We already have that something to differentiate Us from Them. It's called virginity.
Oh no! Does this mean I've lost my nerd status because I'm no longer a virgin? I have to admit, once my first turned on my sex drive, it makes it harder to concentrate on hacking.
The 2003 Holiday Gift Guide presents twenty-five titles per console including the Microsoft Xbox, Sony Playstation 2, Nintendo GameCube, PC, and HandHelds.
Then we disagree on the importance of constructive criticism and suggestions. I see those things as contributions. Programmers tend to trap themselves in a small mental room where they can't see outside of their immediate task (in case it still isn't clear, I'm a programmer). People who make big-picture suggestions help to break us out of that box. Code is really of secondary value. Any competent programmer can turn a clearly spelled out suggestion into code. It's more rare for someone to have a good idea. Turning these people away because they can't program is insane.
Ah, but then we disagree again on which is easier: sniping from the sidelines or programming. To you and I, programming might seem simple, even second nature; to others who have never bothered to try it, it's easier to bitch and moan. I'm not saying that suggestions are not worth anything; as with code, it depends on the quality of the contribution. Most people just complain and say "this sucks!" That is not (positive) contribution. Programming tends to weed this out, because patches that don't do anything or are pointless are fairly obvious. It is also clear, that, given the choice between taking a patch or taking an idea (however good it may be) and implementing it, most people will take the patch because it shows obvious effort and commitment. In the long run, this is good: it means that the project won't stagnate into a committee of "good intentions", but will instead at least progress and change to suit someone's needs.
With all due respect, you have no idea what I want.
True, but you yourself used the phrase "help people" in your original posting, implying that someone (open source developers? are you one? does that mean you are an open source developer who doesn't want to "help people"?) wants to.
First of all, I thought constructive criticism and suggestions fell under the heading of "encouragement."
Telling someone that "this sucks!" is not my idea of constructive criticism, suggestions or encouragement. 99% of all user feedback equates to "this sucks!".
Second, what happened to the concept of doing something for the benefit of someone else? This is something nearly all world religions (or to be more expansive, "philosophies of peace") teach, yet those who try to act in such a way are usually labeled insane in today's world.
Yes, that's because most religions are hypocritical. I agree that it is right to help others. But I also think it is wrong to force anyone to do anything, including forcing someone to help others, or to bow to their whims.
The way I'm reading what you've said is that you're utterly baffled by the fact that I want to give people what they want, not what I want. You make the statement that "this isn't television; it isn't the movies". You are only reinforcing this idea that being selfless is insane and dangerous. People who go to third world countries to help those in poverty are making true sacrifices -- their health, livelihood, family, etc. The free software developer is only sacrificing his or her time. Can't we at least do that?
No, I'm not baffled by your urge to give people what they want. It is a common human emotion to want to help others. What I am baffled by is your supposed plastering of this emotion on everyone else. Not everyone always wants to help others. And no one should be forced to do anything. What anyone chooses to do is up to them.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be priorities or that programmers should immediately run out and implement anything anyone asks them to do. But when a person has written software and released it to the world with a free license, this is a tacit statement that the programmer wants other people to use the software. You've just said that most programmers don't do this for the betterment of other people. Therefore, in my mind it is clear that they must be doing
Some people on the list are even nicer; they provide code. These people are, of course, the most helpful in the long run, but there is no reason to treat them as more important than anyone else simply because they have the ability to program a computer.
They are not more important because they have the ability to program; they are more important because they contribute something.
Let me set you up with an example, an analogy if you will: what if scientists stopped to listen to every plebe off the street every time they complained that "science wasn't addressing their needs"? Sure, it's true that scientists, nay, we all owe a lot to society and humanity. But not to individuals, until they give us a reason to give them regard. Why do you think there is a scientific process and science journals? Sure, their main purpose is the advancement of science, but this is partially accomplished by weeding out the leaches.
If you want to "help people", that's a noble and commendable goal. But, just because someone is writing open source software doesn't mean they want to help people. That just happens to be a very nice side effect that you don't see very often in other endeavors. I mean, how many other things that you use do you have the freedom to take and make to your own specification? And now, someone is saying "here, you can have this, and even use it too! change it if you like!" And you are doing the equivalent of saying "it's not what I want; you change it." I hate to tell you, but that's not part of the deal. If you really want changes to be made, make them yourself, or entice (ie pay, encourage, renegotiate) someone else to do it for you.
This isn't television; it isn't the movies, and it certainly isn't Microsoft Windows or Apple MacOS. Free software is a boon, one that brings with it certain rights, and certain responsibilities.
What do I consider a reasonable person to be? I'd say a reasonable person is one who accepts that we are all human and therefore fallible, and takes that into account when dealing with others. Implicit in this definition is the belief that it is the right and the responsibility of each person to live his or her own life as he or she sees fit, to respect this right in others, and to demand the assumption of this responsibility by others.
They're not talking about used software.
on
Recycling TV Ads
·
· Score: 1
They probably are talking about software that you've never seen, because they were never used.
I work at an software company (I know, I know) and one of the most interesting things about it is to see how much money is wasted writing, editing, and producing software that never see the light of day because the client thinks it's too edgy, or doesn't like blue windows, or thinks the whole project is a bad idea because his sister told him so.
At the end of all this, there are hundreds of programs that are brilliantly done and well-produced - that you've never, ever seen. Many are probably edgier and more interesting than anything you've ever seen as a Apple program.
I'd be interested to see what these turn out to be!
In other words, duh: this happens in every industry. The only way to prevent this is to write open source (programs or content) because then at least anyone can judge for themselves whether it's good or not.
but trying to convince people they should not perform an important role in the economy is just stupid.
No, it's not; it's called "simple living". Besides, any "social model" (including economic models) that requires it's participants act a certain way sounds pretty broken and totalitarian to me.
Back to the real issues: why should people buy things they neither want nor need?
It is. I mean, how can it possibly be good for people to buy things they don't need? Other than for the people they are buying from, of course.
Consumerism may look appealing (especially to all those so-called "capitalists"), but it is an unsustainable model for an economy. It eats it's young, the poor and the ignorant. I mean, if everyone is spending their money on buying things, where is the money to invest in companies going to come from? What are these people going to do when it comes time for them to retire or pay their bills? What if they can't work anymore and have no savings because they've been patriotically consuming all they can?
In this day and age, most people tend to live beyond their means, which is a dangerous game. Have you ever heard of credit card roulette? It's like Russian roulette, only instead of guns and bullets, you use credit cards and money, and having an empty chamber means you lose.
From a musician's standpoint, I doubt many would care what OS their sound-making device is running.
Not true. I'm a musician and a Linux geek. I refuse to pay outrageous fees to be shackled to proprietary software.
While being a musician isn't my day job, I still play paid gigs, and go to rehearsals three nights a week.
And while I'll admit that the selection of composition software for Linux is rather weak, I have a method to get around that; my day job title happens to be "computer scientist";-)
Sounds cruel, but medical technology is largely to blame for overpopulation, boosting the birth rate, raising the average life expectancy...
Bullshit. Does "medical technology" actually create more people? If you believe that, you need to go back to middle school biology 101 to learn about the birds and the bees. The problem is these assholes who keep having children. What's really annoying is that they think they are automatically granted some god given right to be even more of assholes and cut in line or gain other privileges because "it's for the children."
I've seen nine children families where I live. Nine! That's fucking ridiculous. At most, you should need two, to replace you and your mate. And to all parents out there: just because you figured out how to put it in the right hole doesn't make you special or give you any more privileges than the rest of us; it means YOU took on a responsibility, and you alone have to deal with that child. It also means that you are responsible to make sure that that child grows up to be a responsible and reasonable adult, otherwise we'll lock him or her up for good.
Appgen was a piece of shit. I'm not surprised that the company that made it went out of business. There are many, many, many other much better alternatives, including coding something from scratch yourself.
I feel sorry for all the people that payed for Appgen. I feel even more sorry for anyone that had to work with it. I only know of it because I had a contract working on Appgen maintenance programming once a couple of years back. Fortunately, the company I was working for supplied all the manuals and software.
Hear, hear! I heavily agree with this, and I'm an SUV owner. My reason is plain and simple: I want less idiots driving SUVs. Obviously, I don't consider myself one of those idiots, but if I am, so be it. If I'm not, I'm willing to meet a higher standard for a license and pay higher fees, just so we don't have so many damn egotistical assholes who try to drive an SUV like a sports car on the road.
Subarus (Outback or Forester) get better traction, are safer, hold just as much, and get 25mpg... next excuse? Unless you're towing something or regularly have more than 5 passengers, you don't really need an SUV.
25mpg? That must be new, and that's still pretty shitty for something that's basically a station wagon with 4WD tacked on. As for holding just as much, that's a given impossibility; they are just simply not as large as SUV's. As for the traction and safety, I'd like to see some scientific studies. I'm willing to bet that nine times out of ten, accidents happen in SUV's because the driver was not driving it like an SUV - essentially a light truck.
Let me let you into a little secret about AWD and the Subarus: it's basically 4WD, except it's on all the time. This equates to lower gas mileage, and I highly doubt that most people who buy Subarus need 4WD all the time.
Oh, and Ford is coming out with a hybrid SUV (Explorer?) in 2004.
Finally! If only Ford made better vehicles, I might actually think about replacing my 4Runner. BTW, before you flame, I ride my bike to work everyday. Do you?
Pet Peeve #843289: The fact that ALL SUV owners have a canned speech to rationalize the fact that they needed to buy their overpriced penis extension.
Oooh! Oooh! Can I tell you mine, please? No? Okay, how about this: until you ride your bicycle to work everyday, walk to the store to buy your groceries every week and have had to walk home 10 miles in the middle of the night in November because your non-SUV automobile got stuck in the sand, I don't wanna hear your whining about my SUV.
Besides, they still don't make electric, or even hybrid SUV's. Not to mention the fact that I need SOME sort of big vehicle to take all the stuff I recycle every week to the recycling center, as my town doesn't pick it up. Oh, and let's not forget the two large containers full of over 200 pieces of music for a full big band which I have to take to rehearsal every Monday. I've yet to see an electric (or hybrid) big enough to carry one of them.
(I had to add this as I forgot to login for my original posting, and slashdot said "This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...")
You know what I like the most about Linux? Besides it's being truly free as in Freedom. The fact that if something annoys you about it you can fix it. And not just because you have the source code, but because it is legal to do so! So all you people bitching about Linux: put up or shut up. Show us the code.
I have my server (hardcorehackers.com) co-located in Socorro, New Mexico. I live 800 miles away in Ridgecrest, California.
Why, you might ask? Two very good reasons:
It's cheap - On the order of $80/month for 5GB/month to co-locate a single machine in an air-conditioned, alarmed and locked room. You provide your own UPS. Everywhere else I've looked is at least $150/month.
The service - The owner is a small town businessman. Despite having a family, he responds amazingly quickly to technical problems, which rarely occur in the first place. I think I called him once to add a domain to my server's IP (he manages DNS for you if you want).
I hate to pick nits, but I've got the karma to burn, and this particular sentence fragment really bothered me:
these revamped version of the glasses seem to offer much more value and compatibility to the table.
The correct metaphor would have been "seem to bring much more value and compatibily to the table." I only harp on this because the phrase as it stands doesn't make any sense. "Offer" much more value and compatibility to the table? Is the table your god?
Don't even get me started on the grammar in the rest of the post. I guess lousy communication skills and making yourself look like a fool are the standard on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
A: Yes. Next question.
So does that mean I'll get a blank billboard? One can only hope . . .
Oh no! Does this mean I've lost my nerd status because I'm no longer a virgin? I have to admit, once my first turned on my sex drive, it makes it harder to concentrate on hacking.
http://www.nmt.edu/~kscott/video/
What about Linux?
Ah, but then we disagree again on which is easier: sniping from the sidelines or programming. To you and I, programming might seem simple, even second nature; to others who have never bothered to try it, it's easier to bitch and moan. I'm not saying that suggestions are not worth anything; as with code, it depends on the quality of the contribution. Most people just complain and say "this sucks!" That is not (positive) contribution. Programming tends to weed this out, because patches that don't do anything or are pointless are fairly obvious. It is also clear, that, given the choice between taking a patch or taking an idea (however good it may be) and implementing it, most people will take the patch because it shows obvious effort and commitment. In the long run, this is good: it means that the project won't stagnate into a committee of "good intentions", but will instead at least progress and change to suit someone's needs.
With all due respect, you have no idea what I want.
True, but you yourself used the phrase "help people" in your original posting, implying that someone (open source developers? are you one? does that mean you are an open source developer who doesn't want to "help people"?) wants to.
First of all, I thought constructive criticism and suggestions fell under the heading of "encouragement."
Telling someone that "this sucks!" is not my idea of constructive criticism, suggestions or encouragement. 99% of all user feedback equates to "this sucks!".
Second, what happened to the concept of doing something for the benefit of someone else? This is something nearly all world religions (or to be more expansive, "philosophies of peace") teach, yet those who try to act in such a way are usually labeled insane in today's world.
Yes, that's because most religions are hypocritical. I agree that it is right to help others. But I also think it is wrong to force anyone to do anything, including forcing someone to help others, or to bow to their whims.
The way I'm reading what you've said is that you're utterly baffled by the fact that I want to give people what they want, not what I want. You make the statement that "this isn't television; it isn't the movies". You are only reinforcing this idea that being selfless is insane and dangerous. People who go to third world countries to help those in poverty are making true sacrifices -- their health, livelihood, family, etc. The free software developer is only sacrificing his or her time. Can't we at least do that?
No, I'm not baffled by your urge to give people what they want. It is a common human emotion to want to help others. What I am baffled by is your supposed plastering of this emotion on everyone else. Not everyone always wants to help others. And no one should be forced to do anything. What anyone chooses to do is up to them.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be priorities or that programmers should immediately run out and implement anything anyone asks them to do. But when a person has written software and released it to the world with a free license, this is a tacit statement that the programmer wants other people to use the software. You've just said that most programmers don't do this for the betterment of other people. Therefore, in my mind it is clear that they must be doing
They are not more important because they have the ability to program; they are more important because they contribute something.
Let me set you up with an example, an analogy if you will: what if scientists stopped to listen to every plebe off the street every time they complained that "science wasn't addressing their needs"? Sure, it's true that scientists, nay, we all owe a lot to society and humanity. But not to individuals, until they give us a reason to give them regard. Why do you think there is a scientific process and science journals? Sure, their main purpose is the advancement of science, but this is partially accomplished by weeding out the leaches.
If you want to "help people", that's a noble and commendable goal. But, just because someone is writing open source software doesn't mean they want to help people. That just happens to be a very nice side effect that you don't see very often in other endeavors. I mean, how many other things that you use do you have the freedom to take and make to your own specification? And now, someone is saying "here, you can have this, and even use it too! change it if you like!" And you are doing the equivalent of saying "it's not what I want; you change it." I hate to tell you, but that's not part of the deal. If you really want changes to be made, make them yourself, or entice (ie pay, encourage, renegotiate) someone else to do it for you.
This isn't television; it isn't the movies, and it certainly isn't Microsoft Windows or Apple MacOS. Free software is a boon, one that brings with it certain rights, and certain responsibilities.
I work at an software company (I know, I know) and one of the most interesting things about it is to see how much money is wasted writing, editing, and producing software that never see the light of day because the client thinks it's too edgy, or doesn't like blue windows, or thinks the whole project is a bad idea because his sister told him so.
At the end of all this, there are hundreds of programs that are brilliantly done and well-produced - that you've never, ever seen. Many are probably edgier and more interesting than anything you've ever seen as a Apple program.
I'd be interested to see what these turn out to be!
In other words, duh: this happens in every industry. The only way to prevent this is to write open source (programs or content) because then at least anyone can judge for themselves whether it's good or not.
No, it's not; it's called "simple living". Besides, any "social model" (including economic models) that requires it's participants act a certain way sounds pretty broken and totalitarian to me.
Back to the real issues: why should people buy things they neither want nor need?
Certainly not Apple.
It is. I mean, how can it possibly be good for people to buy things they don't need? Other than for the people they are buying from, of course.
Consumerism may look appealing (especially to all those so-called "capitalists"), but it is an unsustainable model for an economy. It eats it's young, the poor and the ignorant. I mean, if everyone is spending their money on buying things, where is the money to invest in companies going to come from? What are these people going to do when it comes time for them to retire or pay their bills? What if they can't work anymore and have no savings because they've been patriotically consuming all they can?
In this day and age, most people tend to live beyond their means, which is a dangerous game. Have you ever heard of credit card roulette? It's like Russian roulette, only instead of guns and bullets, you use credit cards and money, and having an empty chamber means you lose.
Not true. I'm a musician and a Linux geek. I refuse to pay outrageous fees to be shackled to proprietary software.
While being a musician isn't my day job, I still play paid gigs, and go to rehearsals three nights a week.
And while I'll admit that the selection of composition software for Linux is rather weak, I have a method to get around that; my day job title happens to be "computer scientist"
Any job with a TLA title beginning with "C" and ending with "O".
How about GNUCash for one? Or Quickbooks?
Bullshit. Does "medical technology" actually create more people? If you believe that, you need to go back to middle school biology 101 to learn about the birds and the bees. The problem is these assholes who keep having children. What's really annoying is that they think they are automatically granted some god given right to be even more of assholes and cut in line or gain other privileges because "it's for the children."
I've seen nine children families where I live. Nine! That's fucking ridiculous. At most, you should need two, to replace you and your mate. And to all parents out there: just because you figured out how to put it in the right hole doesn't make you special or give you any more privileges than the rest of us; it means YOU took on a responsibility, and you alone have to deal with that child. It also means that you are responsible to make sure that that child grows up to be a responsible and reasonable adult, otherwise we'll lock him or her up for good.
I feel sorry for all the people that payed for Appgen. I feel even more sorry for anyone that had to work with it. I only know of it because I had a contract working on Appgen maintenance programming once a couple of years back. Fortunately, the company I was working for supplied all the manuals and software.
Slashdot is a family site?! When did this happen?!! I came here expecting porn and drugs!
Hear, hear! I heavily agree with this, and I'm an SUV owner. My reason is plain and simple: I want less idiots driving SUVs. Obviously, I don't consider myself one of those idiots, but if I am, so be it. If I'm not, I'm willing to meet a higher standard for a license and pay higher fees, just so we don't have so many damn egotistical assholes who try to drive an SUV like a sports car on the road.
I'm reminded of a line from a song by "Weird Al" Yankovic, called "Traffic Jam" I believe:
25mpg? That must be new, and that's still pretty shitty for something that's basically a station wagon with 4WD tacked on. As for holding just as much, that's a given impossibility; they are just simply not as large as SUV's. As for the traction and safety, I'd like to see some scientific studies. I'm willing to bet that nine times out of ten, accidents happen in SUV's because the driver was not driving it like an SUV - essentially a light truck.
Let me let you into a little secret about AWD and the Subarus: it's basically 4WD, except it's on all the time. This equates to lower gas mileage, and I highly doubt that most people who buy Subarus need 4WD all the time.
Oh, and Ford is coming out with a hybrid SUV (Explorer?) in 2004.
Finally! If only Ford made better vehicles, I might actually think about replacing my 4Runner. BTW, before you flame, I ride my bike to work everyday. Do you?
Oooh! Oooh! Can I tell you mine, please? No? Okay, how about this: until you ride your bicycle to work everyday, walk to the store to buy your groceries every week and have had to walk home 10 miles in the middle of the night in November because your non-SUV automobile got stuck in the sand, I don't wanna hear your whining about my SUV
Besides, they still don't make electric, or even hybrid SUV's. Not to mention the fact that I need SOME sort of big vehicle to take all the stuff I recycle every week to the recycling center, as my town doesn't pick it up. Oh, and let's not forget the two large containers full of over 200 pieces of music for a full big band which I have to take to rehearsal every Monday. I've yet to see an electric (or hybrid) big enough to carry one of them.
(I had to add this as I forgot to login for my original posting, and slashdot said "This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...")
You know what I like the most about Linux? Besides it's being truly free as in Freedom. The fact that if something annoys you about it you can fix it. And not just because you have the source code, but because it is legal to do so! So all you people bitching about Linux: put up or shut up. Show us the code.
Why, you might ask? Two very good reasons:
For more details see http://www.sdc.org.
these revamped version of the glasses seem to offer much more value and compatibility to the table.
The correct metaphor would have been "seem to bring much more value and compatibily to the table." I only harp on this because the phrase as it stands doesn't make any sense. "Offer" much more value and compatibility to the table? Is the table your god?
Don't even get me started on the grammar in the rest of the post. I guess lousy communication skills and making yourself look like a fool are the standard on slashdot.
A: No. First we had UNIX, then MacOS, then Windows. If that's not evidence for a decline in software quality, I don't know what is.