You know how when someone commits murder for money and gets away with it you don't just say, "You just envy the murderer because you wouldn't have been able to pull it off"?
Well, same moral scenario here.
Some people - and I know it's hard for some others to believe - genuinely won't do something they believe to be morally reprehensible, no matter how much they might materially profit from it.
For example, I was introduced to bitcoins about three years ago, and it was suggested to me that I start generating some. I replied by saying that I saw no reason why I should be entitled to money just from getting in at the start of a Ponzi scheme. I did generate one or two out of curiosity anyway, but deleted them. I guess I have lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars there, but do I envy bitcoin multimillionaires? Of course not. They're operating by their rules, and I'm operating by mine. My value system is (obviously) more important to me than theirs.
Am I saying I could have achieved what every billionaire has achieved, were it not for my self-righteousness? Of course not. I don't have the engineering talent of Hewlett and Packard, or Linus Torvalds. Do I envy these guys? Again, no. H&P were naturally brilliant, and Torvalds was excellent but also in exactly the right place at the right time. There's nothing I could have done to be them. The world's not fair and I accept that. These people just... are. They were/are in leadership positions, and it makes sense why.
There have been more ideologically-oriented governments, from post-War Labour to Thatcher.
They might not keep all their promises, and all ideologically is strongly diluted with practicality, but they're not the vacuous bunch of cunts we have in Britain today. (They're not that different from Blair, of course, but Blair had a more representative set of people to steer him.)
because they broke almost all of their pre-election promises.
The most important thing to learn about the Tory party in the UK is that, contrary to popular opinion, it is not the party for the responsible, the capitalists, nor the hard-working (except in the sense that they want most people to work hard for them). It is a party representing a few wealthy individuals, and their mission is not small government, but privatised government, where nothing happens without their masters getting a cut.
I will have proven that I can write good code at least once, and it will change nothing. Indeed, Linus sets the example that someone who has "proven" themselves is more likely to get a verbal thrashing.
Your whole premise reminds me of the adolescent initiation/gauntlet-running games at boarding school. Are you just bored and trolling, or a kernel developer with an axe to grind?
And that ^^ is exactly the kind of "alpha male" talk I mean.
I have no interest in proving "myself" - I just want to contribute good code. If I don't contribute good code, that's fine - reject it and tell me what's wrong with it. I'll try again. You have no good reason to shout me down unless I'm causing you immediate harm. If I'm simply wrong about something, and you have the final say, what exactly motivates the aggression?
I'm a fairly competent mathematician. I've worked with people who are smarter than I could ever dream to be. My peers are occasionally mocking when I fuck up, and I can take a friendly jibe, but no senior has ever made an insulting, showboating remark to me - not even one to one, let alone in public. This macho culture is something I've only really seen professionally in engineering (software and mechanical).
It doesn't matter in the slightest how successful Linux is. That's not an excuse for complacency. In fact, if you look at the very topic of this Slashdot post, it's the worry that there's not enough fresh blood. Arguing that the problem must be with everyone else isn't going to get you that new talent, is it?
Well, that's what I mean: what I would consider a "reasonable" amount does nothing except make me feel a little less alert, then a little more makes me feel slightly tingly, and too much makes me feel dizzy/sick. There is no point at which I feel merry, or relaxed.
Seriously, though, mainstream OS implementation is 10% OS theory and 90% careful engineering. So your course will be useful, but it won't be nearly sufficient.
This. I've tinkered with the kernel, written device drivers, blah, but there's no way in hell I'd ever try to contribute upstream, because I know I'm not an experienced kernel hacker, and frankly I'm not sewn for the sort of macho abuse that dorks like to give each other.
There are other things I do as a hobby where I'm surrounded by people who are highly experienced, well-respected, but also excellent teachers - e.g. ham radio. There, I'm happy to do as much as I can for the community.
N.B. I'm not saying that I'd necessarily be good enough to contribute to the official kernel, merely that I wouldn't even try in that sort of environment.
Yes, but for 100 people, it's only $40 million, and so on. And even that's not the right way of looking at it, since the value of your bitcoins are going to collapse way before everyone manages to sell them in the event of crash.
Slashdot Mirror
You know how when someone commits murder for money and gets away with it you don't just say, "You just envy the murderer because you wouldn't have been able to pull it off"?
Well, same moral scenario here.
Some people - and I know it's hard for some others to believe - genuinely won't do something they believe to be morally reprehensible, no matter how much they might materially profit from it.
For example, I was introduced to bitcoins about three years ago, and it was suggested to me that I start generating some. I replied by saying that I saw no reason why I should be entitled to money just from getting in at the start of a Ponzi scheme. I did generate one or two out of curiosity anyway, but deleted them. I guess I have lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars there, but do I envy bitcoin multimillionaires? Of course not. They're operating by their rules, and I'm operating by mine. My value system is (obviously) more important to me than theirs.
Am I saying I could have achieved what every billionaire has achieved, were it not for my self-righteousness? Of course not. I don't have the engineering talent of Hewlett and Packard, or Linus Torvalds. Do I envy these guys? Again, no. H&P were naturally brilliant, and Torvalds was excellent but also in exactly the right place at the right time. There's nothing I could have done to be them. The world's not fair and I accept that. These people just... are. They were/are in leadership positions, and it makes sense why.
News at 11.
Expect to have your life ruined for underpaying or being overpaid by a few cents/pennies, though.
Capitalism: it always ends up like this.
This would never work.
1) As any mathematician kno, statistics can be abused to prove or disprove anything;
2) If you define the precise tests used in advance, the system will be gamed extremely well to satisfy the statistic but not the principle.
Politics is a game of values, not targets.
If A clearly and deliberately causes B, then there's nothing misleading about saying that someone chose B to happen when they elect to effect A.
There have been more ideologically-oriented governments, from post-War Labour to Thatcher.
They might not keep all their promises, and all ideologically is strongly diluted with practicality, but they're not the vacuous bunch of cunts we have in Britain today. (They're not that different from Blair, of course, but Blair had a more representative set of people to steer him.)
because they broke almost all of their pre-election promises.
The most important thing to learn about the Tory party in the UK is that, contrary to popular opinion, it is not the party for the responsible, the capitalists, nor the hard-working (except in the sense that they want most people to work hard for them). It is a party representing a few wealthy individuals, and their mission is not small government, but privatised government, where nothing happens without their masters getting a cut.
Sorta like a mafia.
These techniques are all more complex than changing a number in a database and require greater complicity, but yeah, why not them too, I guess.
I will have proven that I can write good code at least once, and it will change nothing. Indeed, Linus sets the example that someone who has "proven" themselves is more likely to get a verbal thrashing.
Your whole premise reminds me of the adolescent initiation/gauntlet-running games at boarding school. Are you just bored and trolling, or a kernel developer with an axe to grind?
Freedom of association means both sides have to be happy :)
And that ^^ is exactly the kind of "alpha male" talk I mean.
I have no interest in proving "myself" - I just want to contribute good code. If I don't contribute good code, that's fine - reject it and tell me what's wrong with it. I'll try again. You have no good reason to shout me down unless I'm causing you immediate harm. If I'm simply wrong about something, and you have the final say, what exactly motivates the aggression?
I'm a fairly competent mathematician. I've worked with people who are smarter than I could ever dream to be. My peers are occasionally mocking when I fuck up, and I can take a friendly jibe, but no senior has ever made an insulting, showboating remark to me - not even one to one, let alone in public. This macho culture is something I've only really seen professionally in engineering (software and mechanical).
It doesn't matter in the slightest how successful Linux is. That's not an excuse for complacency. In fact, if you look at the very topic of this Slashdot post, it's the worry that there's not enough fresh blood. Arguing that the problem must be with everyone else isn't going to get you that new talent, is it?
That was interesting - cheers.
all people
No.
Well, that's what I mean: what I would consider a "reasonable" amount does nothing except make me feel a little less alert, then a little more makes me feel slightly tingly, and too much makes me feel dizzy/sick. There is no point at which I feel merry, or relaxed.
Sockatume was arguing use for making one-off hard-to-trace payments - given bitcoin's volatility, this makes more sense than as tool for speculation.
Gold would be an awful way of making one-off hard-to-trace payments. You're arguing for the "other" use, i.e. wealth storage and speculation.
At least it's not BSD.
Seriously, though, mainstream OS implementation is 10% OS theory and 90% careful engineering. So your course will be useful, but it won't be nearly sufficient.
This. I've tinkered with the kernel, written device drivers, blah, but there's no way in hell I'd ever try to contribute upstream, because I know I'm not an experienced kernel hacker, and frankly I'm not sewn for the sort of macho abuse that dorks like to give each other.
There are other things I do as a hobby where I'm surrounded by people who are highly experienced, well-respected, but also excellent teachers - e.g. ham radio. There, I'm happy to do as much as I can for the community.
N.B. I'm not saying that I'd necessarily be good enough to contribute to the official kernel, merely that I wouldn't even try in that sort of environment.
scuzzlebutt wasn't talking about making work easier and less stressful, but about "career advancement and increased income".
What is wrong with you? Like AC said
I'm used to people doing what they are being paid to
Yes, but for 100 people, it's only $40 million, and so on. And even that's not the right way of looking at it, since the value of your bitcoins are going to collapse way before everyone manages to sell them in the event of crash.
Why would you want to submit them over the Internet when you have a perfectly good postal sevice?
Still trying to de-buzzword it, but I think it means, "We want to host virtual servers."
It's like the 1960s but with better alternatives.
Q.E.F.
The only reason to read those books is to be clearer about when other people are trying to manipulate you.
Honestly, OP, please don't go down/up this "how to climb the greasy pole" route. Continue being polite but plain.
It seems OP's problem isn't his honesty, but his lack of ability to communicate updates.
Social engineering to increase your income makes you the worst person.
in b4 people replying angrily to justify this manipulative behaviour
Seems like a conspiracy to me.