I guess these cowboys did what they could to protect the museum, but "forgot" about other parts of culture, like the university library. Protecting that oil must have appeared as more important.
So they didn't protect a university library... you're using too much sarcasm, I can't tell which parts you are serious about. They attempted to preserve a museum. That is more than I would expect from any invading force, from any time period, in any place. You could say the military was too soft, and be just as right. I mean you just don't find that stuff in say, The Art of War.
On the bit about the Ministries of Oil, again, my sarcasm detector must be broken because this is a country entirely dependent on oil exports for income. _Obviously_ it was more important.
The story describes how the use of our usual scientific methods leads, very often, to failure. Such failures are measured in billions of dollars.
"The TV scientist who mutters sadly, "The experiment is a failure; we have failed to achieve what we had hoped for," is suffering mainly from a bad script writer. An experiment is never a failure solely because it fails to achieve predicted results. An experiment is a failure only when it also fails adequately to test the hypothesis in question, when the data it produces don't prove anything one way or another." - Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values
Are you judging scientific methods on their ability to generate income???
Bottom line: As we try to understand very complicated systems, we find that our old trusted techniques of reductionism and correlation don't do a very good job.
I don't get it, reductionism and correlation don't work well at a high level of complexity... ? Everything starts with a high level of complexity, that's why we employ reductionism. The world is complex at ANY scale. We wouldn't have come to this level of understanding if we gave up, and bowed down fearfully to irreducible chaos.
get wise, retailers. don't pull this shit, please! decades of this mattress syndrome has made mattress shopping as frustrating as used car shopping, and about as unpleasant. you want that image stuck to YOUR products and 'show rooms'?
You know... quite a lot of people get by fine without paying attention to the model name of their mattress, and just uh, lay down on them and buy one that feels 'good'.
I don't understand why you make shopping out to be so hard, anyone can tell you what the best thing to buy is./joke
You can always pay someone to make those decisions for you... shit, what a paradox.
What interests me is that you obviously don't own your own phone according to the gospel of Jobs. This is why I moved from Apple. Unless Apple Inc. wishes to give me a free phone, I OWN THE DAMN THING.
So go nuts with a soldering gun, but you don't own Apple's software.
You can make that little A5 chip or the other components do anything you want electrically, but nobody is compelled to give you software that logically does anything you think of simply because the hardware is programmable and Turing complete.
That goes for anything, not just Apple's gear. I'm sick of all this "you don't own it" bullcrap because some people feel entitled to development frameworks, flashing tools, specifications, etc. for anything with a programmable chip inside it. I'm sorry, that's actually giving most of you too much credit because you don't want to do actual work, you just want the software that someone else wrote to do what you want, probably for free./rant
Until what you wrote for for one doesn't work on the other. Java likes to say it's cross platform, but there's still lots of implementation specific hangups in the various JREs.
It is cross platform as much as C/C++ is portable.
I don't know why anyone would think either means no effort is ever required, because anyone can write a Java runtime or C compiler that doesn't work. It does't make the whole thing a lie.
I sincerely believe these techniques were studied and employed for a loooooooooong time prior to any sophisticated moral debate taking place, so it's probably safe to assume it has been covered a few times in the last couple thousand years.
There are plenty of cars that were technically hybrids, but when I bought a hybrid in 2009, the Prius was the *only* one which got a significant amount of power from its electric system. The rest were basically just gasoline engines with a little toy electric motor duct taped to them. The '09 Civic Hybrid I tested was particularly bad: larger gas engine than a Prius, 1/4 as much electric power, so it gets worse mileage, and with so little horsepower you feel like you're putting your life on the line every time you take an on-ramp.
What do you mean "technically" a hybrid? You just showed the difference between an emerging brand, an existing economy car brand, and a fucking SUV. You do realize there are several generally recognized classes of cars, and among them some are hybrids or have hybrid variants? On top of that, brand is everything to a car manufacturer. One company might sell cars competing in the same class, even with many parts in common, but under different brands with whatever added features customers expect from the brand.
'Civic' is not something you you look to for more than "just enough" performance, so why would the hybrid be different? For Christ's sake, the 2012 Civic has a 1.8-liter engine!
Look beyond the hybrid label, and check out the size of the electric power system. It matters.
Yah, uh thanks for the advice, I hope to god you numnuts out there aren't buying cars because of the, lets say, "sedan", or "pickup" label without understanding SOMETHING about how cars are built./facepalm
I know people really use this legal theory, but it's utter nonsense. When you do something on a US web site, do you bother with whether it complies with Chinese law? Cuban? Afghani? Should you? Of course not. The mere fact of plugging a network cable into something should not make it subject to the laws of every jurisdiction on the planet.
Every other kind of border, real and imagined (wait, aren't they all imaginary?) can be enforced with some degree of success, why not borders between information systems? The Internet is full of borders, but they're mostly not nationalized, yet. Nothing is 100% impervious, but that does't make it unsuccessful.
Can a country regulate information systems inside its borders? As well as it can anything else, for sure.
In the United States, there is a place you can stand on the border of four different states. I don't think there would be any doubt that business conducted there would be subject to each state's and federal laws as you passed over the borders, as trivial as it may seem. Blah, blah, satellites, blah, I know. A person making a high altitude drop into a country still crosses a border at some point and is subject to laws on the other side. Arbitrary borders are arbitrary.
What's "freedom of speech" worth if you cannot get heard? What's "freedom to information" worth if you cannot access any information but the one that you are "supposed" to get? What's freedom of conscience worth if you only get to hear the indoctrinations of the state-sanctioned church?
Technology might not be a right. But without it, some rights are quite meaningless.
Should an audience be provided to you if you cannot afford one?
I know this is hard to understand, but if you need to run an application to help you plant your crops, a device that doesn't happen to have a trendy metal bezel and won't play Angry Birds is still better than not planting your crops.
It's not about the device, it's about access to content.
If you REALLY need a a computer to help you plant crops, then couldn't you do far more for the same price or the same for less with a stationary computer?
You guys are really stretching your something is better than nothing logic here, there are lots of useless things in the world...
So if you're an Indian for whom an iPad costs the equivalent of a year's salary you should go without altogether, rather than have the best-in-breed? Sounds like a plan - Since I can't afford a Porsche I'll stick with walking.
I hate to point out the obvious, but for many people walking is NOT worth the money saved on a bike or used car. I think I could find evidence of this even in India, given a minute to google it...
There quite conceivably could be a table that is FREE, yet still not worth the effort to use it. If this isn't immediately obvious, you're thinking too hard.
Something's fundamentally wrong, though, if you can't click on a random link. OK, maybe there's a browser vulnerability from time to time, and given how many there have been, clicking on random links (especially on the seedier side of the web) might not be the smartest thing you can do - but if end users are supposed to have to worry about clicking on a link, then we (the techies) are letting them down big time.
Imagine being at the book store with your children, family, friends, etc. and thumbing though magazines to pass away the time. Now I know a streaker could AT ANY TIME run through the place and just wreck the friendly atmosphere, but he would be kicked out, and aside from that you wouldn't expect to randomly turn a magazine page to child porn, a rick roll, snuff film, man's stretched asshole, or other obscenity, unless you went to a place that sold those things.
Is it wrong to want little sanctuaries like that? I could go to another bookstore if I wanted, but I don't like sipping coffee with a book next to a rack of dildos. A little discretion, that's what people want. You can call it censorship or whatever if you want, but people want a little of that in public places, and that's what the Internet is.
I can appreciate the Internet for what it is, a weird private-public place, I do, but it's not being treated by most like the seedy underground cesspool it really is, and that bugs me. You SHOULD worry about clicking on a link - it was designed that way. It is analogous to the kind of physical places that make you want to take a bath after visiting. An AWESOME place for grey/black markets and all sorts of counter-culture memes. Places where you watch your back constantly, and most people rather not go.
Something IS fundamentally wrong with advocating it as a safe place for the public to do business and socialize. And we should stop laughing at people who get ripped off and abused by it. Nobody is "asking for" the kind of abuse you find on this network, and there is no safe alternative provided.
A tv that will cost twice as much as the next overpriced Sony and only lets you watch content approved by Apple. Oh and it will also use proprietary connectors so you can only connect it to other Apple devices.
I guess its the next logical progression from the iPod, iPad, and now iTv.
Sure, maybe an Apple TV is not the logical successor of the product called Apple TV but instead it will evolve from a mystical iOS device that only plays Apple approved content, and pigs will fly from my anus.
I get it. You hate stores that must approve of goods they sell, so you must make a lot of stuff yourself... Although you could build or program a turing complete machine to do almost anything imaginable, or pay someone to do that for you, it is more convenient to rant about what existing ones don't do (which is boundless), and hate whomever made them... You _love_ every flavor of the 'standard' USB port in use since the iPod dock connector... It is impossible to have an objective discussion about the quality & cost of consumer goods with you. You live with your parents.
OK, that LAST one is just a guess, but it's true isn't it, huh, huh?
It's amusing that you think the "Haters" will just not let people use what they find suits them best, when that is precisely Apple's strategy (not letting people just use what they find suits them best) and the reason the majority of "Haters" exist.
How much can you hate something for what it doesn't do?
Is it impossible for you to like Apple's products for _WHAT THEY DO_?
But in general.. most of the really valuable companies have really valuable software they keep under lock and key.
Even those Open Source companies you listed derive most of their real value from the bits they keep under lock and key.
They should keep _something_ close to their chest, because anyone can sell support... "official" support is delegated all the time to resellers, all they have to do is keep X number of people certified each year and make customers jump through enough hoops before escalating to the first party.
A reseller with sufficient sales channels can just take your product and cut their ties with you. See Oracle Enterprise Linux. What can RedHat do, they hardly have any control over their own product. For example, they can't promise sysfs stability between dot releases for Christ's sake. Sysfs is a _major_ gateway between the OS kernel and userland, it's the new/proc... but it's not like they have any better control over libc & sysctls. http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html/Online_Storage_Reconfiguration_Guide/index.html#Online_Storage_Reconfiguration_Guide-Preface Go ahead and follow the finger pointing to Documentation/sysfs-rules.txt like it suggests. Look up an example of Solaris 10's fcinfo, which is a very basic Fibre Channel reporting tool, and figure out how to implement that without breaking any rules. (it were easy, where are Linux's FC userland utilities?) That's where I'm at, expecting a yum update one day to break my scripts. Woo.
Anyways, my point there was they don't have control over their own product, and it does affect their customers.
Open Source ideals, while cool and all, just don't make good business sense. Unless software is completely tangental to your business, but then why would you be employing software developers? Ugh... I don't get it folks.
Overreach much? Here we have ICE, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, with their own squads dedicated to protecting intellectual property. I quote this straight from the horses mouth:
Is it really that easy to set up your own Exchange server? Does everyone around here keep a Windows server in a coloc somewhere so they can run Exchange?
I'm sorry did you get lost on the way to foxnews.com?
This is the news for nerds site that puts the latest Linux kernel milestone up on the front page. See these tags on the left side of the screen - cloud, hardware, linux, management, mobile, science, security, storage? Well, I'll tell you, it's not about weather, wood shop, business, exercise, personal defense, or closets.
This is (used to be) the place you go to FIND people who have servers in a colo somewhere, who might call you a pussy for finding difficulty in worse things than first party Windows software!
You didn't even read any of those linked pages did you? You just copied results from a microsoft+privacy query that sounded bad.
I mean Microsoft Passport? Well hi there 2001! We got ALL of this reeeeeeeeeel sceeeeery stuff from everyone ELSE.
Occupy is a result of what happens when enough people get sick of their bread and circuses - they might not be able to coherently word their grievances into a manifesto but they know they're generally unhappy
If the best you can sum up your opinion is "generally unhappy" then have more bread and circus. What else can you give an uneducated mob?
I don't get how bread and circuses is used in derogatory fashion like this anyway, not when you come right out and say they don't know what they want in the next sentence. How do you sate incoherent general unhappiness? These people are SCREAMING for more bread and circus!
If someone likes NASCAR more than economics, that's their OWN fault. Expect no sympathy from me, I'm self taught, so fuck off and watch a movie like everyone else.
It is really just another indication that BSD is completely harmless and no substitute at all, a library more than an alternative.
OH! Like Linux is so much better off here? With your reasoning we can write off all embedded Linux installs as "libraries".
In all practicality, Linux is most often a set of libraries and kernel implementing a POSIX interface for running portable software on a VM. It's easier to manage the VMs - be they from a cloud service or ESX, than any Linux based OS at this point. It truly is a gnat's dick away from being merely a checkbox in a VM provisioning wizard for "Generic POSIX compatibility". It's bloated with a mishmash of configuration syntaxes and services that don't matter. I can't wait till VMware/EMC gets this and extends their management interfaces into what's left of "Linux", their own version of CentOS, RHEL, OEL, whatever, because people really don't care which, and they could give a rats ass how wholesome it is because the first thing people do to a kickstart environment is gut it to a hollow shell anyway. There is no reason Linux administration should be any more complex than ESX administration. Linux administration is just overhead that gets between your hardware interface and the real applications you want to run.
What I refuse to agree with are the BSD pundits that pretends it is more popular and more free at the same time. You can either say you have a 5%+ market share of users with no freedoms, or a 0.01% market share with freedoms. But when they try to pretend they have 5%+ of the market enjoying those freedoms as if they were OSS users, it's being intellectually dishonest.
Apple has made "programmers" more likely to be nothing more than businessmen who have read a few coding books.
Headline might as well me "Prostitution makes partners sexy".
What is your suggestion then, less efficiency in return for less gain? I mean the market demands sexy prostitute partners... wait... is there even a moral high ground to take on software development, because morals out of the picture, everyone would pay cash for good sex.
So fucking what? Is the claim true or not? Can bottled water help prevent dehydration or not?
You're actually defending a law that says water can't help prevent dehydration.
ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO SAY THAT THIS ISN'T A DUMB DECISION OF EPIC MAGNITUDE?
Where do you draw the line? Coka Cola can help prevent dehydration too depending on how you look at it. At least it will put fluid into your body while lowering the overall amount of fluid it will retain. Sort of depends on how much fluid you'll need over what period of time. A lot of people don't understand dehydration, and a lot of people who think they do really don't.
You think it's so obvious, then why does it need to be said at all? It's not right to mislead people into thinking bottled water is more beneficial than tap water.
While I find the whole "let's escape our problems on Earth by migrating to space" fantasy interesting, I think it's worth remembering that, at our present rate of consumption, we will exhaust our planet's resources long before we're actually able to permanently survive somewhere else. For details, I'd suggest reading this excellent post from physicist Tom Murphy's "Do the Math" blog. It was featured on Slashdot a while back.
The basic point is that, given our current situation, proposing a future in space is essentially a distraction that ignores the problems we will absolutely have to solve here on Earth. Hawking is probably right in that, if we manage to survive long enough, we will eventually establish colonies on other worlds. But if we can't focus on immediate challenges here, we'll never get there.
In IT terms, this fantasy is like all the disaster recovery pseudo tests that assume the primary and people manning it never go away, and all the "we wouldn't need that in a DR scenario anyway" thinking as if the primary won't actually every go away, or only for a very short period of time.
I'm _not_ saying human expansion off this world is a bad idea, but nobody can minimize the tragedy of something happening to Earth.
We'd probably need two or three other well established worlds before anyone can think of shrugging off such a loss, and even then, Earth's problems would most likely always be your problems in the same way Greece and Italy fucks up the American stock markets:P
Slashdot Mirror
u.s. invaded, removed iraqi military and police. u.s. army took over in their place.
it was their responsibility to protect those cultural heritages. instead, they protected fucking oil fields.
a few pieces from those museums could buy years' worth of output from any given oil well. they were that important.
Exactly, we should have instead let 90% of their economy burn and left them to feed themselves by selling off their cultural heritage.
Dude, sober up a little before posting.
I guess these cowboys did what they could to protect the museum, but "forgot" about other parts of culture, like the university library. Protecting that oil must have appeared as more important.
So they didn't protect a university library... you're using too much sarcasm, I can't tell which parts you are serious about. They attempted to preserve a museum. That is more than I would expect from any invading force, from any time period, in any place. You could say the military was too soft, and be just as right. I mean you just don't find that stuff in say, The Art of War.
On the bit about the Ministries of Oil, again, my sarcasm detector must be broken because this is a country entirely dependent on oil exports for income. _Obviously_ it was more important.
"Iraq's largely state-run economy is dominated by the oil sector, which provides more than 90% of government revenue and 80% of foreign exchange earnings."
- https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html
The story describes how the use of our usual scientific methods leads, very often, to failure. Such failures are measured in billions of dollars.
"The TV scientist who mutters sadly, "The experiment is a failure; we have failed to achieve what we had hoped for," is suffering mainly from a bad script writer. An experiment is never a failure solely because it fails to achieve predicted results. An experiment is a failure only when it also fails adequately to test the hypothesis in question, when the data it produces don't prove anything one way or another."
- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values
Are you judging scientific methods on their ability to generate income???
Bottom line: As we try to understand very complicated systems, we find that our old trusted techniques of reductionism and correlation don't do a very good job.
I don't get it, reductionism and correlation don't work well at a high level of complexity... ?
Everything starts with a high level of complexity, that's why we employ reductionism.
The world is complex at ANY scale. We wouldn't have come to this level of understanding if we gave up, and bowed down fearfully to irreducible chaos.
Wait, what would you consider a 'good job' to be?
get wise, retailers. don't pull this shit, please! decades of this mattress syndrome has made mattress shopping as frustrating as used car shopping, and about as unpleasant. you want that image stuck to YOUR products and 'show rooms'?
You know... quite a lot of people get by fine without paying attention to the model name of their mattress, and just uh, lay down on them and buy one that feels 'good'.
I don't understand why you make shopping out to be so hard, anyone can tell you what the best thing to buy is. /joke
You can always pay someone to make those decisions for you... shit, what a paradox.
What interests me is that you obviously don't own your own phone according to the gospel of Jobs. This is why I moved from Apple. Unless Apple Inc. wishes to give me a free phone, I OWN THE DAMN THING.
So go nuts with a soldering gun, but you don't own Apple's software.
You can make that little A5 chip or the other components do anything you want electrically, but nobody is compelled to give you software that logically does anything you think of simply because the hardware is programmable and Turing complete.
That goes for anything, not just Apple's gear. I'm sick of all this "you don't own it" bullcrap because some people feel entitled to development frameworks, flashing tools, specifications, etc. for anything with a programmable chip inside it. I'm sorry, that's actually giving most of you too much credit because you don't want to do actual work, you just want the software that someone else wrote to do what you want, probably for free. /rant
Until what you wrote for for one doesn't work on the other. Java likes to say it's cross platform, but there's still lots of implementation specific hangups in the various JREs.
It is cross platform as much as C/C++ is portable.
I don't know why anyone would think either means no effort is ever required, because anyone can write a Java runtime or C compiler that doesn't work. It does't make the whole thing a lie.
It's "morality" as a consequence of "technolgy", the newly acquired opportunity to kill opponents without too much "political" risk.
*ahem*...
http://suntzusaid.com/book/13/20
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1%3A9-14&version=NIV
I sincerely believe these techniques were studied and employed for a loooooooooong time prior to any sophisticated moral debate taking place, so it's probably safe to assume it has been covered a few times in the last couple thousand years.
Below a given dose, nobody except crackpots thinks radiation causes problems. Above a certain dose, nobody except crackpots thinks radiation's safe.
Does the second class of people actually exist or did we create them to make the first group feel better?
Just saying... I don't think distribution of these crackpots among pro/anti-nuclear groups is uniform.
There are plenty of cars that were technically hybrids, but when I bought a hybrid in 2009, the Prius was the *only* one which got a significant amount of power from its electric system. The rest were basically just gasoline engines with a little toy electric motor duct taped to them. The '09 Civic Hybrid I tested was particularly bad: larger gas engine than a Prius, 1/4 as much electric power, so it gets worse mileage, and with so little horsepower you feel like you're putting your life on the line every time you take an on-ramp.
What do you mean "technically" a hybrid? You just showed the difference between an emerging brand, an existing economy car brand, and a fucking SUV. You do realize there are several generally recognized classes of cars, and among them some are hybrids or have hybrid variants? On top of that, brand is everything to a car manufacturer. One company might sell cars competing in the same class, even with many parts in common, but under different brands with whatever added features customers expect from the brand.
'Civic' is not something you you look to for more than "just enough" performance, so why would the hybrid be different? For Christ's sake, the 2012 Civic has a 1.8-liter engine!
Look beyond the hybrid label, and check out the size of the electric power system. It matters.
Yah, uh thanks for the advice, I hope to god you numnuts out there aren't buying cars because of the, lets say, "sedan", or "pickup" label without understanding SOMETHING about how cars are built. /facepalm
I know people really use this legal theory, but it's utter nonsense. When you do something on a US web site, do you bother with whether it complies with Chinese law? Cuban? Afghani? Should you? Of course not. The mere fact of plugging a network cable into something should not make it subject to the laws of every jurisdiction on the planet.
Every other kind of border, real and imagined (wait, aren't they all imaginary?) can be enforced with some degree of success, why not borders between information systems? The Internet is full of borders, but they're mostly not nationalized, yet. Nothing is 100% impervious, but that does't make it unsuccessful.
Can a country regulate information systems inside its borders? As well as it can anything else, for sure.
In the United States, there is a place you can stand on the border of four different states. I don't think there would be any doubt that business conducted there would be subject to each state's and federal laws as you passed over the borders, as trivial as it may seem. Blah, blah, satellites, blah, I know. A person making a high altitude drop into a country still crosses a border at some point and is subject to laws on the other side. Arbitrary borders are arbitrary.
What's "freedom of speech" worth if you cannot get heard? What's "freedom to information" worth if you cannot access any information but the one that you are "supposed" to get? What's freedom of conscience worth if you only get to hear the indoctrinations of the state-sanctioned church?
Technology might not be a right. But without it, some rights are quite meaningless.
Should an audience be provided to you if you cannot afford one?
I know this is hard to understand, but if you need to run an application to help you plant your crops, a device that doesn't happen to have a trendy metal bezel and won't play Angry Birds is still better than not planting your crops.
It's not about the device, it's about access to content.
If you REALLY need a a computer to help you plant crops, then couldn't you do far more for the same price or the same for less with a stationary computer?
You guys are really stretching your something is better than nothing logic here, there are lots of useless things in the world...
It doesn't seem worth it for the compromises made
So if you're an Indian for whom an iPad costs the equivalent of a year's salary you should go without altogether, rather than have the best-in-breed? Sounds like a plan - Since I can't afford a Porsche I'll stick with walking.
I hate to point out the obvious, but for many people walking is NOT worth the money saved on a bike or used car. I think I could find evidence of this even in India, given a minute to google it...
There quite conceivably could be a table that is FREE, yet still not worth the effort to use it. If this isn't immediately obvious, you're thinking too hard.
Something's fundamentally wrong, though, if you can't click on a random link. OK, maybe there's a browser vulnerability from time to time, and given how many there have been, clicking on random links (especially on the seedier side of the web) might not be the smartest thing you can do - but if end users are supposed to have to worry about clicking on a link, then we (the techies) are letting them down big time.
Imagine being at the book store with your children, family, friends, etc. and thumbing though magazines to pass away the time. Now I know a streaker could AT ANY TIME run through the place and just wreck the friendly atmosphere, but he would be kicked out, and aside from that you wouldn't expect to randomly turn a magazine page to child porn, a rick roll, snuff film, man's stretched asshole, or other obscenity, unless you went to a place that sold those things.
Is it wrong to want little sanctuaries like that? I could go to another bookstore if I wanted, but I don't like sipping coffee with a book next to a rack of dildos. A little discretion, that's what people want. You can call it censorship or whatever if you want, but people want a little of that in public places, and that's what the Internet is.
I can appreciate the Internet for what it is, a weird private-public place, I do, but it's not being treated by most like the seedy underground cesspool it really is, and that bugs me. You SHOULD worry about clicking on a link - it was designed that way. It is analogous to the kind of physical places that make you want to take a bath after visiting. An AWESOME place for grey/black markets and all sorts of counter-culture memes. Places where you watch your back constantly, and most people rather not go.
Something IS fundamentally wrong with advocating it as a safe place for the public to do business and socialize. And we should stop laughing at people who get ripped off and abused by it. Nobody is "asking for" the kind of abuse you find on this network, and there is no safe alternative provided.
>With TinyURL you are really in a bind as you must trust TinyURL itself to discover where the link goes.
That is why God made preview.tinyurl.com
So your God will ensure people with malicious intent will always use a URL shortener with a preview function? Sounds like a nice guy.
A tv that will cost twice as much as the next overpriced Sony and only lets you watch content approved by Apple. Oh and it will also use proprietary connectors so you can only connect it to other Apple devices.
I guess its the next logical progression from the iPod, iPad, and now iTv.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/march/electronics-computers/tv-online/digital-set-top-boxes/index.htm
Sure, maybe an Apple TV is not the logical successor of the product called Apple TV but instead it will evolve from a mystical iOS device that only plays Apple approved content, and pigs will fly from my anus.
I get it.
You hate stores that must approve of goods they sell, so you must make a lot of stuff yourself...
Although you could build or program a turing complete machine to do almost anything imaginable, or pay someone to do that for you, it is more convenient to rant about what existing ones don't do (which is boundless), and hate whomever made them...
You _love_ every flavor of the 'standard' USB port in use since the iPod dock connector...
It is impossible to have an objective discussion about the quality & cost of consumer goods with you.
You live with your parents.
OK, that LAST one is just a guess, but it's true isn't it, huh, huh?
It's amusing that you think the "Haters" will just not let people use what they find suits them best, when that is precisely Apple's strategy (not letting people just use what they find suits them best) and the reason the majority of "Haters" exist.
How much can you hate something for what it doesn't do?
Is it impossible for you to like Apple's products for _WHAT THEY DO_?
But in general .. most of the really valuable companies have really valuable software they keep under lock and key.
Even those Open Source companies you listed derive most of their real value from the bits they keep under lock and key.
They should keep _something_ close to their chest, because anyone can sell support... "official" support is delegated all the time to resellers, all they have to do is keep X number of people certified each year and make customers jump through enough hoops before escalating to the first party.
A reseller with sufficient sales channels can just take your product and cut their ties with you. See Oracle Enterprise Linux. What can RedHat do, they hardly have any control over their own product. For example, they can't promise sysfs stability between dot releases for Christ's sake. Sysfs is a _major_ gateway between the OS kernel and userland, it's the new /proc... but it's not like they have any better control over libc & sysctls.
http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html/Online_Storage_Reconfiguration_Guide/index.html#Online_Storage_Reconfiguration_Guide-Preface
Go ahead and follow the finger pointing to Documentation/sysfs-rules.txt like it suggests. Look up an example of Solaris 10's fcinfo, which is a very basic Fibre Channel reporting tool, and figure out how to implement that without breaking any rules. (it were easy, where are Linux's FC userland utilities?) That's where I'm at, expecting a yum update one day to break my scripts. Woo.
Anyways, my point there was they don't have control over their own product, and it does affect their customers.
Open Source ideals, while cool and all, just don't make good business sense.
Unless software is completely tangental to your business, but then why would you be employing software developers? Ugh... I don't get it folks.
Overreach much? Here we have ICE, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, with their own squads dedicated to protecting intellectual property. I quote this straight from the horses mouth:
_Customs_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customs
The flow of everything but people (Immigration) into/out of a country.
Come on folks, this isn't hard.
Is it really that easy to set up your own Exchange server? Does everyone around here keep a Windows server in a coloc somewhere so they can run Exchange?
I'm sorry did you get lost on the way to foxnews.com?
This is the news for nerds site that puts the latest Linux kernel milestone up on the front page.
See these tags on the left side of the screen - cloud, hardware, linux, management, mobile, science, security, storage? Well, I'll tell you, it's not about weather, wood shop, business, exercise, personal defense, or closets.
This is (used to be) the place you go to FIND people who have servers in a colo somewhere, who might call you a pussy for finding difficulty in worse things than first party Windows software!
You didn't even read any of those linked pages did you? You just copied results from a microsoft+privacy query that sounded bad.
I mean Microsoft Passport? Well hi there 2001! We got ALL of this reeeeeeeeeel sceeeeery stuff from everyone ELSE.
Occupy is a result of what happens when enough people get sick of their bread and circuses - they might not be able to coherently word their grievances into a manifesto but they know they're generally unhappy
If the best you can sum up your opinion is "generally unhappy" then have more bread and circus. What else can you give an uneducated mob?
I don't get how bread and circuses is used in derogatory fashion like this anyway, not when you come right out and say they don't know what they want in the next sentence. How do you sate incoherent general unhappiness? These people are SCREAMING for more bread and circus!
If someone likes NASCAR more than economics, that's their OWN fault. Expect no sympathy from me, I'm self taught, so fuck off and watch a movie like everyone else.
It is really just another indication that BSD is completely harmless and no substitute at all, a library more than an alternative.
OH! Like Linux is so much better off here? With your reasoning we can write off all embedded Linux installs as "libraries".
In all practicality, Linux is most often a set of libraries and kernel implementing a POSIX interface for running portable software on a VM. It's easier to manage the VMs - be they from a cloud service or ESX, than any Linux based OS at this point. It truly is a gnat's dick away from being merely a checkbox in a VM provisioning wizard for "Generic POSIX compatibility". It's bloated with a mishmash of configuration syntaxes and services that don't matter. I can't wait till VMware/EMC gets this and extends their management interfaces into what's left of "Linux", their own version of CentOS, RHEL, OEL, whatever, because people really don't care which, and they could give a rats ass how wholesome it is because the first thing people do to a kickstart environment is gut it to a hollow shell anyway. There is no reason Linux administration should be any more complex than ESX administration. Linux administration is just overhead that gets between your hardware interface and the real applications you want to run.
What I refuse to agree with are the BSD pundits that pretends it is more popular and more free at the same time. You can either say you have a 5%+ market share of users with no freedoms, or a 0.01% market share with freedoms. But when they try to pretend they have 5%+ of the market enjoying those freedoms as if they were OSS users, it's being intellectually dishonest.
Nobody outside of Slashdot cares.
Apple has made "programmers" more likely to be nothing more than businessmen who have read a few coding books.
Headline might as well me "Prostitution makes partners sexy".
What is your suggestion then, less efficiency in return for less gain? I mean the market demands sexy prostitute partners... wait... is there even a moral high ground to take on software development, because morals out of the picture, everyone would pay cash for good sex.
So fucking what? Is the claim true or not? Can bottled water help prevent dehydration or not?
You're actually defending a law that says water can't help prevent dehydration.
ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO SAY THAT THIS ISN'T A DUMB DECISION OF EPIC MAGNITUDE?
Where do you draw the line? Coka Cola can help prevent dehydration too depending on how you look at it. At least it will put fluid into your body while lowering the overall amount of fluid it will retain. Sort of depends on how much fluid you'll need over what period of time. A lot of people don't understand dehydration, and a lot of people who think they do really don't.
You think it's so obvious, then why does it need to be said at all? It's not right to mislead people into thinking bottled water is more beneficial than tap water.
While I find the whole "let's escape our problems on Earth by migrating to space" fantasy interesting, I think it's worth remembering that, at our present rate of consumption, we will exhaust our planet's resources long before we're actually able to permanently survive somewhere else. For details, I'd suggest reading this excellent post from physicist Tom Murphy's "Do the Math" blog. It was featured on Slashdot a while back.
The basic point is that, given our current situation, proposing a future in space is essentially a distraction that ignores the problems we will absolutely have to solve here on Earth. Hawking is probably right in that, if we manage to survive long enough, we will eventually establish colonies on other worlds. But if we can't focus on immediate challenges here, we'll never get there.
In IT terms, this fantasy is like all the disaster recovery pseudo tests that assume the primary and people manning it never go away, and all the "we wouldn't need that in a DR scenario anyway" thinking as if the primary won't actually every go away, or only for a very short period of time.
I'm _not_ saying human expansion off this world is a bad idea, but nobody can minimize the tragedy of something happening to Earth.
We'd probably need two or three other well established worlds before anyone can think of shrugging off such a loss, and even then, Earth's problems would most likely always be your problems in the same way Greece and Italy fucks up the American stock markets :P