Members of the military forces are, by the same argument, part of the Executive branch. Should they be forbidden from holding office in the Legislature, ever?
You do get to pick a job that involves killing innocent people. There is no military draft in US now, all those people volunteered for this, all decided that it's OK to accept money, promise of education, etc. for participating in wars of aggression. That makes them valid targets (and war criminals -- war of aggression is a war crime, if you didn't know).
You don't get to pick where you get deployed. People join the military for all kinds of reasons.
And all those reasons are shit compared to a single death at the hands of those people.
Okay, not some stupid bitch. But it's still customary to describe a person's relation to the topic being discussed, and her position at Princeton means absolutely nothing in the context of this. Nor any explanation is given (by summary, interviewer or her) what kind of "plan" is this -- some kind of contract-backed policy decision, lobbying for a law that would make it mandatory, or two guys from AT&T and Comcast discussing it over beer.
First and foremost, this is what they do in a war, kill people. Anyone in a military either accepts that he can, and should, die for whatever he is fighting for, or deludes himself.
In a war of aggression it also means that they kill people who never were a threat to them, and in Afghanistan they do it for a decade already. They have placed their lives outside of any sane value system. For all practical purposes they are monsters.
Were you trying to make some kind of a point here?
The community to be built is more like linkedin rather than facebook. Targeted not to the masses but to future professionals. It is the same think that Solidworks is doing with First. That is community of robot builders that will form a clique well into early professional life and will insure Solidworks sales.
Linkedin is a community without communications. It's basically for people to announce their presence. It helps to maintain a list of connections and keeping resume posted in some accessible way, but it does not encourage participants to do anything, least of all to copy each other's preferences and idiosyncrasies. The best Autodesk can do with it is "hey, see, there are so many people claim that they used AutoCAD for something!"
If Autodesk's current effort to maintain dominance will continue succeeding, it would be unnecessary. If Autodesk's current effort to maintain dominance will fail, it would not help a single bit.
25-30 years of "hey, doing stuff is for poor people!". 60 if you count the whole post-WWII "let's just print shitloads of money because foreigners use them". 90 if you count financial industry pretending to be the economy. And I can't say that things before that were in any way healthy, either.
You're right about the corporate-orientated business plan though. But what do you expect when their main clients are architects and planners? They market to the segment that buys their software. Don't shoot them for that.
You mean, they market to the only segment that can afford their software because it's overpriced? Ex: Altium, who destroyed the whole hobbyist EDA software market by buying up everything from it, and only selling it in one over-expensive, bundle.
"Bring their modules" to the Mac... implies you're a bitter Mac-head who'd LIKE to run AutoCAD if you could... maybe you should have bought a few components which would have cost half what your Mac cost and assembled them yourself, then you could have the same toys as me, no?
I probably could care less about OSX and all software that runs on it, but that won't be much.
OSX port could indicate that company is committed to cross-platform development, what usually means sane file formats and modularity. What would, in its turn, mean Linux port being feasible (that I DO care about), and possibility of standardized interfaces and protocols usable by other software (what would be VERY HELPFUL with some project I know, that involves 3D, architecture, mechanical design and simulation).
There are three companies that would be worse than Autodesk in this role:
1. DSS. 2. Altium. 3. Microsoft.
I mean, of all things, Autodesk? The guys who make poorly designed, expensive CAD program that only keeps its market dominance because of its semi-documented, closed file format? One that ported its engine to OSX but "forgot" to bring any of the modules that make their software in any way useful?
That never ever touched Linux (and is worse than Solidworks with Wine)? That abandoned all Unix ports of their software many, many versions ago? (well, Pro/Engineer and CATIA bested them by abandoning an existing Linux port, apparently just to spite users).
That never did, nor ever promised to give a fuck about any "community" other than corporate managers who make purchasing decisions?
That never ever open sourced anything?
That thinks, anyone sane would use crippled "free" tools specifically made to frustrate the user, to do design of anything that matters?
No, because protesting involves EXPRESSING WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU AGAINST, AND WHY.
So far, "protests" look more like "we hate everything about everything here, and hope some foreign invaders will replace it with something we will like".
Let the touchy and delusional Mactard faggot who can't bear anything bad, no matter how truthful, to ever be said against his beloved corporate god come out of the closet.
"Use best tool for the job" is now a code word for "Hey, look, Microsoft has some shiny thing we want you to use -- we promise, it's better than what you use now!"
Slashdot Mirror
n/t
Due to AIDS.
(actually breaking Zynga games will be both spectacular and somewhat effective)
Members of the military forces are, by the same argument, part of the Executive branch. Should they be forbidden from holding office in the Legislature, ever?
Yes.
Shut up with the war criminal talk; it devalues the label when it actually happens.
No, it does not. War of aggression is a war crime. Deal with it.
You don't get to pick where you get deployed.
You do get to pick a job that involves killing innocent people. There is no military draft in US now, all those people volunteered for this, all decided that it's OK to accept money, promise of education, etc. for participating in wars of aggression. That makes them valid targets (and war criminals -- war of aggression is a war crime, if you didn't know).
You don't get to pick where you get deployed. People join the military for all kinds of reasons.
And all those reasons are shit compared to a single death at the hands of those people.
Okay, not some stupid bitch. But it's still customary to describe a person's relation to the topic being discussed, and her position at Princeton means absolutely nothing in the context of this. Nor any explanation is given (by summary, interviewer or her) what kind of "plan" is this -- some kind of contract-backed policy decision, lobbying for a law that would make it mandatory, or two guys from AT&T and Comcast discussing it over beer.
First and foremost, this is what they do in a war, kill people. Anyone in a military either accepts that he can, and should, die for whatever he is fighting for, or deludes himself.
In a war of aggression it also means that they kill people who never were a threat to them, and in Afghanistan they do it for a decade already. They have placed their lives outside of any sane value system. For all practical purposes they are monsters.
I mean, other than some stupid bitch?
What value do you place on human life?
Depends on the humans. Foreign invaders, waging aggressive war on behalf of corrupt politicians and rich companies? Their value would be negative.
lol
[fluff skipped]
Were you trying to make some kind of a point here?
The community to be built is more like linkedin rather than facebook. Targeted not to the masses but to future professionals. It is the same think that Solidworks is doing with First. That is community of robot builders that will form a clique well into early professional life and will insure Solidworks sales.
Linkedin is a community without communications. It's basically for people to announce their presence. It helps to maintain a list of connections and keeping resume posted in some accessible way, but it does not encourage participants to do anything, least of all to copy each other's preferences and idiosyncrasies. The best Autodesk can do with it is "hey, see, there are so many people claim that they used AutoCAD for something!"
If Autodesk's current effort to maintain dominance will continue succeeding, it would be unnecessary.
If Autodesk's current effort to maintain dominance will fail, it would not help a single bit.
Their software, not things they bought. AutoCAD ran on Unix before they microsof-ified its interfaces.
sweaty armpits
Now you will never be able to deport Ballmer. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Blender DID replace its GUI, you imbecile.
But Blender is not a CAD program.
last 10 years
25-30 years of "hey, doing stuff is for poor people!". 60 if you count the whole post-WWII "let's just print shitloads of money because foreigners use them". 90 if you count financial industry pretending to be the economy. And I can't say that things before that were in any way healthy, either.
ecosystem
lol
When the article is not vague, it is plain wrong.
Recently I made teo rather trollishly titled posts on the same subject, on my Livejournal:
http://abelits.livejournal.com/41968.html
http://abelits.livejournal.com/42052.html
Seeing how even supposedly knowledgeable developers post unreadable, vague opinion pieces, I think, I will have to add more to those.
You're right about the corporate-orientated business plan though. But what do you expect when their main clients are architects and planners? They market to the segment that buys their software. Don't shoot them for that.
You mean, they market to the only segment that can afford their software because it's overpriced? Ex: Altium, who destroyed the whole hobbyist EDA software market by buying up everything from it, and only selling it in one over-expensive, bundle.
"Bring their modules" to the Mac... implies you're a bitter Mac-head who'd LIKE to run AutoCAD if you could... maybe you should have bought a few components which would have cost half what your Mac cost and assembled them yourself, then you could have the same toys as me, no?
I probably could care less about OSX and all software that runs on it, but that won't be much.
OSX port could indicate that company is committed to cross-platform development, what usually means sane file formats and modularity. What would, in its turn, mean Linux port being feasible (that I DO care about), and possibility of standardized interfaces and protocols usable by other software (what would be VERY HELPFUL with some project I know, that involves 3D, architecture, mechanical design and simulation).
There are three companies that would be worse than Autodesk in this role:
1. DSS.
2. Altium.
3. Microsoft.
I mean, of all things, Autodesk? The guys who make poorly designed, expensive CAD program that only keeps its market dominance because of its semi-documented, closed file format? One that ported its engine to OSX but "forgot" to bring any of the modules that make their software in any way useful?
That never ever touched Linux (and is worse than Solidworks with Wine)? That abandoned all Unix ports of their software many, many versions ago? (well, Pro/Engineer and CATIA bested them by abandoning an existing Linux port, apparently just to spite users).
That never did, nor ever promised to give a fuck about any "community" other than corporate managers who make purchasing decisions?
That never ever open sourced anything?
That thinks, anyone sane would use crippled "free" tools specifically made to frustrate the user, to do design of anything that matters?
It's only "obvious" to Americans -- for them every protest is "for democracy".
No, because protesting involves EXPRESSING WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU AGAINST, AND WHY.
So far, "protests" look more like "we hate everything about everything here, and hope some foreign invaders will replace it with something we will like".
Silently standing and clapping hands -- that brings passive-aggressive behavior to the whole new level!
Hi, hairyfeet, get a cancer.
(hairyfeet is one of the most prominent Microsoft astroturfers here).
Let the touchy and delusional Mactard faggot who can't bear anything bad, no matter how truthful, to ever be said against his beloved corporate god come out of the closet.
gb2/g/
Microsoft.
"Use best tool for the job" is now a code word for "Hey, look, Microsoft has some shiny thing we want you to use -- we promise, it's better than what you use now!"