Maybe they think that doing their simple workouts everyday is "earning their worth". But I don't buy it.
It's more likely they are a supermodel because they don't have an eating disorder than they don't have an eating disorder because they are a supermodel.
Or perhaps they have an eating disorder in the opposite way, not eating enough. But I consider this a sickness, not dedication.
Someone who scores high on the SAT test doesn't necessarily deserve all them scholarships either. This is just another example.
But pride is a different issue. A person is not proud of being beautiful, just as a person is not proud of being smart. If the person thinks he or she is proud, then I can only attribute this to delusion of some kind.
What is worth being proud of is what you accomplish. The supermodel is at a great disadvantage in this regard. Already she (or he) has decided not to be rewarded for what she is proud of. Lots of people envy supermodels for their beauty and lets face it, for the sex and popularity they have. But there have always been hotties in the world. The difference is that our allegiance to basic human rights gives beautiful people an amazing social advantage. In other times, the opposite would be true--the beautiful people would be the most often raped and enslaved for the worst reasons.
But the great thing about these principles of human rights is that with work you can do things you are proud of. This is an amazing virtue. This is true no matter what genes you are born with.
The point is, in your life, to accomplish something. Don't bullshit yourself either. Raising kids isn't, in itself, an accomplishment. People have had children in all ages, under all sorts of circumstances and privilidge. Scoring high on the SAT, in itself, isn't and accomplishment either.
It depends on economy than anything else. If your parents are poor, you have a far greater likelihood of taking out the trash. If your parents are rich, consider a blue collar job an impossibility
And if all the rich kids were smart, how come they make so many dumb choices that the rest of us have to live with?
Well, one of the main points of the US system of government is that of minority rights. In other words, we still have to respect the rights of that 0.01% who don't happen to agree. And its really not a point about agreeing and disagreeing. Its a question of justice.
As far as "violence of the state" goes, thats just a loaded anthropomorphism.
And if you don't know or appreciate my work, don't send me money.
And this is the best thing he said that stands in his favor, since the negation of the above is "If you know and appreciate my work, send me money." (not a logica transformation, I know)
And we hear this sometimes from free software developers: "If you want to thank a free software developer, either donate it to the FSF or some other organization, or send him or her a thank you card--perhaps with a twenty-dollar bill in it."
So if you want to contribute funds to the free software community, it seems logical to take the entire community into consideration. If you think that an IRC network has benefitted you immensley, then send money to Freenode. If I had the money (and a credit card number) my money would go to the FSF. In my opinion, IRC just isn't that important. Over on gnu.misc.discuss, people are still keeping alive a useless thread about which is more important, GNU or Linux. So far, I haven't seen irc.openprojects.net entered into the mix.
"The software developer's pay will dwindle (except for the elite) to that of a blue-collar worker, and will be thought of as such..."
Yeah, don't want to be associated with them blue-collar workers--you know, them people who do 75% of the work in this country and get 15% of the wealth.
Well, first your example is flawed in that people are allowed to make backup copies of software by fair use rights as I understand it.
But one example is spyware. Software should not send private information of the user across the internet nor leave backdoors in security software. This is a more extreme example of the "obviously not right" category.
Another, more debatable, example is advertising in software restricted under copyright. Since the user isn't allow to edit out this functionality, it is wrong for the developer to force this feature onto him.
The obvious response is for the user to choose another product. In the spyware case, the user may not even be aware of this feature of the software. In the second case, there may be any variety of reasons the user can't switch (an example given below).
It is my belief that by controlling the functionality of the software gives developers an indirect power over the user. A developer may decide to only allow interoperability with certain file formats and exclude others. Another developer may create a converter from that format to another, but then the former developer may increase the complexity of the file format. The two developers would continue to compete in this---all beyond the will of the user.
I honestly didn't mean to imply that Apple does controll the software against the will of the user. I simply mean to say that the opportunity exists, in even indirect forms.
What about software that saves to a format with no existing standard?
"I don't think there should be any regulations on what type of software a government entity uses."
What about software that has spyware? How important is it for governments to not use spyware? How do you know the software has spyware if it isn't free?
Second, "Open Source" is just a category of software that satisfies a number of requirements. If we have a category of "Foo" software that including all software that is still being maintained, would it make sense to yell about "them Foo software zealots who keep try to restrict our choice to use other software".
So it should be obvious to argue about which requirements are acceptible for a government to use a given software.
How about if the software is either free software (according to the free software definition) or the company can be held legally responsible for the faults in the software?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they think that doing their simple workouts everyday is "earning their worth". But I don't buy it.
It's more likely they are a supermodel because they don't have an eating disorder than they don't have an eating disorder because they are a supermodel.
Or perhaps they have an eating disorder in the opposite way, not eating enough. But I consider this a sickness, not dedication.
What you say is true.
Someone who scores high on the SAT test doesn't necessarily deserve all them scholarships either. This is just another example.
But pride is a different issue. A person is not proud of being beautiful, just as a person is not proud of being smart. If the person thinks he or she is proud, then I can only attribute this to delusion of some kind.
What is worth being proud of is what you accomplish. The supermodel is at a great disadvantage in this regard. Already she (or he) has decided not to be rewarded for what she is proud of. Lots of people envy supermodels for their beauty and lets face it, for the sex and popularity they have. But there have always been hotties in the world. The difference is that our allegiance to basic human rights gives beautiful people an amazing social advantage. In other times, the opposite would be true--the beautiful people would be the most often raped and enslaved for the worst reasons.
But the great thing about these principles of human rights is that with work you can do things you are proud of. This is an amazing virtue. This is true no matter what genes you are born with.
The point is, in your life, to accomplish something. Don't bullshit yourself either. Raising kids isn't, in itself, an accomplishment. People have had children in all ages, under all sorts of circumstances and privilidge. Scoring high on the SAT, in itself, isn't and accomplishment either.
Life is without meaning, otherwise.
Can you please tell me how you can describe "automatic numbering" as "too cool" and "nifty" ?
Personally, I've gotten over this aspect of computing since I've reached 1,000 by hittting 1 and the plus key on my calculator...999 times.
I've tried squeak at least twice in the past. I keep hearing on how good of a programming language / environment it is.
It is the most unusable environment I've ever used. I ran in on GNU/Linux. Dog slow. On Windows, its slightly better, but not by much.
Some Advice: avoid Squeak at all costs.
I don't know if anyone remembers UWM which was (and still is) a cool X window manager that uses pie menus instead of pop-ups.
:)
It doesn't seem to be in active development, but it is a rather minimal window manager so I doubt you'll have any problems using it.
It has some nice looking borders too.
Hmm...gives me memories. Downloading...
Mouse? There is no mouse.
No, it's not a pretty picture. That's because you painted it.
Can anyone paint a different picture? Like, lets say, a best case scenario?
What the hell is up with the name calling?
How can you say its not ready for the desktop when it *is* being used for desktop systems?
*squints his eyes and sticks out his tongue*
Ha ha!
Seriously, can we stop the "GNU/Linux will never make it on the desktop" arguments now?
But then again, some people will argue that the sky is green and that Americans never landed on the moon, too.
Actually, I just wanted to know what it was that the privacy people wanted. What is the ideal method of identification?
I'm not yet prepared the argue against the libretarian/anarchy philosophy.
GalaxyQuest is to Star Trek, as Star Trek is to everyone else.
Reunification was probably the best Vulcan episode ever.
Agreed. We Trekkers
Need a graphic, a Star Trek
Communicator
Copyright invalid?
Then what is piracy--
sharing is not theft?
The Geek's mind is set
To exceed limitations;
Grok the system thus.
It depends on economy than anything else. If your parents are poor, you have a far greater likelihood of taking out the trash. If your parents are rich, consider a blue collar job an impossibility
And if all the rich kids were smart, how come they make so many dumb choices that the rest of us have to live with?
Yes, its a political agenda.
But its honest politics.
Thats the difference.
I really don't see how your comment is a response to mine.
Do you want to bring your hand gun into the movie theater?
Well, one of the main points of the US system of government is that of minority rights. In other words, we still have to respect the rights of that 0.01% who don't happen to agree. And its really not a point about agreeing and disagreeing. Its a question of justice.
As far as "violence of the state" goes, thats just a loaded anthropomorphism.
Heh, wow, and I used to hold slashdot comments at some degree higher than your run-of-the-mill IRC discussion.
;)
Quick, somebody Op me.
j/k
The first thing that seems missing from this slashdot submission is lilo's side of the story.
And as I read it, this quote stands out:
And this is the best thing he said that stands in his favor, since the negation of the above is "If you know and appreciate my work, send me money." (not a logica transformation, I know)
And we hear this sometimes from free software developers: "If you want to thank a free software developer, either donate it to the FSF or some other organization, or send him or her a thank you card--perhaps with a twenty-dollar bill in it."
So if you want to contribute funds to the free software community, it seems logical to take the entire community into consideration. If you think that an IRC network has benefitted you immensley, then send money to Freenode. If I had the money (and a credit card number) my money would go to the FSF. In my opinion, IRC just isn't that important. Over on gnu.misc.discuss, people are still keeping alive a useless thread about which is more important, GNU or Linux. So far, I haven't seen irc.openprojects.net entered into the mix.
Maybe the OS should be called OPN/Linux?
"The software developer's pay will dwindle (except for the elite) to that of a blue-collar worker, and will be thought of as such..."
:-(
Yeah, don't want to be associated with them blue-collar workers--you know, them people who do 75% of the work in this country and get 15% of the wealth.
Besides, they get what they deserve, right?
bleh
Well, first your example is flawed in that people are allowed to make backup copies of software by fair use rights as I understand it.
But one example is spyware. Software should not send private information of the user across the internet nor leave backdoors in security software. This is a more extreme example of the "obviously not right" category.
Another, more debatable, example is advertising in software restricted under copyright. Since the user isn't allow to edit out this functionality, it is wrong for the developer to force this feature onto him.
The obvious response is for the user to choose another product. In the spyware case, the user may not even be aware of this feature of the software. In the second case, there may be any variety of reasons the user can't switch (an example given below).
It is my belief that by controlling the functionality of the software gives developers an indirect power over the user. A developer may decide to only allow interoperability with certain file formats and exclude others. Another developer may create a converter from that format to another, but then the former developer may increase the complexity of the file format. The two developers would continue to compete in this---all beyond the will of the user.
I honestly didn't mean to imply that Apple does controll the software against the will of the user. I simply mean to say that the opportunity exists, in even indirect forms.
What about software that saves to a format with no existing standard?
"I don't think there should be any regulations on what type of software a government entity uses."
What about software that has spyware? How important is it for governments to not use spyware? How do you know the software has spyware if it isn't free?
First, thanks for the ad hominem.
Second, "Open Source" is just a category of software that satisfies a number of requirements. If we have a category of "Foo" software that including all software that is still being maintained, would it make sense to yell about "them Foo software zealots who keep try to restrict our choice to use other software".
So it should be obvious to argue about which requirements are acceptible for a government to use a given software.
How about if the software is either free software (according to the free software definition) or the company can be held legally responsible for the faults in the software?