I don't know whether or not this is what the producer intended, but I thought that the acid-dropping was kind of foreshadowing what Steve Jobs would experience as CEO of Apple. During the acid-dropping, he talks about how everything is doing what he wants, that he's orchestrating the wind and the wheatfield...and then he just falls down and passes out. Like I said, I don't know if that was what the producer intended, but that's what I got out of it.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but aren't you just spreading your own FUD? Do you have any proof? I think this would definitely qualify for (F)ear and (U)ncertainty, if not (D)oubt. At least you made it clear that it was your opinion... But if you're criticizing someone else for spreading FUD, make sure you're not being a hypocrite.
There's already a guy over at MIT that's got everything you need. Technology Review has this article about him. He has a *really* nice setup, too much to describe hear. Oh, and it runs Linux (he said that Windoze made the processor run to hot)! Life doesn't get much better than this!!
According to this theory, you wouldn't have a problem with the following scenario:
Joe Smith tries out Linux, Apache, and Samba and thinks to himself, "A lot of people could use this combination, maybe even pay for it." So he writes out a little bit of code to "tie" the different services together and add some features, compiles the code, and sells the end product.
He is obviously within his rights because he did not steal or destroy the original source code of other programmers. The OSS people would protest because he broke their license, but that matters not.
I'm quite sure that this is not what you meant, but I'm having trouble seeing the difference. Could someone (preferably the author) clear this up for me??
You're right...although it was probably "technically" true, it wasn't morally true. Now where have I heard that argument before...oh yeah, "That depends on your definition of 'is'". Just trying to put things in perspective.
A double-negative (from my understanding...I'm not an English major) is a sentence that uses two negatives instead of one (i.e. "That doesn't make no sense"). In such a case, the negatives "cross-out" kind of like math ( --1 == 1), which is obviously not the intent of the sentence. If that was the intent, then the sentence could be written without the negatives (i.e. "That does make sense").
However, neither of these cases apply to our friend's sentence. An incorrect double negative means that one of the negatives should be removed to correct the sentence. It is impossible to remove any of the negatives from the sentence and retain the intended meaning:
"When you figure this out and correct the misspelling you will not appear to be someone who doesn't care if he can't write basic sentences without making spelling errors."
does not equal
"When you figure this out and correct the misspelling you will appear to be someone who doesn't care if he can't write basic sentences without making spelling errors."
nor does it equal
"When you figure this out and correct the misspelling you will not appear to be someone who does care if he can't write basic sentences without making spelling errors."
nor does it equal
"When you figure this out and correct the misspelling you will not appear to be someone who doesn't care if he can write basic sentences without making spelling errors."
The last one may seem a little fuzzy because the negative associated with "can" doesn't seem contribute to the sentence. Is "I care if I can fly" the same as "I care if I can't fly"? The difference is small, but I'm pretty sure that it's there (like I said, I'm not an English major).
Hope this helps. BTW, if there *are* any English majors out there, could you help us out by confirming or correcting my conclusion (after writing code, the English language seems fuzzy)?
I checked Amazon.com a couple of weeks ago and had the same problem; until I checked Fatbrain.com, which had it in stock and in my house faster than I could have downloaded Samba (with my dial-up connection).
Moral of the story: This is market competition at its finest; if one store doesn't have it, grab that ISBN number and check all of the other online stores - in about 5 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know whether or not this is what the producer intended, but I thought that the acid-dropping was kind of foreshadowing what Steve Jobs would experience as CEO of Apple. During the acid-dropping, he talks about how everything is doing what he wants, that he's orchestrating the wind and the wheatfield...and then he just falls down and passes out. Like I said, I don't know if that was what the producer intended, but that's what I got out of it.
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but aren't you just spreading your own FUD? Do you have any proof? I think this would definitely qualify for (F)ear and (U)ncertainty, if not (D)oubt. At least you made it clear that it was your opinion... But if you're criticizing someone else for spreading FUD, make sure you're not being a hypocrite.
There's already a guy over at MIT that's got everything you need. Technology Review has this article about him. He has a *really* nice setup, too much to describe hear. Oh, and it runs Linux (he said that Windoze made the processor run to hot)! Life doesn't get much better than this!!
Joe Smith tries out Linux, Apache, and Samba and thinks to himself, "A lot of people could use this combination, maybe even pay for it." So he writes out a little bit of code to "tie" the different services together and add some features, compiles the code, and sells the end product.
He is obviously within his rights because he did not steal or destroy the original source code of other programmers. The OSS people would protest because he broke their license, but that matters not.
I'm quite sure that this is not what you meant, but I'm having trouble seeing the difference. Could someone (preferably the author) clear this up for me??
You're right...although it was probably "technically" true, it wasn't morally true. Now where have I heard that argument before...oh yeah, "That depends on your definition of 'is'". Just trying to put things in perspective.
A double-negative (from my understanding...I'm not an English major) is a sentence that uses two negatives instead of one (i.e. "That doesn't make no sense"). In such a case, the negatives "cross-out" kind of like math ( --1 == 1), which is obviously not the intent of the sentence. If that was the intent, then the sentence could be written without the negatives (i.e. "That does make sense").
However, neither of these cases apply to our friend's sentence. An incorrect double negative means that one of the negatives should be removed to correct the sentence. It is impossible to remove any of the negatives from the sentence and retain the intended meaning:
"When you figure this out and correct the misspelling you will not appear to be someone who doesn't care if he can't write basic sentences without making spelling errors."
does not equal
"When you figure this out and correct the misspelling you will appear to be someone who doesn't care if he can't write basic sentences without making spelling errors."
nor does it equal
"When you figure this out and correct the misspelling you will not appear to be someone who does care if he can't write basic sentences without making spelling errors."
nor does it equal
"When you figure this out and correct the misspelling you will not appear to be someone who doesn't care if he can write basic sentences without making spelling errors."
The last one may seem a little fuzzy because the negative associated with "can" doesn't seem contribute to the sentence. Is "I care if I can fly" the same as "I care if I can't fly"? The difference is small, but I'm pretty sure that it's there (like I said, I'm not an English major).
Hope this helps. BTW, if there *are* any English majors out there, could you help us out by confirming or correcting my conclusion (after writing code, the English language seems fuzzy)?
I checked Amazon.com a couple of weeks ago and had the same problem; until I checked Fatbrain.com, which had it in stock and in my house faster than I could have downloaded Samba (with my dial-up connection).
Moral of the story: This is market competition at its finest; if one store doesn't have it, grab that ISBN number and check all of the other online stores - in about 5 minutes.