If you can do a better job coding, owning, and making key decisions, then fork the project and demonstrate.
If you can't fork because you need Sun's expertise, then maybe you should admit that Sun deserves to participate on their own terms, just as you participate on yours.
For years I've been amazed at how people will whine and whine about the direction an Open Source project is taking, rather than just demonstrating that another direction is better. The people doing the work are exercising their freedom to do whatever they want however they want it done. If you don't like it, not only is nobody making you participate, but lots of people have invested lots of work in giving you the freedom to do it the way you want to, instead.
It worked for EGCS and X.org. But 99% of the time, it's just whiners whining that they don't have control. Power and control don't matter in Open Source; we all have equal power. You have the power to control your own version, and if that's truly holding the project that you're whining about back, then obviously once you unleash your new vision of project management yours will blow away the one you're whining about.
It'd also help if they'd clarify their terminology:
a browser could be tricked into sending malformed data to Firefox.
Firefox is a browser, last I checked. So if I'm not using another browser, no browsers will be sending any data to firefox, and I'll therefore be safe, right? This doesn't make any sense. What are they really trying to say?
The red cross was one of our biggest offenders (alongside Weber-shaped grills, Olympic rings, cars that looked too much like Beetles, etc.).
What a list. Not having the liberty to print images that look like these common things that mean a lot to a lot of people is one of the things that governments do that make the world really suck.
Even the quote you mention was just part of the degradation of that great country, as it was convinced to put more and more of its confidence in its rulers and expanded political power.
This way every time you load your Internet browser you will save a little bit of energy.
Actually every time you load your browser you will consume a little bit of energy. It's just that you might possibly (doubtfully, in truth) consume a little less. I'm not sure that really counts as saving. Saving would be not loading your browser at all and going outside or something.
government bureaucracies are easy to pay off and control by the wealthy few.
Case in point: stevia is not approved for use as a sweetener in the U.S., in violation of established standards of accepting products with a long history of use as "Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS). But then Coca-Cola decides they want to market a version of it, and suddenly the product is fast-tracked for approval.
In other words, the federal government protected Coca-Cola and other large companies from competition by startups interested in stevia, long enough for the larger, slower companies to take their time and finally decide to take the stevia market for themselves.
And along the way, the also protected the American consumer from the benefits of such competition.
It's worth mentioning that if such an agency is required, the free market can create it without any force, coercion, or theft (taxation as we know it) involved.
If there were a button I could push that would bring that about instantly I'd push it in a heartbeat. I'm confident that socialism has wreaked havoc on our road system, just as it does on education, healthcare, and everything else it touches.
Although since the property the roads were built on was obtained by theft, I don't think the government truly has the right to auction them off, so a better approach might be to attempt to turn over anything to previous owners of the property rights, and abandonment of the rest (allowing new people to claim it as property by taking over maintenance).
Furthermore, instead of running your mouth, I'd like to ask you to actually visit the first of those links the gp poster provided, scroll down to the bottom, and read the last two bills mentioned there. Explain to me again how this is only caring for oneself?
Those who care only for themselves, and have no consideration for the world around them, depress me.
What the heck are you talking about? I subscribe to the libertarian position because I care for the world around me. For this reason I follow all the laws imposed on me, while simultaneously trying to not impose laws on other people; I pay taxes, while simultaneously trying to prevent representatives who "represent" me from taxing other people. I submit to the system, while trying to prevent the system from growing in power in my name.
Explain to me again why that means I care only for myself?
One of the best descriptions I've seen on how our problems in the health care market have been caused is here, in an article that is actually about Wal-Mart.
Idiots who would rather destroy and vandalize than do something productive like spread the number around in the less conspicuous nooks and crannies of the internet
Numbers 2 and 3 are identical. And 3 is a fallacy. If you want to appeal Google's decisions, start your own search company. Do everything Google does, only fix the errors. Your site will therefore be better than Google, you'll beat them, and then you'll take over as market leader. By the way, that's what 2 means: Google is the market leader. So therefore, why would Google want to do anything about #3? They like being market leader. It's you who don't like that, so if you don't like it, do something about it other than asking Google to change it.
What if the students posted a fake Myspace profile for your child mentioning that he is homosexual and wants to become transgendered, enjoys copious amounts of Heroin and Steroids and frequently has sex with strangers. Is that such a minor act?
Yes. I'd tell anyone who asks that the Myspace profile is a fake. They'd likely believe me, if they know enough about me and/or my family to care. I went through similar crap in school and part of the solution is to learn that the fact that people happen to be born the same year as you and live in your geographic region as you does not mean that you should care what they think about you, or be educated with them. Therefore, my children won't be put through the government school system.
And if you're trying to report the truth that the earth moves around the sun, and all the credentialed writers (accredited by the world's best accrediting agency for such things, of course: the Catholic Church. And if you think somehow having government in charge of credentials is better you are fooling yourself) insist that your version is not true, what good will this system do? Credentials do not mean everything people think they mean.
Slashdot Mirror
Not when the complaint is "You're hogging control, and if you didn't, somebody else can do better."
If you can do a better job coding, owning, and making key decisions, then fork the project and demonstrate.
If you can't fork because you need Sun's expertise, then maybe you should admit that Sun deserves to participate on their own terms, just as you participate on yours.
For years I've been amazed at how people will whine and whine about the direction an Open Source project is taking, rather than just demonstrating that another direction is better. The people doing the work are exercising their freedom to do whatever they want however they want it done. If you don't like it, not only is nobody making you participate, but lots of people have invested lots of work in giving you the freedom to do it the way you want to, instead.
It worked for EGCS and X.org. But 99% of the time, it's just whiners whining that they don't have control. Power and control don't matter in Open Source; we all have equal power. You have the power to control your own version, and if that's truly holding the project that you're whining about back, then obviously once you unleash your new vision of project management yours will blow away the one you're whining about.
It'd also help if they'd clarify their terminology:
a browser could be tricked into sending malformed data to Firefox.Firefox is a browser, last I checked. So if I'm not using another browser, no browsers will be sending any data to firefox, and I'll therefore be safe, right? This doesn't make any sense. What are they really trying to say?
What a list. Not having the liberty to print images that look like these common things that mean a lot to a lot of people is one of the things that governments do that make the world really suck.
Even the quote you mention was just part of the degradation of that great country, as it was convinced to put more and more of its confidence in its rulers and expanded political power.
Actually every time you load your browser you will consume a little bit of energy. It's just that you might possibly (doubtfully, in truth) consume a little less. I'm not sure that really counts as saving. Saving would be not loading your browser at all and going outside or something.
Don't say that until you can read these two books and refute them:
You are correct, though, that gold is just a metal. No pseudoscience about it. Just real economics.
I don't believe that you and I have had children together.
(In other words, this is a decision that should be made by individual families.)
That kills your stream of new people finding your site through Google, doesn't it?
It also means I have a long drive and have to pay extra to get real Dr Pepper.
Case in point: stevia is not approved for use as a sweetener in the U.S., in violation of established standards of accepting products with a long history of use as "Generally Recognized As Safe" (GRAS). But then Coca-Cola decides they want to market a version of it, and suddenly the product is fast-tracked for approval.
In other words, the federal government protected Coca-Cola and other large companies from competition by startups interested in stevia, long enough for the larger, slower companies to take their time and finally decide to take the stevia market for themselves.
And along the way, the also protected the American consumer from the benefits of such competition.
It's worth mentioning that if such an agency is required, the free market can create it without any force, coercion, or theft (taxation as we know it) involved.
If there were a button I could push that would bring that about instantly I'd push it in a heartbeat. I'm confident that socialism has wreaked havoc on our road system, just as it does on education, healthcare, and everything else it touches.
Although since the property the roads were built on was obtained by theft, I don't think the government truly has the right to auction them off, so a better approach might be to attempt to turn over anything to previous owners of the property rights, and abandonment of the rest (allowing new people to claim it as property by taking over maintenance).
Furthermore, instead of running your mouth, I'd like to ask you to actually visit the first of those links the gp poster provided, scroll down to the bottom, and read the last two bills mentioned there. Explain to me again how this is only caring for oneself?
What the heck are you talking about? I subscribe to the libertarian position because I care for the world around me. For this reason I follow all the laws imposed on me, while simultaneously trying to not impose laws on other people; I pay taxes, while simultaneously trying to prevent representatives who "represent" me from taxing other people. I submit to the system, while trying to prevent the system from growing in power in my name.
Explain to me again why that means I care only for myself?
One of the best descriptions I've seen on how our problems in the health care market have been caused is here, in an article that is actually about Wal-Mart.
What do you think Digg is?
Numbers 2 and 3 are identical. And 3 is a fallacy. If you want to appeal Google's decisions, start your own search company. Do everything Google does, only fix the errors. Your site will therefore be better than Google, you'll beat them, and then you'll take over as market leader. By the way, that's what 2 means: Google is the market leader. So therefore, why would Google want to do anything about #3? They like being market leader. It's you who don't like that, so if you don't like it, do something about it other than asking Google to change it.
It's a shame that the definition of "obvious" isn't obvious.
Government law is so vague and subjective. It's complete crap.
The only way to really utilize open source flex is if we could get an open source bison.
There's a great book on the history and nature of money here. But personally, I think the humans have been trained in many respects, like the monkeys.
If you need to pare down the list, then you aren't hiring intelligently.
Yes. I'd tell anyone who asks that the Myspace profile is a fake. They'd likely believe me, if they know enough about me and/or my family to care. I went through similar crap in school and part of the solution is to learn that the fact that people happen to be born the same year as you and live in your geographic region as you does not mean that you should care what they think about you, or be educated with them. Therefore, my children won't be put through the government school system.
Recentism trumps classics. Film at eleven. Final update will be posted in a hundred years.
Wake me when somebody has enough perspective to really judge this.
And if you're trying to report the truth that the earth moves around the sun, and all the credentialed writers (accredited by the world's best accrediting agency for such things, of course: the Catholic Church. And if you think somehow having government in charge of credentials is better you are fooling yourself) insist that your version is not true, what good will this system do? Credentials do not mean everything people think they mean.