Universal turmoil vs. the "in-joke". Now that's comedy.
All humour is dependent on context; Arthur Koestler wrote a very good book on this, can't remember what it was called though. Supposedly 'universal humour' generally depends on culturally fashioned norms -- the in-joke is just shared with a smaller culture. By the same token, some of the people you "dissed" in your list above would see their peers as making sense/being funny/whatever was meant...
By the way, I'd say that much humour is moronic in nature anyway, generally revolving around the "there but for the grace of God go I" principle. Whistling in the dark.
(Since MS doesn't know you've been pirating their software, and they^h BSA sues all whom they catch, no such opportunity was ever present.)
Given the extent to which Windows tries to 'phone home' at every opportunity, I'd be surprised if they didn't have quite a bit of data on pirate installations from all around.
I also think that "powerful" is a changing metric; once we have something that's powerful and easy-to-use, we look for something in the same area that is more powerful and not as easy to use, as many of us are prepared to tolerate a certain level of complexity as a trade-off for that extra power.
After all, I never would have imagined all the things about computers that I now practically take for granted when I first bashed out a program in Commodore 64 BASIC... but by those standards, they *are* both powerful and easy to use.
Of course, as you say, quality is irrelevant, control of the market counts more.:)
Yeah, but what's the performance like in the Windows OpenGL renderer? Pretty close to the Linux one, isn't it? This implies that it's not a problem with their code base on Linux, more a problem with parts of the Unreal engine that have likely been designed around Direct3D rather than GL.
Slashdot sensationalism. Unfortunately, I don't think the community realizes how much credibility they lose every time they post these stupid anti-MS tainted articles.
Slashdot.... credibility. Since when have those two words ever belonged in the same sentence?
If we're going for the human rights argument, I'm really looking forward to US-enforced regime change in Burma, North Korea, China, Zimbabwe and Indonesia, to pick just a few.
Maybe while they're at it they could also meet their obligations under the Geneva Convention to the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
Self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship there is, and that's what the post I replied to seemed to be advocating.
The limitation of the discussion to Americans seemed interesting as well, as if they are the only ones with the right to an opinion on this issue... the reason I linked to David Hicks' web page was to show that other people are affected when Americans decide to chuck human rights out of the window, it's not merely an internal matter. If he's committed a crime, charge him. In a court. You know, laws and things. Don't just lock him in a cage and forget about him.
(The Aussie Government isn't doing anything to help matters, of course. Bastards. About what you'd expect, given their record of attacking Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time imprisoning refugees from those regimes in concentration camps in the desert. God, this country's fucked.)
Does the fact that we can say anything mean that we should say everything? I've noticed a certain "anything that can be said, should be said" mentality in a lot of my fellow Ameicans, and I wonder how valid it is. Thoughts?
I'd rather make that decision myself than have someone else make it for me.
If only I had perfect hearing as well -- and complete atmospheric control. Then I could assure the quality of the analogue sounds I hear.
You are hearing a representation of the original source material.
That's all I'm interested in... if we're going to get philosophical, isn't everyone's perception of a sound a "representation" of the original source material?
But how does the manager know that his company's internally-developed applications weren't just cut-and-pasted together by his developers? Without seeing the source, and actually comparing it to every relevant code snippet ever published or released under any license, how can we tell that any piece of software is not, at least in part, a derivative work?
That was the point I was making in my response; if the company responsible for the product won't indemnify you against their own errors (whether or not their product is based on open or closed source), you need to have a good long look at your own legal liabilities.
I don't imagine we'd ever see code scrutiny across the industry -- for the same reason we're not all allowed to access any security camera footage we want. It would be interesting if it happened, but I don't think it's a political possibility.
Whether or not that number's correct, I'd want to see it from anopther source than NORML before I believe it -- they're hardly a disinterested party in the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
So reading a book without paying for it these days is theft? You shouldn't be looking at those Rembrandts without forkin' over da big bucks, then...
Universal turmoil vs. the "in-joke".
Now that's comedy.
All humour is dependent on context; Arthur Koestler wrote a very good book on this, can't remember what it was called though. Supposedly 'universal humour' generally depends on culturally fashioned norms -- the in-joke is just shared with a smaller culture. By the same token, some of the people you "dissed" in your list above would see their peers as making sense/being funny/whatever was meant...
By the way, I'd say that much humour is moronic in nature anyway, generally revolving around the "there but for the grace of God go I" principle. Whistling in the dark.
What crack are the editors smoking and please pass it because my reality distortion field is waning and I need a hook up before the shakes set in.
:)
Obviously you need to develop a more twisted sense of humour. Reading more PKD might help
(This "spirit voice" stuff isn't a very funny joke, but it is at least an attempt in a somewhat Dickian style...)
It's an evaluation copy only, I promise! I'll delete it after 48 hours!
(Since MS doesn't know you've been pirating their software, and they^h BSA sues all whom they catch, no such opportunity was ever present.)
Given the extent to which Windows tries to 'phone home' at every opportunity, I'd be surprised if they didn't have quite a bit of data on pirate installations from all around.
All those bad things, like the journalist who was killed, were *intentional*.
Journalists.
And they were shooting directly at them, despite knowing full well they were there. Certainly looked intentional to me.
Microsoft are actually very generous people.
I'd be generous, too, if I had US$40 billion plus in the bank.
"Andy Warhol got it right
Everybody gets the limelight
Andy Warhol got it wrong
Fifteen minutes is too long..."
-- Jung Talent Time , TISM
s/better of/better off/
They'd be better of spitting on him for being a dirty old pervert for writing, oh, pretty much everything he wrote from the late 1960s onward.
With these micropayments you pay first, then access the content. Just like a porn site, but cheaper and with less fake boobs.
:)
The main difference being that enough people will pay to see porn to make it a viable business idea
Rock or roke, I guess. ba-roke... broke... heh. Not very.
Doubleplusungood, even.
I also think that "powerful" is a changing metric; once we have something that's powerful and easy-to-use, we look for something in the same area that is more powerful and not as easy to use, as many of us are prepared to tolerate a certain level of complexity as a trade-off for that extra power.
:)
After all, I never would have imagined all the things about computers that I now practically take for granted when I first bashed out a program in Commodore 64 BASIC... but by those standards, they *are* both powerful and easy to use.
Of course, as you say, quality is irrelevant, control of the market counts more.
Yeah, but what's the performance like in the Windows OpenGL renderer? Pretty close to the Linux one, isn't it? This implies that it's not a problem with their code base on Linux, more a problem with parts of the Unreal engine that have likely been designed around Direct3D rather than GL.
Slashdot sensationalism. Unfortunately, I don't think the community realizes how much credibility they lose every time they post these stupid anti-MS tainted articles.
Slashdot.... credibility. Since when have those two words ever belonged in the same sentence?
If we're going for the human rights argument, I'm really looking forward to US-enforced regime change in Burma, North Korea, China, Zimbabwe and Indonesia, to pick just a few.
Maybe while they're at it they could also meet their obligations under the Geneva Convention to the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
Self-censorship is the worst kind of censorship there is, and that's what the post I replied to seemed to be advocating.
The limitation of the discussion to Americans seemed interesting as well, as if they are the only ones with the right to an opinion on this issue... the reason I linked to David Hicks' web page was to show that other people are affected when Americans decide to chuck human rights out of the window, it's not merely an internal matter. If he's committed a crime, charge him. In a court. You know, laws and things. Don't just lock him in a cage and forget about him.
(The Aussie Government isn't doing anything to help matters, of course. Bastards. About what you'd expect, given their record of attacking Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time imprisoning refugees from those regimes in concentration camps in the desert. God, this country's fucked.)
Will it still qualify as progress when it gets posted again tomorrow, without the immediate rebuttal? :?
Does the fact that we can say anything mean that we should say everything? I've noticed a certain "anything that can be said, should be said" mentality in a lot of my fellow Ameicans, and I wonder how valid it is. Thoughts?
I'd rather make that decision myself than have someone else make it for me.
(I'm not American, though, so obviously I'm not qualified to comment on this... after all, human rights are so well respected by the American Government.)
Given the frequency of editorial reposts on Slashdot, I wouldn't have had to wait very long, would I?
Interestingly, when I tried to copy&paste your comment, I got this error message:
:(
This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
If only the editors received such feedback.
Just remember that digital=loss.
If only I had perfect hearing as well -- and complete atmospheric control. Then I could assure the quality of the analogue sounds I hear.
You are hearing a representation of the original source material.
That's all I'm interested in... if we're going to get philosophical, isn't everyone's perception of a sound a "representation" of the original source material?
But how does the manager know that his company's internally-developed applications weren't just cut-and-pasted together by his developers? Without seeing the source, and actually comparing it to every relevant code snippet ever published or released under any license, how can we tell that any piece of software is not, at least in part, a derivative work?
That was the point I was making in my response; if the company responsible for the product won't indemnify you against their own errors (whether or not their product is based on open or closed source), you need to have a good long look at your own legal liabilities.
I don't imagine we'd ever see code scrutiny across the industry -- for the same reason we're not all allowed to access any security camera footage we want. It would be interesting if it happened, but I don't think it's a political possibility.
Whether or not that number's correct, I'd want to see it from anopther source than NORML before I believe it -- they're hardly a disinterested party in the matter.