Spread across 24 pages and about as interesting as a dry dog turd. When you submit to slashdot and it gets rejected then some story about loser designs that didn't make it for good reason winds up as front page news it's quite an insult. What's the next article going to be about? Drug addicts that didn't make it to CEO of large tech companies? How about abacus designs that didn't sell? Not inane enough for you? Let's try pocket protector manufacturers that went broke.
Given the brain's ability to mold itself with use, I wonder whether this abnormality is a contributing factor of the psychopathic behavior, or a result of it?
Really? I guess it's just me but what I wonder is whether psychopath brains taste better to zombies, or normal ones?.....BRRRAAAIIINNNSSSSZZZZ
You don't understand - you call it your club, the enemy calls it his "Massive Ordinance Penetrator". We both know what you're really referring to and referring to it as heavy as a club, or a massive penetrator doesn't change the fact that you need little blue pills.
So, "it", is defined by what your primary goals are. I tend to prefer modified BSD/MIT style licenses myself, but the GPL certainly has a place for a lot of development models.
No. GPL is more open than BSD/MIT. Whether or not it is more open does not depend on whether your goal is to make it open.
People like to point out the irony of open licenses being stated in the form of restrictions. What they fail to understand is that the goal of the license isn't too allow ALL use (ie completely unrestricted). The goal is to prevent others from locking up the code so that others can't use it. In other words freedom doesn't mean freedom to do anything you like - it simply means not having your work locked up. In that sense GPL is certainly more free than BSD/MIT because GPL does not allow derivative work to be locked up.
I can't even say 'ext4', he just goes insane. Though he chuckles when I whisper 'ReiserFS', and opens another beer.
Perhaps a competitor has discovered this and hired someone to whisper "ReiserFS ReiserFS ReiserFS" in his ear repeatedly. That would explain the bugs. He's coding drunk.
Back in 1995, I was working as a salesman at Circuit City and sold a VCR to Steve Cohen, the guy who stole sex.com. He was bragging to me about how he'd been offered a million bucks for it but wasn't going to sell. Then he ended up returning the VCR. What a tool.
Aren't you a little old to be believing in the porn fairy?
The problem with money (and share stock) is that: 1) It does not distinquish between intangible resources (such as data) and resources hard physical limits
This is both a strength and a weakness. Being able to assign worth to intangibles is good because it encourages people to produce them. Being unable to reflect the physical world (resources) and equating the two is bad.
2) It takes time for supply and demand (plus regulation) to push prices up to accurately reflect the disappearance/scarcity of an important resource (even resources that we all collectively rely on for our survival such as air and water). In money very poorly reflects the intangible worth of very rare things.
One manifestation of this: Think about the number of species that have been hunted to extinction due to their worth. As the animal becomes rarer the price gets higher. Pretty soon all your Tigers have been converted into Tiger penis soup by poachers. Money does not capture the intagible worth of the species.
Wish I knew a better system. I don't. Any system that assigns worth is going to have flaws. Any system that measures the intagible risks failure to reflect reailty, but you need to be able to trade between the two, because people who produce intangible things still need tangible things like food, water and shelter (not to mention their wants).
Why is it that the moment you mention the environment, intelligent people turn into some bizzare combination between a sheep that's easily led and a parrot that repeats everything it's told?
Whether it's plastic shopping bags vs so called green bags that are not sturdy enough to be reused thousands of times as promsied, and don't decompose in landfill.......or banning incandescents and forcing the use fluro light bulbs that use mercury and are expensive compared to the incandescents, when LED technology is almost at the point of being able to truly give us something free........or destroying perfectly good components instead of running them into the ground just because they're energy efficient.
People seem to be willing to blindly accept what governments and corporations tell them is environmentally friendly without considering sunk costs, increased costs of manufacturing and disposal for the new technology. They don't seem to understand that there is often a fundamental conflict of interest (such as higher sale prices and profit margins on the newer so called green technologies). They're often willing to lecture others on the ways of the green world according to their own indoctrination.
It makes me sick. There should be major penalties for misrepresenting the environmental situation to make a profit.
I'm sorry but I have no idea who you're labeling as stupid people. The Iraqis whose country has been turned upside down and who cling to tribal and religious divisiveness or the US who invaded a country they didn't understand would not easily be stabilized? Either way it's a poor example as I wasn't talking about war - I was talking about civil laws protecting both the brilliant and the not so smart.
This one needs two people. The one stating the bullshit, and the one believing in it.;)
If I claim I own a bridge and that I'll sell it to you for a small fee, that also requires the other person to believe the bullshit, but it clearly is fraud. Fraud legislation is there to protect the weak/vulnerable/gullible too. If it wasn't it'd be the law of the jungle with the smartest person winning, and stupid people would have to resort to violence. You don't want to live ina world like that.
how about advertising that implies "If you drink this, you'll get a girl like the one in this ad!"?...
Fuck yes. It's called false advertising. It use to be prosecuted more vigorously. Ever since society let that slip, advertising has become a synonym for lying.
now I'm back to emacs. What convinced me was M-x tetris. I figured if it could do _that_, it was powerful enough for my current and future editing needs. And it is.
If you're bored at work you could run a graphical tetris game just like everyone else.
This is absurd. They used programs to create their Alpha Engine. Does that mean that whoever wrote those programs owns their engine? It'll never fly.
Even stupider, what if my search is a copyright word or term, or if the search results are? Does that mean I can type in "Mickey Mouse" and if their engine produces output relating to that character, all copyright works for the character now belong to Wolfram? All of a sudden no one will want to give them any data, because they don't wish to give away copyright.
Stephen Wolfram may have been great once, but that's not my current impression of him or his company.
Drug companies are a great example, and how patents should work. If it costs you half a billion dollars to bring the next wonder drug to market, we as a society have a vested interest in you making more than half a billion dollars back. We want you to be profitable, because we want you (and people like you) to keep producing wonder drugs. We provide legal protection to make you money because we want to provide you with an incentive to invest time and money.
What is the point if we as a society (ie almost everyone) can't afford the damn drug because to recoupe that money quickly they've made the price ridiculous???
This is a classic example of something that SHOULD be regulated. The drug company should not be permitted to lock the drug up or effectively lock it up by making the price unaffordable. But we STILL need to find a way to reward and compensate the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Spread across 24 pages and about as interesting as a dry dog turd. When you submit to slashdot and it gets rejected then some story about loser designs that didn't make it for good reason winds up as front page news it's quite an insult. What's the next article going to be about? Drug addicts that didn't make it to CEO of large tech companies? How about abacus designs that didn't sell? Not inane enough for you? Let's try pocket protector manufacturers that went broke.
Its worth nothing to me, and that's what I'll continue to pay. I don't pay for advertising and fluff. If I'm given it for free maybe I'll look.
Good luck to him. He's going to need it. Suicide is only a slight overstatement.
I know there will be a lot of "haters" regarding this.
The word you're looking for is "critics". "Haters" makes you sound like you're about 14 years old and skipped a lot of school.
Given the brain's ability to mold itself with use, I wonder whether this abnormality is a contributing factor of the psychopathic behavior, or a result of it?
Really? I guess it's just me but what I wonder is whether psychopath brains taste better to zombies, or normal ones?.....BRRRAAAIIINNNSSSSZZZZ
You don't understand - you call it your club, the enemy calls it his "Massive Ordinance Penetrator". We both know what you're really referring to and referring to it as heavy as a club, or a massive penetrator doesn't change the fact that you need little blue pills.
It depends on what you want to be open. ...
So, "it", is defined by what your primary goals are. I tend to prefer modified BSD/MIT style licenses myself, but the GPL certainly has a place for a lot of development models.
No. GPL is more open than BSD/MIT. Whether or not it is more open does not depend on whether your goal is to make it open.
People like to point out the irony of open licenses being stated in the form of restrictions. What they fail to understand is that the goal of the license isn't too allow ALL use (ie completely unrestricted). The goal is to prevent others from locking up the code so that others can't use it. In other words freedom doesn't mean freedom to do anything you like - it simply means not having your work locked up. In that sense GPL is certainly more free than BSD/MIT because GPL does not allow derivative work to be locked up.
I can't even say 'ext4', he just goes insane. Though he chuckles when I whisper 'ReiserFS', and opens another beer.
Perhaps a competitor has discovered this and hired someone to whisper "ReiserFS ReiserFS ReiserFS" in his ear repeatedly. That would explain the bugs. He's coding drunk.
It's idiotic, but there is in fact a market for nothing: if you are correctly positioned as a trusted supplier
Finally! An explanation for the RIAA/MPAA and other association's sense of entitlement that we can all understand!
Back in 1995, I was working as a salesman at Circuit City and sold a VCR to Steve Cohen, the guy who stole sex.com. He was bragging to me about how he'd been offered a million bucks for it but wasn't going to sell. Then he ended up returning the VCR. What a tool.
Aren't you a little old to be believing in the porn fairy?
I get it! Cops are all dumb, lazy, and technically illiterate!
They won't hire you if you're too smart.
No I'm not trolling I'm serious:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_56314.html
http://northernmuckraker.blogspot.com/2008/08/too-smart-to-be-cop.html
http://irradiatedcat.blogspot.com/2008/06/too-smart-to-be-cop.html
http://www.thepostroad.com/news/2000/20000912.new.london.pd.robert.jordan.html
How about one based on energy? That is the lowest common denominator.
How much energy is a musician or painter's work worth?
How would you differentiate between a specialist doctor and a GP? (Do you factor in the years of study)?
Not so simple.
I will literally shit myself if my government appoints a minister of puppies, pink ponies and day old baby ducklings.
Minister for the arts.
The problem with money (and share stock) is that:
1) It does not distinquish between intangible resources (such as data) and resources hard physical limits
This is both a strength and a weakness. Being able to assign worth to intangibles is good because it encourages people to produce them. Being unable to reflect the physical world (resources) and equating the two is bad.
2) It takes time for supply and demand (plus regulation) to push prices up to accurately reflect the disappearance/scarcity of an important resource (even resources that we all collectively rely on for our survival such as air and water). In money very poorly reflects the intangible worth of very rare things.
One manifestation of this: Think about the number of species that have been hunted to extinction due to their worth. As the animal becomes rarer the price gets higher. Pretty soon all your Tigers have been converted into Tiger penis soup by poachers. Money does not capture the intagible worth of the species.
Wish I knew a better system. I don't. Any system that assigns worth is going to have flaws. Any system that measures the intagible risks failure to reflect reailty, but you need to be able to trade between the two, because people who produce intangible things still need tangible things like food, water and shelter (not to mention their wants).
Why is it that the moment you mention the environment, intelligent people turn into some bizzare combination between a sheep that's easily led and a parrot that repeats everything it's told?
Whether it's plastic shopping bags vs so called green bags that are not sturdy enough to be reused thousands of times as promsied, and don't decompose in landfill.... ...or banning incandescents and forcing the use fluro light bulbs that use mercury and are expensive compared to the incandescents, when LED technology is almost at the point of being able to truly give us something free.... ....or destroying perfectly good components instead of running them into the ground just because they're energy efficient.
People seem to be willing to blindly accept what governments and corporations tell them is environmentally friendly without considering sunk costs, increased costs of manufacturing and disposal for the new technology. They don't seem to understand that there is often a fundamental conflict of interest (such as higher sale prices and profit margins on the newer so called green technologies). They're often willing to lecture others on the ways of the green world according to their own indoctrination.
It makes me sick. There should be major penalties for misrepresenting the environmental situation to make a profit.
I'm sorry but I have no idea who you're labeling as stupid people. The Iraqis whose country has been turned upside down and who cling to tribal and religious divisiveness or the US who invaded a country they didn't understand would not easily be stabilized? Either way it's a poor example as I wasn't talking about war - I was talking about civil laws protecting both the brilliant and the not so smart.
This one needs two people. The one stating the bullshit, and the one believing in it. ;)
If I claim I own a bridge and that I'll sell it to you for a small fee, that also requires the other person to believe the bullshit, but it clearly is fraud. Fraud legislation is there to protect the weak/vulnerable/gullible too. If it wasn't it'd be the law of the jungle with the smartest person winning, and stupid people would have to resort to violence. You don't want to live ina world like that.
how about advertising that implies "If you drink this, you'll get a girl like the one in this ad!"? ...
Fuck yes. It's called false advertising. It use to be prosecuted more vigorously. Ever since society let that slip, advertising has become a synonym for lying.
Misleading and deceiving people for notoriety and financial gain. How the fuck is this not fraud?
We were a high dollar, small staff company. Why should somewhere like CentOS be any different?
Perhaps because it's a hobby project???
now I'm back to emacs. What convinced me was M-x tetris. I figured if it could do _that_, it was powerful enough for my current and future editing needs. And it is.
If you're bored at work you could run a graphical tetris game just like everyone else.
....in my neighbourhood. That and/or terminally stupid. What else would you call not stopping for a red light at a busy intersection?
Survival is a terrible metric of intelligence. By that standard, lions and tigers and bears are the most intelligent species on the planet.
I've seen plenty of morons survive and even prosper.
This is absurd. They used programs to create their Alpha Engine. Does that mean that whoever wrote those programs owns their engine? It'll never fly.
Even stupider, what if my search is a copyright word or term, or if the search results are? Does that mean I can type in "Mickey Mouse" and if their engine produces output relating to that character, all copyright works for the character now belong to Wolfram? All of a sudden no one will want to give them any data, because they don't wish to give away copyright.
Stephen Wolfram may have been great once, but that's not my current impression of him or his company.
Drug companies are a great example, and how patents should work. If it costs you half a billion dollars to bring the next wonder drug to market, we as a society have a vested interest in you making more than half a billion dollars back. We want you to be profitable, because we want you (and people like you) to keep producing wonder drugs. We provide legal protection to make you money because we want to provide you with an incentive to invest time and money.
What is the point if we as a society (ie almost everyone) can't afford the damn drug because to recoupe that money quickly they've made the price ridiculous???
This is a classic example of something that SHOULD be regulated. The drug company should not be permitted to lock the drug up or effectively lock it up by making the price unaffordable. But we STILL need to find a way to reward and compensate the company.
I wouldn't aspire to be smarter than the village idiot. I'd hope that was a given.