The better the program is, the less support and doc it needs.
This is untrue. The less complex a program is the less support it needs.
And why should docs not go with the program? It costs nothing to drop HTML or text files into the distribution, same as the s/w itself! You write docs for the love of it just like programs, right?
No, you write docs because you get paid, you right programs because you want to. Or was this sarcasm. That's what people will have to pay for, if they need it, documentation is support.
This smarmy "remember it's not about money, it's about software" is a joke. Get a job, get a life, and stop telling other people what to do.
Got two, got one, and follow your own advice. If the only reason you program is because you get paid then we're talking about different kinds of software, and a different revolution, it would seem.
The US also has very good separation of church and state.
There is a case going to the Supreme Court (U.S.) today about this very thing. It's about school prayer at school functions. In this case a football game, or more specifically a Texas High School football game (which is a lot closer to religion down there than most religions). It seem a Catholic and Mormon kid were "deeply offended" when another student prayed over the loudspeaker, and since the loudspeaker is owned by the state, blah, blah, blah.
Speaking as a former Texas High School football player (and a former Mormon), I was offended that they would remove this common practice, for no other reason that it's a good idea to take a moment before such a highly violent activity and "pray" for safety. To be offended by the prayer's is simply ridiculous, I sat through innumerable ones and made my peace seperately, but (and here's my point) that's how much the U.S. tries to seperate church and state. Now if we could just seperate business and state, we'd have a government that looked out for it's people, not a few of their wallets or all of their souls.
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
so you're equating throwing a ball in the air with human existence....riiiiight.
--
Re:Miraculous experiment you can do
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 1
that example would hold..if it was the cards that realized how remarkable their own pattern was.
--
Re:Uh, doesn't seem very "rational" at all
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 2
The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here
how about this.
I think therefore I am. I am therefore I'm special. That's all he's really saying.
so until this guy can produce actual evidence that we are "meant" to be here
We ARE here, that's enough for me. (yes, it's a circular argument, but that seems to be the only way to play when trying to explain your own existence)
--
Re:Selling philosophy disguised as science...
on
The Mind of God
·
· Score: 2
I have to disagree strongly here. It seems to me human culture started with religion(philosophy) as a way to explain the universe. This didn't work real well when you get to the gory details and so now many put their faith in science, since it has "proved" many things.
Now we are seeing more and more philosophers BASING their ideas on what our scientists have discovered. I think this is the better approach to reach a "Theory of Everything" and even explain consiousness (which as Godel showed, we can never "prove" since we are stuck within the system)
Much like how the human being consists both of mind (philosophy) and body (science), I believe this is the correct approach to explain how it all works together to create the reality we all swim in each and every day.
hmm, I'm not sure how much you've looked into exactly how he's trying to do it. Violating the laws of physics is one thing, bending them to your will is quite another. After reading up on this quite a bit last time it was discussed (NASA also has some folks working on it), I realized the guy is not working on anti-gravity, but more of a gravity deflector. Kind of like how a mirror deflects light. Then you put the object in the "shadow", and it is "lighter" (weight not luminosity). Yes, it pushes the laws of physics as we understand them, but so have a lot of things we now take for granted. Anyone up for a plane ride?
Go get a supercooled magnet, set it on another one, and gaze in wild wonder as it "just floats there". This is the same concept, he's just trying to apply it to any material, not just "magnetic" ones.
Of course that's just the joy of being a philosopher over a scientist, you get to be more optimistic. And you get more chicks. Which is my theory on why there are more philosophers than scientists...
hmm, good idea. Try to attack the problem obliquely, for no other reason than you don't think a species that is mapping it's own genetic code, sending interplanetary probes, and building quantum computers, can't figure out a simple thing like gravity?
Not sure what your point was, other than to say it is more likely to discover how to do anti-gravity by NOT researching it. ?!?! --
So, oh wise master of the universe, you would like to explain to me *exactly* how the force we call gravity works, and why this guy's attempts to use superconducting, supercoold materials to deflect that force will ultimately prove fruitless.
Next, I'll bet you'll tell me that there's no such thing as "left-handed material".
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 476 March 24, 2000 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein
TOPSY TURVY: THE FIRST TRUE "LEFT HANDED" MATERIAL has been devised by scientists at the University of California at San Diego. In this medium, light waves are expected to exhibit a reverse Doppler effect. That is, the light from a source coming toward you would be reddened and the light from a receding source would be blue shifted. The UCSD composite material, consisting of an assembly of copper rings and wires (see figure at www.aip.org/physnews/graphics), should eventually have important optics and telecommunications applications.
"I think it wasn't announced on the site [earlier in the month]. I hadn't looked at the Web site, so I'm not sure what it said.... I'm not sure exactly when that change went into effect. There may have been a lag."
When someone denies something obtusely three times in a row. It's a good bet they're lying. Not that the guy could tell the truth without setting off a few lawsuits, but, well, that quote above is a lie.
I still haven't seen a price on these withOUT the service, surely they could figure it out or something. Exactly how long MUST you stay on board before they break even? --
you will notice, however, that he only is going after Amazon because of "egegious" enforcement. Given the choices for Internet audio formats, I can't think of a better one than MP3.
The idea that people would *buy* software without source code makes even less sense, at least in a software world not controlled by the illustrious Mr. Gates.
What you suggest is to encourage developers to make our programs hard to use and needing of constant hand-holding so we can squeeze the users for cash flow.
No, what he's suggesting is you write programs you want to use, and share them, so that others, who can't live without clicky widgets, can add them. Squeezing users is a proprietary tactic, remember it's not about money, it's about software.
Does anybody else find it interesting that the two films with the most awards, both share the theme of incredibly realistic illusions replacing any real feeling and meaning to life? And that both of them are films from Hollywood? If that isn't irony defined, I need a new dictionary. --
Does anybody else find it interesting that the two films with the most awards, both share the theme of incredibly realistic illusions replacing any real feeling and meaning to life?
Welcome to the U.S. And for the guy who asked why Katz hates our media. This is it.
Try it with an open game like Go, chess has a much more rigid environment, and as such is more suited to computing power. Not to mention it gets less complex after a certain point.
And until DeepBlue gets as frustrated as Kasparov did, we've got a long way to go toward AI.
Slashdot Mirror
The better the program is, the less support and doc it needs.
This is untrue. The less complex a program is the less support it needs.
And why should docs not go with the program? It costs nothing to drop HTML or text files into the distribution, same as the s/w itself! You write docs for the love of it just like programs, right?
No, you write docs because you get paid, you right programs because you want to. Or was this sarcasm. That's what people will have to pay for, if they need it, documentation is support.
This smarmy "remember it's not about money, it's about software" is a joke. Get a job, get a life, and stop telling other people what to do.
Got two, got one, and follow your own advice. If the only reason you program is because you get paid then we're talking about different kinds of software, and a different revolution, it would seem.
--
The US also has very good separation of church and state.
There is a case going to the Supreme Court (U.S.) today about this very thing. It's about school prayer at school functions. In this case a football game, or more specifically a Texas High School football game (which is a lot closer to religion down there than most religions). It seem a Catholic and Mormon kid were "deeply offended" when another student prayed over the loudspeaker, and since the loudspeaker is owned by the state, blah, blah, blah.
Speaking as a former Texas High School football player (and a former Mormon), I was offended that they would remove this common practice, for no other reason that it's a good idea to take a moment before such a highly violent activity and "pray" for safety. To be offended by the prayer's is simply ridiculous, I sat through innumerable ones and made my peace seperately, but (and here's my point) that's how much the U.S. tries to seperate church and state. Now if we could just seperate business and state, we'd have a government that looked out for it's people, not a few of their wallets or all of their souls.
--
...the /. story I needed to try and read after beer.
--
How do you know they don't make that recognition?
My silverware told me.
--
so you're equating throwing a ball in the air with human existence....riiiiight.
--
that example would hold..if it was the cards that realized how remarkable their own pattern was.
--
The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here
how about this.
I think therefore I am. I am therefore I'm special. That's all he's really saying.
so until this guy can produce actual evidence that we are "meant" to be here
We ARE here, that's enough for me. (yes, it's a circular argument, but that seems to be the only way to play when trying to explain your own existence)
--
I have to disagree strongly here. It seems to me human culture started with religion(philosophy) as a way to explain the universe. This didn't work real well when you get to the gory details and so now many put their faith in science, since it has "proved" many things.
Now we are seeing more and more philosophers BASING their ideas on what our scientists have discovered. I think this is the better approach to reach a "Theory of Everything" and even explain consiousness (which as Godel showed, we can never "prove" since we are stuck within the system)
Much like how the human being consists both of mind (philosophy) and body (science), I believe this is the correct approach to explain how it all works together to create the reality we all swim in each and every day.
--
hmm, I'm not sure how much you've looked into exactly how he's trying to do it. Violating the laws of physics is one thing, bending them to your will is quite another. After reading up on this quite a bit last time it was discussed (NASA also has some folks working on it), I realized the guy is not working on anti-gravity, but more of a gravity deflector. Kind of like how a mirror deflects light. Then you put the object in the "shadow", and it is "lighter" (weight not luminosity). Yes, it pushes the laws of physics as we understand them, but so have a lot of things we now take for granted. Anyone up for a plane ride?
--
Go get a supercooled magnet, set it on another one, and gaze in wild wonder as it "just floats there". This is the same concept, he's just trying to apply it to any material, not just "magnetic" ones.
Of course that's just the joy of being a philosopher over a scientist, you get to be more optimistic. And you get more chicks. Which is my theory on why there are more philosophers than scientists...
--
hmm, good idea. Try to attack the problem obliquely, for no other reason than you don't think a species that is mapping it's own genetic code, sending interplanetary probes, and building quantum computers, can't figure out a simple thing like gravity?
Not sure what your point was, other than to say it is more likely to discover how to do anti-gravity by NOT researching it. ?!?!
--
So, oh wise master of the universe, you would like to explain to me *exactly* how the force we call gravity works, and why this guy's attempts to use superconducting, supercoold materials to deflect that force will ultimately prove fruitless.
Next, I'll bet you'll tell me that there's no such thing as "left-handed material".
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 476 March 24, 2000 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein
TOPSY TURVY: THE FIRST TRUE "LEFT HANDED" MATERIAL
has been devised by scientists at the University of California at San Diego.
In this medium, light waves are expected to exhibit a reverse Doppler
effect. That is, the light from a source coming toward you would be
reddened and the light from a receding source would be blue shifted. The
UCSD composite material, consisting of an assembly of copper rings and
wires (see figure at www.aip.org/physnews/graphics), should eventually
have important optics and telecommunications applications.
More details here.
Finally all us southpaws have a material we can call our own.
--
with AOL's recent turn towards (at least some) free software, anyone know what their stance is on all this?
Yea, visit the Gnutella website....
--
so how many hackers do you know that have an itch for an enterprise level RDBMS at home, eh? All those others fit that category, this one doesn't.
No neccessity, no invention.
--
Post stuff anonymously and THEN mirror the hell out of it. You'll miss the accolades, but the lawyers will miss you.
--
"I think it wasn't announced on the site [earlier in the month]. I hadn't looked at the Web site, so I'm not sure what it said. ... I'm not sure exactly when that change went into effect. There may have been a lag."
When someone denies something obtusely three times in a row. It's a good bet they're lying. Not that the guy could tell the truth without setting off a few lawsuits, but, well, that quote above is a lie.
I still haven't seen a price on these withOUT the service, surely they could figure it out or something. Exactly how long MUST you stay on board before they break even?
--
'cause it's a book
--
I do, for sure. But I don't think that's what you meant....
--
you will notice, however, that he only is going after Amazon because of "egegious" enforcement. Given the choices for Internet audio formats, I can't think of a better one than MP3.
--
The idea that people would *buy* software without source code makes even less sense, at least in a software world not controlled by the illustrious Mr. Gates.
--
What you suggest is to encourage developers to make our programs hard to use and needing of constant hand-holding so we can squeeze the users for cash flow.
No, what he's suggesting is you write programs you want to use, and share them, so that others, who can't live without clicky widgets, can add them. Squeezing users is a proprietary tactic, remember it's not about money, it's about software.
--
How is MP3 in any way evil? (outside of the RIAA compound of course).
--
Does anybody else find it interesting that the two films with the most awards, both share the theme of incredibly realistic illusions replacing any real feeling and meaning to life? And that both of them are films from Hollywood? If that isn't irony defined, I need a new dictionary.
--
Does anybody else find it interesting that the two films with the most awards, both share the theme of incredibly realistic illusions replacing any real feeling and meaning to life?
Welcome to the U.S. And for the guy who asked why Katz hates our media. This is it.
--
Try it with an open game like Go, chess has a much more rigid environment, and as such is more suited to computing power. Not to mention it gets less complex after a certain point.
And until DeepBlue gets as frustrated as Kasparov did, we've got a long way to go toward AI.
--