you can only see a minority of the minority display any kind of reasoning skills, you can tell something's fucked up
Usually whats fucked up is the dosage of the medicine the "minority of the minority" should be taking daily.
Seriously, there were people questioning just what Assange was all about back when he closed Wikileaks to public participation. And again when the shut down Wikileaks to hold the data hostage to raise funds (despite admitting he had enough to run the site for the remainder of the year and then some). But we were shouted down and modded down.
Assange didn't need a CIA op to destroy his credibility, he's done a pretty thorough job of that himself. The rest of you are just now catching up to that.
Bad ideas get torn apart by other users with great haste, exuberance, and detail.
Good ideas are subject to the same treatment. For that matter, so are mediocre ideas. In fact, *every* idea is pretty much treated that way - because an idea that seems like a good idea to everyone is a rare beast indeed.
They figure out every possible angle much better then developers could ever do.
Since they have no acess to the code, the data structures, etc... etc... It's simply not possible to the figure out every angle better than the developers.
AIUI, that was pretty common back then - the contemporary Polaris A3 (MK80/3) and Poseidon C3 (MK88/1) missile fire control systems used the same command architecture for manual inputs.
The transcripts of the Apollo missions have been available online for a long time.
And in a much more useful format (with illustrations, technical notes, etc...) at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. This 'new' version is nothing but the transcripts run through a bot that adds pretty pictures and stupid 'tweet this' links.
Why do so many people think that every new entrant into the market has to take down the top dog?
Because that's there people are. If you're opening a new fast food burger chain, you don't aim to take customers from $LOCAL_MOM_AND_POP - because unless you capture all of their customers (a Very Hard Task), you're dead in the water. You aim to take customers from McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's, because that's where the numbers are.
The SWTOR MMO only needs to make money.
Much easier said than done. And it's really hard unless you can attract significant numbers - see above.
I seriously doubt that WoW devs had the thought 'We need to beat Everquest' running through their heads.
They almost certainly did, because back then "beating Everquest and UO" was the metric. But the WoW devs also had the advantage of having a massive userbase for their previous products, something SWTOR does not have.
During *which* Apollo moon mission? There was more than one you know. Not to mention that precisely none of the antenna's used were anywhere near Ft Hood. Not to mention that the terrestrial antenna's that were used were highly directional.
"You may have caught PJ's Christmas Day post on Groklaw, expressing her anger and frustration that, after she helped save Novell's Unix patents from SCO's clutches, Novell turned around and sold many of those patents to an open source-unfriendly coalition."
PJ seems to have missed that the patents belong(ed) to Novell and they are free to do whatever they wish to do without consulting or appeasing her.
Whoever it chooses, Wikipedia has to please its funders. I'm glad they continue to choose to please their readers.
No, the chose to believe that subset of their readers/editors who believe that accepting advertising is the path to DOOM DOOMITY DOOM!!11!1! It's not clear at all how large a subset of the total that constitutes.
What effects would there be on the content and policies if Wikipedia had to please the buyers of ad space?
There doesn't seem to be any effect on NPR or National Geographic (to name just two.) As with 'Wikipedia readers' you make the mistake of confusing 'big media' with 'all media'.
How much poo flinging and how many conspiracy theories would spring up about the content and policies?
Who cares? There's already poo flinging and conspiracy theories about who edits the content and creates the policies.
Frankly, dependency on buyers of ad space would ruin Wikipedia.
Hence my use of the word 'obtrusive'. They were much larger and more obvious this time around, they also rotated between different 'ads', which they had not previously done. They were also deceptive in that while they implied you were supporting Wikipedia, you were actually donating to Wikimedia.
"Part of my duties are to fix bugs users find, I'm on a team with a few other people and at least once every 2-3 months I see some bug I fixed come back, and I can only assume it's because we don't have a formal test suite"
Why do you assume it's due to a lack of a formal test suite? Why can't it be inadequate communications between team members? (Programmer 'A' fixes a bug, programmer 'B' puts it back while 'fixing' or 'restoring' a different feature.) Why can't it be inadequate commenting? (A bug keeps recurring because nobody quite understands why/how a chunk of code works and keep 'fixing' it.)
Etc... etc...
That you 'assume' it's due to the lack of testing implies to me that you haven't looked very deeply at the whole process and have latched onto 'testing' as some form of a magic wand.
And, though insanely lucrative, a part of me fears that this would really disrupt or even destroy the concept of a peer reviewed encyclopedia.
If Wikipedia were a peer reviewed encyclopedia, that would be a valid fear. But it isn't. Never has been.
Wikipedia started as a community review encyclopedia that anyone could edit - regardless of their actual expertise. That kinda worked for a while, but now that model has been replaced by Wikipedia The Role Playing Game where to goal is to accumulate points and status and defend one's turf from those who would dare to edit your sterling prose.
so, because they begged, you are not going to wikipedia. before, you had no issues using the communal resource everyone came together and created, for FREE.
Why Should I have any issues? They advertise themselves as being open and available to everyone. Don't try and make me feel guilty for using them in exactly the manner they made themselves available for use. That's bullshit.
however, when they asked you to give a hand for the costs, you have suddenly got irritated.
No, I got irritated when they violated their 'no ads' by placing a huge and obtrusive ad at the top of every page.
I just flew on American Friday night from Honolulu to Chicago; 45 minutes out of Hawaii, the captain turned the "Fasten Seats Belts" light back on - at the first excuse for a mild bump - and then left it on uninterrupted for the next 7.5+ HOURS - in smooth. clear air - all the way until we landed - 36 hours later, and my feet and ankles are STILL swollen.
Your feet and ankles aren't swollen because the sign was lit, they're swollen because you're too stupid to get up and move around now and again. I've flown many times, and even when the light it lit, I've never been asked to return to my seat unless there was actual turbulence.
On they way out, it cost $25 per checked bag, and one, which was over 50lbs (52.7 to be exact), cost an ADDITIONAL $50 over that.
Since the maximum weight limit, clearly posted on their website, is 50lbs - WTF did you expect? Again, this isn't the airlines, this is you being an idiot.
We travel to see stuff. Modern media has made much of that superfluous.
And globalisation means that even if you do travel, when you get there you find it's just like the place you left except they speak a different language in McDonald's.
Um, no. Not even remotely. I can travel from where I live (near Seattle) to the South - and it's completely different. Different culture, different climate, different food, etc... etc... Traveling outside the continental US, it's even more so.
Growing up in Idaho, nobody particularly cared about the ball. Is this just an East Coast thing?
It's covered by several major TV networks as the centerpiece of the New Year's Eve programming, and it's even repeated (and watched) in the Pacific Time Zone. So no, it's not just an East Coast thing.
If reducing mass was a significant cost driver, you'd have a point. But since it's only one of many, once again you're blowing smoke out your nether orifice. Doubly so for being ignorant enough to compare apples (unmanned earth orbiting satellites) with oranges (manned mars missions).
but really, there would be a land rush as rich guys and hedge funds all scramble to purchase Mars real estate after colonization has been demonstrated to be possible.
Almost certainly not - because a) it's not going to be possible to get clear title to the land (under current space treaties), and b) because the returns are going to be very small and decades (if not centuries) out (if at all).
OTOH, such a thing could be good funding for a first mission or two, especially if cost of access to space should go down considerable.
You could reduce the cost of access to zero - and not noticeably affect the cost of the mission. The vast majority of the costs are related to R&D and then construction and operation.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually whats fucked up is the dosage of the medicine the "minority of the minority" should be taking daily.
Seriously, there were people questioning just what Assange was all about back when he closed Wikileaks to public participation. And again when the shut down Wikileaks to hold the data hostage to raise funds (despite admitting he had enough to run the site for the remainder of the year and then some). But we were shouted down and modded down.
Assange didn't need a CIA op to destroy his credibility, he's done a pretty thorough job of that himself. The rest of you are just now catching up to that.
Well, it's still in violation then - as that's hardly fan writing. :)
Good ideas are subject to the same treatment. For that matter, so are mediocre ideas. In fact, *every* idea is pretty much treated that way - because an idea that seems like a good idea to everyone is a rare beast indeed.
Since they have no acess to the code, the data structures, etc... etc... It's simply not possible to the figure out every angle better than the developers.
So much for Wikipedia's so-called 'neutral point of view'.
The 'dry side' of Washington is also a great deal *hotter* than the 'wet side'.
AIUI, that was pretty common back then - the contemporary Polaris A3 (MK80/3) and Poseidon C3 (MK88/1) missile fire control systems used the same command architecture for manual inputs.
And in a much more useful format (with illustrations, technical notes, etc...) at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. This 'new' version is nothing but the transcripts run through a bot that adds pretty pictures and stupid 'tweet this' links.
Because that's there people are. If you're opening a new fast food burger chain, you don't aim to take customers from $LOCAL_MOM_AND_POP - because unless you capture all of their customers (a Very Hard Task), you're dead in the water. You aim to take customers from McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's, because that's where the numbers are.
Much easier said than done. And it's really hard unless you can attract significant numbers - see above.
They almost certainly did, because back then "beating Everquest and UO" was the metric. But the WoW devs also had the advantage of having a massive userbase for their previous products, something SWTOR does not have.
There, fixed that for you. Someone who doesn't think household voltages aren't dangerous is a future candidate for the Darwin Awards.
During *which* Apollo moon mission? There was more than one you know. Not to mention that precisely none of the antenna's used were anywhere near Ft Hood. Not to mention that the terrestrial antenna's that were used were highly directional.
"You may have caught PJ's Christmas Day post on Groklaw, expressing her anger and frustration that, after she helped save Novell's Unix patents from SCO's clutches, Novell turned around and sold many of those patents to an open source-unfriendly coalition."
PJ seems to have missed that the patents belong(ed) to Novell and they are free to do whatever they wish to do without consulting or appeasing her.
No, the chose to believe that subset of their readers/editors who believe that accepting advertising is the path to DOOM DOOMITY DOOM!!11!1! It's not clear at all how large a subset of the total that constitutes.
There doesn't seem to be any effect on NPR or National Geographic (to name just two.) As with 'Wikipedia readers' you make the mistake of confusing 'big media' with 'all media'.
Who cares? There's already poo flinging and conspiracy theories about who edits the content and creates the policies.
An opinion stated as if it were a fact.
Hence my use of the word 'obtrusive'. They were much larger and more obvious this time around, they also rotated between different 'ads', which they had not previously done. They were also deceptive in that while they implied you were supporting Wikipedia, you were actually donating to Wikimedia.
"Part of my duties are to fix bugs users find, I'm on a team with a few other people and at least once every 2-3 months I see some bug I fixed come back, and I can only assume it's because we don't have a formal test suite"
Why do you assume it's due to a lack of a formal test suite? Why can't it be inadequate communications between team members? (Programmer 'A' fixes a bug, programmer 'B' puts it back while 'fixing' or 'restoring' a different feature.) Why can't it be inadequate commenting? (A bug keeps recurring because nobody quite understands why/how a chunk of code works and keep 'fixing' it.)
Etc... etc...
That you 'assume' it's due to the lack of testing implies to me that you haven't looked very deeply at the whole process and have latched onto 'testing' as some form of a magic wand.
If Wikipedia were a peer reviewed encyclopedia, that would be a valid fear. But it isn't. Never has been.
Wikipedia started as a community review encyclopedia that anyone could edit - regardless of their actual expertise. That kinda worked for a while, but now that model has been replaced by Wikipedia The Role Playing Game where to goal is to accumulate points and status and defend one's turf from those who would dare to edit your sterling prose.
Possibly because Wikipedia used obtrusive ads to raise money this time.
Why Should I have any issues? They advertise themselves as being open and available to everyone. Don't try and make me feel guilty for using them in exactly the manner they made themselves available for use. That's bullshit.
No, I got irritated when they violated their 'no ads' by placing a huge and obtrusive ad at the top of every page.
Your feet and ankles aren't swollen because the sign was lit, they're swollen because you're too stupid to get up and move around now and again. I've flown many times, and even when the light it lit, I've never been asked to return to my seat unless there was actual turbulence.
Since the maximum weight limit, clearly posted on their website, is 50lbs - WTF did you expect? Again, this isn't the airlines, this is you being an idiot.
Um, no. Not even remotely. I can travel from where I live (near Seattle) to the South - and it's completely different. Different culture, different climate, different food, etc... etc... Traveling outside the continental US, it's even more so.
It's covered by several major TV networks as the centerpiece of the New Year's Eve programming, and it's even repeated (and watched) in the Pacific Time Zone. So no, it's not just an East Coast thing.
It's I-told-you-so time for Slashdot commenter frnic, who smelled a crime last March
So many accusations of criminal behavior are made on Slashdot daily that sooner or later one was bound to be right.
They sell the gold you stupid twat - that's where the cash flow (returns) come from.
If reducing mass was a significant cost driver, you'd have a point. But since it's only one of many, once again you're blowing smoke out your nether orifice. Doubly so for being ignorant enough to compare apples (unmanned earth orbiting satellites) with oranges (manned mars missions).
Almost certainly not - because a) it's not going to be possible to get clear title to the land (under current space treaties), and b) because the returns are going to be very small and decades (if not centuries) out (if at all).
You could reduce the cost of access to zero - and not noticeably affect the cost of the mission. The vast majority of the costs are related to R&D and then construction and operation.