Only in the minds of people who have swallowed the capitalism BS hook, line, and sinker.
While it may be a niche, there's a reason Trader Joes does so well with what is basically providing approx the same number of things, but fewer brands per thing, as a large clusterfark of a grocery store. Competition does not mean better per se - in fact, it could mean nothing more than the mess we have now, where a corporation has to continuously drop their costs and improve their profit margin, all the while convincing you via marketting that their product is superior to all the other 5,000,000 products exactly like it. If instead we could maximize efficiencies of distribution, manufacturing, and design by focusing on just a very few brands for a particular product, then that product would actually improve.
Android's biggest problem has always been the splintered, fractured distribution of the platform. All those options...the AT&T version, the Verison version, etc - all have to twist the crap around for marketing reasons - causing new bugs and problems. Can have the same phone with two different carriers, same version of android, but the images be entirely different. That's "more options" for ya. Diversity of brands just for the sake of diversity is fail.
what icebrain said. Plus, they go after (and get) massive fines for people that do just a few movies. And, it's not our fault that hollywood wants bigger explosions - productions like "Dr Horrible's Sing Along Blog" were fun and different, while very cheap to make. I don't buy that they need to spend hundreds of millions to get us to watch a movie, nor do I buy that the actors are worth dozens of millions in pay, nor do I buy that every movie needs to be a blockbuster. But maybe I'm crazy - I like botique wineries, for example - the mass-produced, must-be-loved-by-a-large-portion crap is generally too watered down and meaningless to me. I don't get the appeal of such as a beiber - didn't that haircut exist on a group of guys out of england a few decades ago, who made girls scream? I can still listen to their songs now - for what do I need a beiber? Hollywood is a hype engine, and consumers eat it up. Hollywood could go back to producing quality pictures, and not getting $100M the opening weekend. They want the hype, they need the hype, they make the hype. It's hollow, it's a false cost base, etc. And MPAA - just a legal group that works as a hype engine, putting $150k fines per movie against people.
any particular reason one can't do this? A much more direct approach, healthier, more environmentally friendly, and doesn't have that extra-added danger of eating the product of extreme genetic modification...
people are modding it up because the coolest people they know were well indoctrinated. Hell, I'm an anarchist, but at least I'm not stupid enough to blame Iran and NK's nuclear ambitions on a man who wasn't even governor of Texas yet, much less even running for president, when Iran and NK were already well on the path to those goals (such as the afore-mentioned Carter convo).
do you have any sense at all in your myopic viewpoint how short-lived this problem is? There were "signs" a few decades ago (esp in the meat production industry) but almost all of the US had no exposure or experience with this phenomenon until something less than two decades ago. We have no way to elect leaders of industry, or remove them, described in law. We're getting close to a revolution ourselves likely, only it won't be based on silly geographic or false political divide - it will be based on those who have had enough, versus those who for some reason are willing to defend the 0.1% (because it wasn't even 1%) that made the decisions that got us here. There's a LOT of inertia to fight, and absolutely no historical frame of reference on how to do it short of outright violence, in the history of mankind.
the "west" didn't make that decision - a very tiny tiny percentage of short-term-profit-maximizing execs made that decision. Casting that net on the "west" makes pretty much zero sense. And just to beat your potential retort - no, the (er..shall I use the term?) 99% did/not/ reap the short-term benefit of that. They lost their jobs and their homes.
sortof. If both sides can instantly know a rapidly changing value, that value can be used to both encrypt and compress communication. The fact that it isn't controllable doesn't mean that it can't be used for such things.
As has already been mentioned above multiple times, Apple had Applescript (as one example) in their browsers by then already (as of 1993, a year earlier). While there may not have been many apps using it the way his was, that doesn't mean he was the first - why would Applescript have been developed and included in System7, if someone had not imagined its use? And someone somewhere on the planet was using AppleScript by the end of 1993 - even if it was just the people who, I dunno, developed the Applescript language in the first place.
the gas to take it there (and get back) was probably $2 anyway...
Re:Lamar Smith still needs to lose his job over th
on
House Kills SOPA
·
· Score: 1
it might be parts of austin, but it's the conservative parts (why doing massive power shifts means "conservative" nowadays, I still don't know...). He'll be re-elected - the fact that he's unopposed in the primary is because he's such a sure bet. Sorry.
(used to live in that district. Far from it now)
Why the fuck do I need to go online when I already have friends+family in the same room ??
Because this is the year 2012? I mean, I played HoMM1 back in the mid 90s myself, but...this isn't the mid-90s anymore, Toto.
2016 isn't 30 years from now. 30 years ago, people did put financial information on a computer, if the computer was capable of storing it securely. 30 years from now a bank can bite me if they think they can require my authentication information for external websites; the world uses facebook and google as identity services now, there's no way I'm giving someone other than me that little tiny string of characters that allows them to prove they're me. Pretty sure such a requirement is already illegal in most western countries, and would be legal in any remaining countries *long* before 30 years from now.
Yes. That's actually a sortof dumb question. If Lockheed Martin subcontracts a part, it's ok if it comes from a known terrorist group because LM is bigger? Think about what you're saying. Yes, code repository auditing is important. Yes, QA is important. I don't care if your employer is bigger than RedHat, it doesn't matter a hill of beans.
that's the point though - there are intentional mechanisms built into the DNA pathways that deliberately cause genetic mutations during stress events. That's not "natural selection." "Natural selection" only describes some things, and only on a meta level. When you get specific about a time period and a species, it stops being the meaningful agent for change; it plays a secondary, less interesting role. To think adaptation is only due to natural selection is to do great injustice to the amazing nature of DNA.
"The only thing it lacks is support, which the CIO doesn't want" There's more than that it lacks, even for the basic customer. Something more important (to me, at least) that it lacks - RHN. RHN is great. Yeah yeah, one can set up a spacewalk server and update locally. I know. But...why?
Another thing CentOS lacks which is extremely important in the industrys I tend to work in: certifications. Has CentOS been EAL certified at any level? No. Will the DoD let you use RedHat over CentOS? No. Will a PCI auditor be a fan of your use of CentOS for your externally-facing website that processes credit cards? No. Does CentOS have enterprise-level QA processes for each and every thing that they are (because they are...) modifying? No. Would the FDA be happy with an OS vendor with no QA process? No. What's the indemnification that CentOS will give you in suits against Microsoft?
It's not as though the options are "CentOS" versus "Redhat with full support" after all. There's the self-support option, which just gets you access to allllllll the other things. And you can even be "that place" that has 500 servers but only bothers getting 50 seats...eh, whichever, won't really matter except for the indemnification part.
I mean, what industry are you in that the question is even worth pondering? If you handle money, sensitive material, or PHI you'll spend WAY more than that tiny self-support price in the bribes and obfuscation necessary to get ok'd with CentOS. I mean hell, Fedora has a more extensive QA process than CentOS. Maybe you should just tell your boss you agree with him so much you think you should use Fedora!
the reason this is interesting (or, moreso than what we've long observed...) is that it's an animal, as others have pointed out. Mere selection isn't enough; that implies there was already, without the toxis sludge, fish swimming around who had the natural resistence to it. The reality is that our DNA is more complicated than that, and it instead seems designed (err...apologies, truly the best word for it) to respond to stress by not just having some sort of random mutation and hoping for the best...but instead to have mutations that benefit them. This happens far more often than the random mutations that would have just happened to been better suited to the changing environment. Meaning - something other than Darwin. Yes, natural selection has a big impact. But sometimes - especially in short periods of time - darwinian evolution is not at all sufficient to maintain a system, or explain the changes that take place.
did you RTFA, at all? I mean really, it was quite short. Maybe it would help shed light on some of these things for you.
According to legendary Apple programmer Andy Hertzfeld, Jobs even in the early 80â(TM)s was keen on discarding license plates and parking in Handicap spots. I could be wrong, but I don't think he was dying of cancer 30 years ago.
sure. And unicorns could pour out of it. The scientists who study these things however feel as though this particular volcano needs to be active for 300,000 years before errupting. Not dead - actively building up pressure. That it just happens to be approximately the same amount of time since last erruption as it would take to build up again is merely coincidence. Say it takes you 10 minutes to take a shower. 10 minutes after you get out of the shower, does that mean you're just about done with your next shower? No - you're no longer showering. The scientists think it takes 300,000 years for this volcano to take a shower. They didn't realize the water was turned on at all, but hey - now they know, cool, see you in a loooooooong time when you erupt, yo.
#1 the volcano is not a supervolcano. It is surrounded by them, but is not one itself.
#2 it doesn't errupt every 300,000 years...it is able to build up for 300,000 years. It could have only started building up 1,000 years ago, or maybe 280,000, who knows.
A scientist on the team that notice the growth was quoted as saying "It's not a volcano that we think is going to erupt at any moment, but it certainly is interesting, because the area was thought to be essentially dead."
Since it appeared to be dead, it most likely has not been building since the day of the last erruption - there was a dormant period. It can build for 300,000 years. It last errupted 300,000 years ago. IE - evolutionarily speaking, homo sapiens won't exist by the time this thing errupts. And maybe, while evolving, we will have learned to spreading FUD.
point out a "cure" for a single virus. Any of them. You don't think people are working on that? I mean, even just a cure for the flu would many millions of lives...
depends on what those actions are. If we're trying to restore sustainability and natural systems, mucking around with it too forcefully or changing our activities too quickly could do substantial damage as well. The environment has somewhat adjusted to us, after all.
well go you for having a workflow that is tethered, I guess. Me, I like laptops that can last an entire workday without being plugged in. Being able to just walk in to any mall in the US and have it your system fixed in minutes works better for my workflow, too - I prefer that over non-english-speaking script-readers in 3rd world countries taking hours of my time just to figure out that yes, I did try plugging the machine in. Call me crazy. If your only need is to browse the web and watch movies, then you can use a phone for that - or, an iPad.:P
look at the specs on a macbook - what it actually does. Now, find those same specs on a dell, hp, etc. Compare. Be sure to factor in things like battery life of 8-10 hrs, stores across the country that will fix or swap out your defective laptop with no hassle. I dropped a macbook a month after warranty expired - went into a store, when I walked out I had a new one. Made the mistake of getting an HP laptop recently - can't get service at all, the thing has lots of problems, etc, etc. Overpriced? Really? They're a bloody steal of a bargain.
Slashdot Mirror
Only in the minds of people who have swallowed the capitalism BS hook, line, and sinker.
While it may be a niche, there's a reason Trader Joes does so well with what is basically providing approx the same number of things, but fewer brands per thing, as a large clusterfark of a grocery store. Competition does not mean better per se - in fact, it could mean nothing more than the mess we have now, where a corporation has to continuously drop their costs and improve their profit margin, all the while convincing you via marketting that their product is superior to all the other 5,000,000 products exactly like it. If instead we could maximize efficiencies of distribution, manufacturing, and design by focusing on just a very few brands for a particular product, then that product would actually improve.
Android's biggest problem has always been the splintered, fractured distribution of the platform. All those options...the AT&T version, the Verison version, etc - all have to twist the crap around for marketing reasons - causing new bugs and problems. Can have the same phone with two different carriers, same version of android, but the images be entirely different. That's "more options" for ya. Diversity of brands just for the sake of diversity is fail.
what icebrain said. Plus, they go after (and get) massive fines for people that do just a few movies. And, it's not our fault that hollywood wants bigger explosions - productions like "Dr Horrible's Sing Along Blog" were fun and different, while very cheap to make. I don't buy that they need to spend hundreds of millions to get us to watch a movie, nor do I buy that the actors are worth dozens of millions in pay, nor do I buy that every movie needs to be a blockbuster. But maybe I'm crazy - I like botique wineries, for example - the mass-produced, must-be-loved-by-a-large-portion crap is generally too watered down and meaningless to me. I don't get the appeal of such as a beiber - didn't that haircut exist on a group of guys out of england a few decades ago, who made girls scream? I can still listen to their songs now - for what do I need a beiber? Hollywood is a hype engine, and consumers eat it up. Hollywood could go back to producing quality pictures, and not getting $100M the opening weekend. They want the hype, they need the hype, they make the hype. It's hollow, it's a false cost base, etc. And MPAA - just a legal group that works as a hype engine, putting $150k fines per movie against people.
any particular reason one can't do this? A much more direct approach, healthier, more environmentally friendly, and doesn't have that extra-added danger of eating the product of extreme genetic modification...
people are modding it up because the coolest people they know were well indoctrinated. Hell, I'm an anarchist, but at least I'm not stupid enough to blame Iran and NK's nuclear ambitions on a man who wasn't even governor of Texas yet, much less even running for president, when Iran and NK were already well on the path to those goals (such as the afore-mentioned Carter convo).
do you have any sense at all in your myopic viewpoint how short-lived this problem is? There were "signs" a few decades ago (esp in the meat production industry) but almost all of the US had no exposure or experience with this phenomenon until something less than two decades ago. We have no way to elect leaders of industry, or remove them, described in law. We're getting close to a revolution ourselves likely, only it won't be based on silly geographic or false political divide - it will be based on those who have had enough, versus those who for some reason are willing to defend the 0.1% (because it wasn't even 1%) that made the decisions that got us here. There's a LOT of inertia to fight, and absolutely no historical frame of reference on how to do it short of outright violence, in the history of mankind.
the "west" didn't make that decision - a very tiny tiny percentage of short-term-profit-maximizing execs made that decision. Casting that net on the "west" makes pretty much zero sense. And just to beat your potential retort - no, the (er..shall I use the term?) 99% did /not/ reap the short-term benefit of that. They lost their jobs and their homes.
sortof. If both sides can instantly know a rapidly changing value, that value can be used to both encrypt and compress communication. The fact that it isn't controllable doesn't mean that it can't be used for such things.
As has already been mentioned above multiple times, Apple had Applescript (as one example) in their browsers by then already (as of 1993, a year earlier). While there may not have been many apps using it the way his was, that doesn't mean he was the first - why would Applescript have been developed and included in System7, if someone had not imagined its use? And someone somewhere on the planet was using AppleScript by the end of 1993 - even if it was just the people who, I dunno, developed the Applescript language in the first place.
the gas to take it there (and get back) was probably $2 anyway...
it might be parts of austin, but it's the conservative parts (why doing massive power shifts means "conservative" nowadays, I still don't know...). He'll be re-elected - the fact that he's unopposed in the primary is because he's such a sure bet. Sorry. (used to live in that district. Far from it now)
Why the fuck do I need to go online when I already have friends+family in the same room ?? Because this is the year 2012? I mean, I played HoMM1 back in the mid 90s myself, but...this isn't the mid-90s anymore, Toto.
2016 isn't 30 years from now. 30 years ago, people did put financial information on a computer, if the computer was capable of storing it securely. 30 years from now a bank can bite me if they think they can require my authentication information for external websites; the world uses facebook and google as identity services now, there's no way I'm giving someone other than me that little tiny string of characters that allows them to prove they're me. Pretty sure such a requirement is already illegal in most western countries, and would be legal in any remaining countries *long* before 30 years from now.
Yes. That's actually a sortof dumb question. If Lockheed Martin subcontracts a part, it's ok if it comes from a known terrorist group because LM is bigger? Think about what you're saying. Yes, code repository auditing is important. Yes, QA is important. I don't care if your employer is bigger than RedHat, it doesn't matter a hill of beans.
that's the point though - there are intentional mechanisms built into the DNA pathways that deliberately cause genetic mutations during stress events. That's not "natural selection." "Natural selection" only describes some things, and only on a meta level. When you get specific about a time period and a species, it stops being the meaningful agent for change; it plays a secondary, less interesting role. To think adaptation is only due to natural selection is to do great injustice to the amazing nature of DNA.
"The only thing it lacks is support, which the CIO doesn't want"
There's more than that it lacks, even for the basic customer. Something more important (to me, at least) that it lacks - RHN. RHN is great. Yeah yeah, one can set up a spacewalk server and update locally. I know. But...why?
Another thing CentOS lacks which is extremely important in the industrys I tend to work in: certifications. Has CentOS been EAL certified at any level? No. Will the DoD let you use RedHat over CentOS? No. Will a PCI auditor be a fan of your use of CentOS for your externally-facing website that processes credit cards? No. Does CentOS have enterprise-level QA processes for each and every thing that they are (because they are...) modifying? No. Would the FDA be happy with an OS vendor with no QA process? No. What's the indemnification that CentOS will give you in suits against Microsoft?
It's not as though the options are "CentOS" versus "Redhat with full support" after all. There's the self-support option, which just gets you access to allllllll the other things. And you can even be "that place" that has 500 servers but only bothers getting 50 seats...eh, whichever, won't really matter except for the indemnification part.
I mean, what industry are you in that the question is even worth pondering? If you handle money, sensitive material, or PHI you'll spend WAY more than that tiny self-support price in the bribes and obfuscation necessary to get ok'd with CentOS. I mean hell, Fedora has a more extensive QA process than CentOS. Maybe you should just tell your boss you agree with him so much you think you should use Fedora!
the reason this is interesting (or, moreso than what we've long observed...) is that it's an animal, as others have pointed out. Mere selection isn't enough; that implies there was already, without the toxis sludge, fish swimming around who had the natural resistence to it. The reality is that our DNA is more complicated than that, and it instead seems designed (err...apologies, truly the best word for it) to respond to stress by not just having some sort of random mutation and hoping for the best...but instead to have mutations that benefit them. This happens far more often than the random mutations that would have just happened to been better suited to the changing environment. Meaning - something other than Darwin. Yes, natural selection has a big impact. But sometimes - especially in short periods of time - darwinian evolution is not at all sufficient to maintain a system, or explain the changes that take place.
did you RTFA, at all? I mean really, it was quite short. Maybe it would help shed light on some of these things for you.
According to legendary Apple programmer Andy Hertzfeld, Jobs even in the early 80â(TM)s was keen on discarding license plates and parking in Handicap spots.
I could be wrong, but I don't think he was dying of cancer 30 years ago.
sure. And unicorns could pour out of it. The scientists who study these things however feel as though this particular volcano needs to be active for 300,000 years before errupting. Not dead - actively building up pressure. That it just happens to be approximately the same amount of time since last erruption as it would take to build up again is merely coincidence. Say it takes you 10 minutes to take a shower. 10 minutes after you get out of the shower, does that mean you're just about done with your next shower? No - you're no longer showering. The scientists think it takes 300,000 years for this volcano to take a shower. They didn't realize the water was turned on at all, but hey - now they know, cool, see you in a loooooooong time when you erupt, yo.
#1 the volcano is not a supervolcano. It is surrounded by them, but is not one itself.
#2 it doesn't errupt every 300,000 years...it is able to build up for 300,000 years. It could have only started building up 1,000 years ago, or maybe 280,000, who knows.
A scientist on the team that notice the growth was quoted as saying "It's not a volcano that we think is going to erupt at any moment, but it certainly is interesting, because the area was thought to be essentially dead."
Since it appeared to be dead, it most likely has not been building since the day of the last erruption - there was a dormant period. It can build for 300,000 years. It last errupted 300,000 years ago. IE - evolutionarily speaking, homo sapiens won't exist by the time this thing errupts. And maybe, while evolving, we will have learned to spreading FUD.
err...if for some reason the volcano does errupt on that day, we won't need to shut them up.
point out a "cure" for a single virus. Any of them. You don't think people are working on that? I mean, even just a cure for the flu would many millions of lives...
The question is tongue-in-cheek, and is "worthless" due to an implied answer.
depends on what those actions are. If we're trying to restore sustainability and natural systems, mucking around with it too forcefully or changing our activities too quickly could do substantial damage as well. The environment has somewhat adjusted to us, after all.
well go you for having a workflow that is tethered, I guess. Me, I like laptops that can last an entire workday without being plugged in. Being able to just walk in to any mall in the US and have it your system fixed in minutes works better for my workflow, too - I prefer that over non-english-speaking script-readers in 3rd world countries taking hours of my time just to figure out that yes, I did try plugging the machine in. Call me crazy. If your only need is to browse the web and watch movies, then you can use a phone for that - or, an iPad. :P
look at the specs on a macbook - what it actually does. Now, find those same specs on a dell, hp, etc. Compare. Be sure to factor in things like battery life of 8-10 hrs, stores across the country that will fix or swap out your defective laptop with no hassle. I dropped a macbook a month after warranty expired - went into a store, when I walked out I had a new one. Made the mistake of getting an HP laptop recently - can't get service at all, the thing has lots of problems, etc, etc. Overpriced? Really? They're a bloody steal of a bargain.