is untargeted or unsolicited. Take sites like GroupOn for example. People sign up for that one all time, and they go there to get deals on advertised products, essentially lending their "permission" to the system. I find GroupOn far less annoying than Google Deals, for example. Then there are targeted mailing lists. I subscribe to several. They're always advertising something. But I read them with vigor because I am deeply interested in the subjects they cover, and the products they're trying to sell me. It's because they're not interrupting something I do naturally. They're part of the content cycle for me, not a distraction from it. I think the distinction is key.
Nobody's trying to stop people from getting ads they want, that are useful to them.
Seems to me that if an advertising scheme is so obnoxious that an entire category of software arises to block it, then it's the fault of the medium of advertising being too invasive, too obnoxious. Not the fault of the people who block it.