Thanks for the pointer, but sadly the page states "Mac OS X support expected late 2003". Maybe that means they're expecting something in 10.3 that'll support them in the OS. As it stands, it still doesn't look like OS X supports independent communications channels. That is, it offers a microphone selection for speech recognition but no sound selection for the output; there is only the single, global sound output system preference. So much (for now) for my dreams of talking to the computer as though I had a personal secretary at my beck and call!:-(
Am I the only one that would love a Bluetooth headset for my computer? I use Mac OS X and have a number of speakable items, and it would be a great boon if I could I use a headset as the exclusive input/output for spoken commands. Why do I never see a single one of these things even make an effort at breaking into the desktop market?
This can really only be a good thing; I can't see anything negative about it, especially considering how many adverts Slashdot already has.
The negative is that, present company excluded, there really isn't a market for Linux games. Hell, there is hardly a market for Linux desktops. So any company that expends resources making a Linux version of a game is likely going to lose money on it. A better business decision would be to make a Mac version (which it doesn't seem they've bothered doing), an established desktop platform that is eager to pay for quality games. Every Linux game that comes out before Linux is mature enough to support a game market means a string of horror stories on why games shouldn't be developed for Linux. If I was in charge of a game company, I'd fire anyone who suggested a Linux version be done before a Mac version.
Take my mother for instance. She is new to computers. When the windows GUI . . .
. . . and this is how you repay her? As I pointed out in comments on this previous/. article, you really have no right to complain if you go with the monopoly solution and then get screwed in the end. If you really cared about your mom, you would have gotten her a Mac. Nice GUI for her, nice Unix for you, and no confusion for the ads that are made for the Windows morons.
It's not like I've ever fallen for one, nor do I think many other/.ers have (They don't look right on Gnome or KDE).
Hint: They don't look right on Mac OS X, either.
The problem is that some of the "normal" people on the internet can't tell the difference until its too late. My dad is barely computer literate to open and save an excel file (only excel!). He would fall for one of those immediately
So why the hell would you have him using a Windows box? I'm sick of hearing about people's woes with Windows. Idiots created the Microsoft monopoly and now they expect the techies to bail them out when they get reamed by it. Sorry, but I'm not going to provide free support while Bill Gates makes billions, and neither should you. Alternatives exist, even for your dad. Tell your friends and family that they're on their own unless they get a Unix box.
That's the funny thing about all this! Everyone who has posted or moderated against me seems to be in love with the illusion that spectator sports are a positive thing. They aren't, and instead create a wall of bogus structure between individuals while at the same time give the rich and powerful a way to keep you in line. Why get mad at me for pointing out that your relationship with your father was probably stunted if it revolved around a lot of meaningless stats of some team's players? I'm not the asshole here; blame the sports franchises. Playing some game well doesn't make any of them a hero, being in your city/state doesn't mean they represent you in any way, and sitting next to someone and mindlessly watching a game doesn't bring you closer to your companions. I'm amazed that some of you people can rail against Microsoft and the RIAA and still not see the ways you are controlled by other organizations.
No, a better question is why should you enjoy it? What does it matter that millionaires play some silly little game well? Are you completely blind to the way you're manipulated into submissive consumerism by these sports franchises?
Are you really suggesting that everyone who's ever watched a sporting event - whether live or on TV - is gay?
That's an interesting way to take things, but it say more about where your thoughts are than what I'm thinking. No, sadly what I'm saying is that pointless sports spectatorship is only "important" in a pointless life. I can at least respect a gay guy (or a woman) for watching sweaty men if that's what gives them a charge. For everyone else, it's really just a way to fill the empty hours of your life.
Think about it. Why are you wasting your time on baseball (or whatever)? Because someone else told you it mattered? Do you really think it matters more than anything else? Matters more than actually spending time with your family instead of spending time near them watching yet another season of some guys playing with some ball?
Frankly, the rest of us - straight and gay - can do without your macho bullshit.
Yes, you'll sure show me! You sit on that couch and drool with authority. My point was never about what is or isn't macho. My point is that you should participate in your life. Sorry if that sort of thinking upsets you and is contrary to the controlled teaching you had previously been exposed to.
But the best sporting technical innovation: scores displayed permanently in the top left corner of your TV picture. We take it for granted nowadays but there was a time that you had to wait for the commentator to tell you what the scoreline was - how annoying was that?
If the score is your greatest concern, why not save yourself the boredom of the game and guys standing around for 3 hours scratching themselves and patting each other on their asses; just watch the evening news.
There are others but these are the ones that most improve my enjoyment of sports.
You forgot a "watching" in there. I'd much rather be out there doing something myself than sitting on the couch. Spectator sports are pointless as hell if you're a straight man.
Oooo, I suppose you thought that was clever. Guess what? I've got better things to do with my time than go design-happy on my web page. How much of a self-important egotist do you have to be to think your life simply *must* be up on a pretty web page (or blog) for the world to see? If you had some balls you would have at least made specific comments about the *corporate* web site. But to heave a bland, generic insult at a page I put up as a lark over 5 years ago and haven't really touched since? That's pathetic. Good thing you posted as an AC.
I meant that nowadays with all the layoffs, companies can find any trained ape who will work for peanuts and will say yessir, be unemployed for a year and you will almost do anything.
If you had that attitude and worked for me, I'd summarily fire you. The only corporate structures that likes yes-men are ones doomed to failure. You sacrifice your dignity and professionalism when you refuse to do your job for the sake of your "don't rock the boat" continued employment by the company (for the next 6 months or however long it takes for the bad management to drive it under, taking your precious job with it).
In this economical market you don't pick the companies you work for.
In every market you decide your future, and in this market is it especially important not to get involved (or prolong involvement) with companies that are on the wrong path.
Unfortunately there wasn't any CAD software at the time developed for linux that was up to par as the Windows stuff otherwise I am sure they would have gone that way.
This is the only thing you said that makes sense. I never tried to imply that a company should ban Windows, but it is too often the case that a clueless IT worker with way too much power mandates that a company become Windows-only. Windows has become an assumption in companies, and that means that you have no competetive advantage if you use Windows everywhere, which is deadly in today's business environment.
Problem is that you can quit the job if you don't like what is happening but like I said the market is pretty dry and you better make sure that you have something else lined up or a decent nest egg to fall back on.
The market isn't dry for people with actual skills but, no, you can't get a job just for being an otherwise clueless cube-dweller that can slap together matching HTML tags; that ship has sailed. Here's a clue for anyone who doesn't have a "nest egg": for every two years you work you should count on supporting yourself for a year without income. If you're living paycheck to paycheck and reach 65 without any savings, you're probably fucked. But if you're working soul-crushing jobs for 40 years just so you can scrape together rent, you're probably fucked already.
In this era of costcutting, the diva attitude of "I would never touch a MS product" is a stupid attitude.
That makes zero sense. Firstly, I avoid Windows for both technical and business reasons, not some perceived "diva" whim. And to argue that cost cutting implies a company should run Windows is outlandish. If I were ever in a meeting where the CTO said something like "We'll discuss cost cutting measures after I write out this check to Microsoft for $300,000" I would fire that moron if I could and quit if I couldn't. You sound like you've only worked for poorly run companies.
We found an open source app that did nearly what we needed, so we contracted the developer to add features for us (into the main open source version).
Honestly, this is the way for a business to "engage" the open source community. The article is puffery and completely neglects that software is made open precisely because it is something that is intended to be seen as a service industry and not a product industry. As an author, I would naturally appreciate code tweaks from others, but what I really would like is to be paid to work on the code, and that is especially true if a business is involved. That is, I'd be more appreciative if I were paid directly to update the code rather than the company paying someone else to work on my code and then submit it to me.
I envision a system where this could be expanded, where end users would bid competitively on which features to be added or bugs to be fixed. I've seen some attempts at realizing this sort of system, but none have caught on in a big way.
I've tried this at my company under the name Serviceware. It's not caught on or even been profitable, but it does seem like the best way for a company to approach open source and/or software as a service.
The other two wouldn't push usage above two or three percent, and there's little to no benefit in dual CPUs when your current one is multitasking just fine.
I think the most amusing thing about this 1x vs 2x thread is that most of the arguments against 2x could also be applied to raw 1x speeds, MHz Myth or not. So all the people who argue that the P4 kicks G4 ass are really bragging that that their big thrill is using 10% of the machine instead of 20%? How pathetic is that?
We only block two "categories" of content: sexually explicit and extreme/obscene
Are you sure about that? I think that is what the whole issue is (or should be) about. If you block what some software tells you to block, you run the risk of something being categorized incorrectly. For example, the DataFetish site is a bit (pun!) of a parody/free speech/individual rights site, but CyberPatrol has it listed under Adult/Sexually Explicit. A block may or may not be appropriate, but as porn?
But what I think is the absolute worst part about filtering is that it is completely "hands off". It does nothing to educate the children it imposes the restrictions on. Why not instead require adult supervision to surf the web? I'd rather see libraries put up a sign that said something like "This library uses a filtering mechanism for Internet content: your parent". Odds are little Billy won't be surfing over to Playboy if mom is sitting next to him, and he'd get a stern talking to if he stumbled across anything lewd.
How are they leveraging Windows/IE to gain a dominant position in the search engine market?
Uh, it's pretty simple but you seem to be the type that needs it spelled out. MS has a 95% market share for desktop operating systems. The monopoly has been confirmed in court. Also confirmed is the fact the leveraged that monopoly to essentially eliminate all other browsers by shipping IE with that OS. After a slap-on-the-wrist penalty, they've announced that soon IE won't even be a separate product, and can you guess what they'll be using as the default search engine for Longhorn? Well, duh, the new MSNBot. Just like with IE, they're pushing their technology on the 95% of the population that simply wanted a Windows desktop.
They've been redirecting searches to MSN for years and it hasn't really helped them one bit.
That's funny. Just because they're too stupid to even properly leverage their monopoly doesn't change the fact that they are trying to do just that, and that what they're doing is wrong.
Do you deny other crawlers, like Google's? After all, they're not paying you anything, are they?
I do block other spiders, yes, usually when I disagree with the way they run their business (TurnitinBot being my most recent). For example, Lycos/Hotbot is going to get blocked next week if they don't fix their redirector to keep it from working on links in spam I'm getting. Google hasn't dicked anyone over to my knowledge, so they are not at risk of being blocked. MS dicks people over all the time, and the fact that they're not getting added on general principle is a huge showing of generosity by me.
Please elaborate. How are they crushing you...?
I think you have reading comprehension issues. That is not what I said. All I said is that I should be allowed to block them, for whatever reason, without fanboys coming out of the woodwork saying I am the bad guy.
All I'm doing is pointing out how hypocritical you are.
Again, reading comprehension issues. I never made claims that competition is good. I never made claims I was going to help MS build a search engine. I never even made claims that I liked Google. Perhaps you need to read what I do write before you respond.
So basically you want to make it impossible for Microsoft to be able to index sites, is that it? That way, no matter how good their work is, there's no way they'll be able to have an index as large as Google's, right?
Pretty much, yeah. My bandwidth isn't free, so why shouldn't I be allowed to refuse spidering service to a 280 billion dollar corporation if they're not going to pay me one dime? Why am I an asshole if I refuse to remain powerless when the powerful try to roll over me?
You geeks are always talking about how competition is a "good thing" and when Microsoft, clearly the underdog in this arena, wants to compete, you do everything you can to ruin their ability to do so. Some attitude you've got there.
Oh, please. Microsoft has been shown to have a monopoly and has been shown to abuse that monopoly. They are the antithesis of fair competition. Here's an idea for all you Microsofties, how about getting your MICROcomputer SOFTware working right before you fucking branch out and try to crush other markets? I was mostly joking in my original post, but if you think you can astroturf in on a holier-than-thou attitude, you might just find me actually dropping that entry into my robots.txt file.
Likewise, if you don't approve of atheists, it would be in your own best interest to distort the definition to include as few people as possible, so you don't accidentally end up disapproving of people you like.
Fortunately, that case does not apply to me.
And I refuse to accept gods, leprechauns, astrology, purple unicorns, and the healing power of crystals . . .
OK, now I know you're an atheist. As I said before, there is a difference between not believing something exists and believing something does not exist. Up until now, all I was seeing was "I don't believe this" and "I don't believe that". This is the first time I recall you ever saying say what you do believe.
More to the point, I don't feel that my belief (or lack thereof) has any bearing on anything.
You'd be wrong. Your whole existence is the sum of what you believe. If you believed the Earth was flat and/or the center of the Universe, the way you live your life would be very different. If you believed you could be on a rocket ship traveling alongside a wave of light, you might just have discovered that E = mc^2. And maybe the best way to find the Higgs Boson is to stand in the shoes of God.
Anyway, I'm starting to sense that you really want to turn this into a religious debate, and I really, really, really don't want to, so maybe it would be best to end this now.
If you weren't an athesist, I'd say you had theophobia.:-) I don't have a religious debate in me, so I have no idea what you're sensing. My only real stance has been that by declaring something impossible you limit yourself. If you don't agree, that limits the conversation and naturally ends it.
Although I meet only their definition of "weak atheist", while what you're talking about fits their definition of "strong atheist".
Well, it seems pretty obvious that their definition would be self-serving to include as many people as possible into their group. You also seem to want to think of yourself as an atheist, so you're showing favor to definitions that seem to include you. However, I still stand behind the Webster definition that requires you to deny there can be a god, which is the proper "a" to the "theist".
Note that the strict historical definition of "agnostic" is one who believes that it's not possible to know whether gods exist or not. So, if we're going to get technical, I'm clearly not an agnostic.
I have no particular investment in you being agnostic, so if that label doesn't fit then fine. It just the closest one that comes to mind when I hear that someone simply doesn't believe there is a god. If you've got a better label for yourself, let me know.:-)
I didn't show my reasoning at all! I simply said that I have reasoned from the evidence available to me, and formed certain conclusions.
But don't you see that that is exactly the same thing the traditionally religious people are doing as well? They are just as certain of the foundation of their beliefs as you are of yours. It doesn't put you in a better reasoned position than theirs. So while you may like to feel you're somehow better by carrying the badge of an atheist around with you, that is not the case at all.
You really are into this weasel-worded, pure-aristotelian logic junk, aren't you?:)
Absolutely.:-) I only go beyond logic when I have to.
In other words, my decision to ignore these debates is the result of a minimax strategy analysis, not some sort of absolute and unwavering rule.
Point well taken. Still, in taking that approach you have placed the burden of and are relying on the efforts by other people to find your own personal enlightenment. I'm not nearly as completely trusting in the ability of others to do good work.
At most, I paid lip service to uncertainty, but in my heart, I've never believed any of this junk even for a second.
For all we've written, I'm not even sure what particular "junk" you don't believe in! Perhaps part of the issue is that you've let other people define what God is supposed to be, and that's why it seems like junk. And not everyone thinks God is a magical man in the sky, which is junk if taken literally. Or are you saying you're unable formulate a way to put the universe in perspective yourself? If you have tried to take a path you think is the best way to live life, isn't that an appeal to something greater; an ideal you could call God?
Re:Saw this one coming when..
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 1
Why would the battery drain if the car isn't driven every day? Only the clock and a few other odds and ends should be attached to it while it's not on.
Well, I had my Jetta battery die, at least to the point where it wouldn't start the car, after a month of not driving it last summer (motorcycle had a lot more ass time:-). In that month, the alarm was always enabled, but probably not a big direct power draw. Only other thing I used, and probably a bigger energy suck than you might imagine, was the trunk remote every time I need to get/stash the bike cover. So it can happen, but it's probably quite rare.
I don't believe gods exist, period. And yes, that does mean that I believe gods don't exist. It's still just my belief; I'm still not trying to claim that it's a cold, hard fact.
Then you are not an atheist. I don't know why you seem to have an overwhelming need to fit such a label, but the fact is that you do not. The reason is you acknowledge that your view to be a belief, which is not allowed for a theist or an atheist. To them, they hold the truth and have no need to qualify their view as being a personal belief.
The existence of iPods is consistent with the worldview I've formed over the course of my life, and I find the witnesses credible. The same cannot be said for gods or purple unicorns.
You're failing to disassociate yourself from the example. You show no reasoning process that is any better than those who believe in some form of deity because it is consistent with their world view and their witnesses. That is, your belief in the iPod is as sound as most people's belief in God.
Most atheists, in my experience, don't care about the whole subject matter, and will simply ignore discussions about the existence of gods.
This, of course, completely contradicts your earlier statement of reasoning "based on the information available to me". By ignoring new information, you further damage your ability to reach sound conclusions.
I further suspect that most self-professed agnostics are really atheists who know they can't prove that there's no gods, and would rather claim to reserve judgement than get sucked into tedious and pointless debate.
Maybe being agnostic is a form of cop-out, but it is the limit of a reasonable response. To me, it simply represents that one is willing to acknowledge that they cannot know everything and that they therefore can not always reach the right conclusion. There is really nothing I can point to being convincing towards either theism or atheism.
I deny the existence of purple unicorns, but I don't think I do so with the "foundation of my person," whatever that means.
It means we probably wouldn't get along very well in person.:-) The problem is that you seem unwilling to ponder "silly" things, where I enjoy toying with ideas of all kinds.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the pointer, but sadly the page states "Mac OS X support expected late 2003". Maybe that means they're expecting something in 10.3 that'll support them in the OS. As it stands, it still doesn't look like OS X supports independent communications channels. That is, it offers a microphone selection for speech recognition but no sound selection for the output; there is only the single, global sound output system preference. So much (for now) for my dreams of talking to the computer as though I had a personal secretary at my beck and call! :-(
Am I the only one that would love a Bluetooth headset for my computer? I use Mac OS X and have a number of speakable items, and it would be a great boon if I could I use a headset as the exclusive input/output for spoken commands. Why do I never see a single one of these things even make an effort at breaking into the desktop market?
This can really only be a good thing; I can't see anything negative about it, especially considering how many adverts Slashdot already has.
The negative is that, present company excluded, there really isn't a market for Linux games. Hell, there is hardly a market for Linux desktops. So any company that expends resources making a Linux version of a game is likely going to lose money on it. A better business decision would be to make a Mac version (which it doesn't seem they've bothered doing), an established desktop platform that is eager to pay for quality games. Every Linux game that comes out before Linux is mature enough to support a game market means a string of horror stories on why games shouldn't be developed for Linux. If I was in charge of a game company, I'd fire anyone who suggested a Linux version be done before a Mac version.
Take my mother for instance. She is new to computers. When the windows GUI . . .
. . . and this is how you repay her? As I pointed out in comments on this previous /. article, you really have no right to complain if you go with the monopoly solution and then get screwed in the end. If you really cared about your mom, you would have gotten her a Mac. Nice GUI for her, nice Unix for you, and no confusion for the ads that are made for the Windows morons.
It's not like I've ever fallen for one, nor do I think many other /.ers have (They don't look right on Gnome or KDE).
Hint: They don't look right on Mac OS X, either.
The problem is that some of the "normal" people on the internet can't tell the difference until its too late. My dad is barely computer literate to open and save an excel file (only excel!). He would fall for one of those immediately
So why the hell would you have him using a Windows box? I'm sick of hearing about people's woes with Windows. Idiots created the Microsoft monopoly and now they expect the techies to bail them out when they get reamed by it. Sorry, but I'm not going to provide free support while Bill Gates makes billions, and neither should you. Alternatives exist, even for your dad. Tell your friends and family that they're on their own unless they get a Unix box.
Pops didn't pay you enough attention, huh?
That's the funny thing about all this! Everyone who has posted or moderated against me seems to be in love with the illusion that spectator sports are a positive thing. They aren't, and instead create a wall of bogus structure between individuals while at the same time give the rich and powerful a way to keep you in line. Why get mad at me for pointing out that your relationship with your father was probably stunted if it revolved around a lot of meaningless stats of some team's players? I'm not the asshole here; blame the sports franchises. Playing some game well doesn't make any of them a hero, being in your city/state doesn't mean they represent you in any way, and sitting next to someone and mindlessly watching a game doesn't bring you closer to your companions. I'm amazed that some of you people can rail against Microsoft and the RIAA and still not see the ways you are controlled by other organizations.
Why shouldn't I enjoy . . .
No, a better question is why should you enjoy it? What does it matter that millionaires play some silly little game well? Are you completely blind to the way you're manipulated into submissive consumerism by these sports franchises?
Are you really suggesting that everyone who's ever watched a sporting event - whether live or on TV - is gay?
That's an interesting way to take things, but it say more about where your thoughts are than what I'm thinking. No, sadly what I'm saying is that pointless sports spectatorship is only "important" in a pointless life. I can at least respect a gay guy (or a woman) for watching sweaty men if that's what gives them a charge. For everyone else, it's really just a way to fill the empty hours of your life.
Think about it. Why are you wasting your time on baseball (or whatever)? Because someone else told you it mattered? Do you really think it matters more than anything else? Matters more than actually spending time with your family instead of spending time near them watching yet another season of some guys playing with some ball?
Frankly, the rest of us - straight and gay - can do without your macho bullshit.
Yes, you'll sure show me! You sit on that couch and drool with authority. My point was never about what is or isn't macho. My point is that you should participate in your life. Sorry if that sort of thinking upsets you and is contrary to the controlled teaching you had previously been exposed to.
But the best sporting technical innovation: scores displayed permanently in the top left corner of your TV picture. We take it for granted nowadays but there was a time that you had to wait for the commentator to tell you what the scoreline was - how annoying was that?
If the score is your greatest concern, why not save yourself the boredom of the game and guys standing around for 3 hours scratching themselves and patting each other on their asses; just watch the evening news.
There are others but these are the ones that most improve my enjoyment of sports.
You forgot a "watching" in there. I'd much rather be out there doing something myself than sitting on the couch. Spectator sports are pointless as hell if you're a straight man.
He gets free fetuses AND the ability to sell people's personal info! Come on!!!!
That's all just further evidence: Christopher Reeve is an asshole.
Oooo, I suppose you thought that was clever. Guess what? I've got better things to do with my time than go design-happy on my web page. How much of a self-important egotist do you have to be to think your life simply *must* be up on a pretty web page (or blog) for the world to see? If you had some balls you would have at least made specific comments about the *corporate* web site. But to heave a bland, generic insult at a page I put up as a lark over 5 years ago and haven't really touched since? That's pathetic. Good thing you posted as an AC.
Linux = cheap to free software and expensive admins
Windows = Expensive software and cheap admins.
You've clearly never been in the position of hiring an IT staff.
I meant that nowadays with all the layoffs, companies can find any trained ape who will work for peanuts and will say yessir, be unemployed for a year and you will almost do anything.
If you had that attitude and worked for me, I'd summarily fire you. The only corporate structures that likes yes-men are ones doomed to failure. You sacrifice your dignity and professionalism when you refuse to do your job for the sake of your "don't rock the boat" continued employment by the company (for the next 6 months or however long it takes for the bad management to drive it under, taking your precious job with it).
In this economical market you don't pick the companies you work for.
In every market you decide your future, and in this market is it especially important not to get involved (or prolong involvement) with companies that are on the wrong path.
Unfortunately there wasn't any CAD software at the time developed for linux that was up to par as the Windows stuff otherwise I am sure they would have gone that way.
This is the only thing you said that makes sense. I never tried to imply that a company should ban Windows, but it is too often the case that a clueless IT worker with way too much power mandates that a company become Windows-only. Windows has become an assumption in companies, and that means that you have no competetive advantage if you use Windows everywhere, which is deadly in today's business environment.
Problem is that you can quit the job if you don't like what is happening but like I said the market is pretty dry and you better make sure that you have something else lined up or a decent nest egg to fall back on.
The market isn't dry for people with actual skills but, no, you can't get a job just for being an otherwise clueless cube-dweller that can slap together matching HTML tags; that ship has sailed. Here's a clue for anyone who doesn't have a "nest egg": for every two years you work you should count on supporting yourself for a year without income. If you're living paycheck to paycheck and reach 65 without any savings, you're probably fucked. But if you're working soul-crushing jobs for 40 years just so you can scrape together rent, you're probably fucked already.
In this era of costcutting, the diva attitude of "I would never touch a MS product" is a stupid attitude.
That makes zero sense. Firstly, I avoid Windows for both technical and business reasons, not some perceived "diva" whim. And to argue that cost cutting implies a company should run Windows is outlandish. If I were ever in a meeting where the CTO said something like "We'll discuss cost cutting measures after I write out this check to Microsoft for $300,000" I would fire that moron if I could and quit if I couldn't. You sound like you've only worked for poorly run companies.
Most serious admins run *nix or windows
No serious admins run Windows, and all serious admins know that Mac OS X is *nix.
We found an open source app that did nearly what we needed, so we contracted the developer to add features for us (into the main open source version).
Honestly, this is the way for a business to "engage" the open source community. The article is puffery and completely neglects that software is made open precisely because it is something that is intended to be seen as a service industry and not a product industry. As an author, I would naturally appreciate code tweaks from others, but what I really would like is to be paid to work on the code, and that is especially true if a business is involved. That is, I'd be more appreciative if I were paid directly to update the code rather than the company paying someone else to work on my code and then submit it to me.
I envision a system where this could be expanded, where end users would bid competitively on which features to be added or bugs to be fixed. I've seen some attempts at realizing this sort of system, but none have caught on in a big way.
I've tried this at my company under the name Serviceware. It's not caught on or even been profitable, but it does seem like the best way for a company to approach open source and/or software as a service.
The other two wouldn't push usage above two or three percent, and there's little to no benefit in dual CPUs when your current one is multitasking just fine.
I think the most amusing thing about this 1x vs 2x thread is that most of the arguments against 2x could also be applied to raw 1x speeds, MHz Myth or not. So all the people who argue that the P4 kicks G4 ass are really bragging that that their big thrill is using 10% of the machine instead of 20%? How pathetic is that?
We only block two "categories" of content: sexually explicit and extreme/obscene
Are you sure about that? I think that is what the whole issue is (or should be) about. If you block what some software tells you to block, you run the risk of something being categorized incorrectly. For example, the DataFetish site is a bit (pun!) of a parody/free speech/individual rights site, but CyberPatrol has it listed under Adult/Sexually Explicit. A block may or may not be appropriate, but as porn?
But what I think is the absolute worst part about filtering is that it is completely "hands off". It does nothing to educate the children it imposes the restrictions on. Why not instead require adult supervision to surf the web? I'd rather see libraries put up a sign that said something like "This library uses a filtering mechanism for Internet content: your parent". Odds are little Billy won't be surfing over to Playboy if mom is sitting next to him, and he'd get a stern talking to if he stumbled across anything lewd.
How are they leveraging Windows/IE to gain a dominant position in the search engine market?
Uh, it's pretty simple but you seem to be the type that needs it spelled out. MS has a 95% market share for desktop operating systems. The monopoly has been confirmed in court. Also confirmed is the fact the leveraged that monopoly to essentially eliminate all other browsers by shipping IE with that OS. After a slap-on-the-wrist penalty, they've announced that soon IE won't even be a separate product, and can you guess what they'll be using as the default search engine for Longhorn? Well, duh, the new MSNBot. Just like with IE, they're pushing their technology on the 95% of the population that simply wanted a Windows desktop.
They've been redirecting searches to MSN for years and it hasn't really helped them one bit.
That's funny. Just because they're too stupid to even properly leverage their monopoly doesn't change the fact that they are trying to do just that, and that what they're doing is wrong.
Do you deny other crawlers, like Google's? After all, they're not paying you anything, are they?
I do block other spiders, yes, usually when I disagree with the way they run their business (TurnitinBot being my most recent). For example, Lycos/Hotbot is going to get blocked next week if they don't fix their redirector to keep it from working on links in spam I'm getting. Google hasn't dicked anyone over to my knowledge, so they are not at risk of being blocked. MS dicks people over all the time, and the fact that they're not getting added on general principle is a huge showing of generosity by me.
Please elaborate. How are they crushing you...?
I think you have reading comprehension issues. That is not what I said. All I said is that I should be allowed to block them, for whatever reason, without fanboys coming out of the woodwork saying I am the bad guy.
All I'm doing is pointing out how hypocritical you are.
Again, reading comprehension issues. I never made claims that competition is good. I never made claims I was going to help MS build a search engine. I never even made claims that I liked Google. Perhaps you need to read what I do write before you respond.
So basically you want to make it impossible for Microsoft to be able to index sites, is that it? That way, no matter how good their work is, there's no way they'll be able to have an index as large as Google's, right?
Pretty much, yeah. My bandwidth isn't free, so why shouldn't I be allowed to refuse spidering service to a 280 billion dollar corporation if they're not going to pay me one dime? Why am I an asshole if I refuse to remain powerless when the powerful try to roll over me?
You geeks are always talking about how competition is a "good thing" and when Microsoft, clearly the underdog in this arena, wants to compete, you do everything you can to ruin their ability to do so. Some attitude you've got there.
Oh, please. Microsoft has been shown to have a monopoly and has been shown to abuse that monopoly. They are the antithesis of fair competition. Here's an idea for all you Microsofties, how about getting your MICROcomputer SOFTware working right before you fucking branch out and try to crush other markets? I was mostly joking in my original post, but if you think you can astroturf in on a holier-than-thou attitude, you might just find me actually dropping that entry into my robots.txt file.
User-agent: MSNBot /
Disallow:
Likewise, if you don't approve of atheists, it would be in your own best interest to distort the definition to include as few people as possible, so you don't accidentally end up disapproving of people you like.
Fortunately, that case does not apply to me.
And I refuse to accept gods, leprechauns, astrology, purple unicorns, and the healing power of crystals . . .
OK, now I know you're an atheist. As I said before, there is a difference between not believing something exists and believing something does not exist. Up until now, all I was seeing was "I don't believe this" and "I don't believe that". This is the first time I recall you ever saying say what you do believe.
More to the point, I don't feel that my belief (or lack thereof) has any bearing on anything.
You'd be wrong. Your whole existence is the sum of what you believe. If you believed the Earth was flat and/or the center of the Universe, the way you live your life would be very different. If you believed you could be on a rocket ship traveling alongside a wave of light, you might just have discovered that E = mc^2. And maybe the best way to find the Higgs Boson is to stand in the shoes of God.
Anyway, I'm starting to sense that you really want to turn this into a religious debate, and I really, really, really don't want to, so maybe it would be best to end this now.
If you weren't an athesist, I'd say you had theophobia. :-) I don't have a religious debate in me, so I have no idea what you're sensing. My only real stance has been that by declaring something impossible you limit yourself. If you don't agree, that limits the conversation and naturally ends it.
Although I meet only their definition of "weak atheist", while what you're talking about fits their definition of "strong atheist".
Well, it seems pretty obvious that their definition would be self-serving to include as many people as possible into their group. You also seem to want to think of yourself as an atheist, so you're showing favor to definitions that seem to include you. However, I still stand behind the Webster definition that requires you to deny there can be a god, which is the proper "a" to the "theist".
Note that the strict historical definition of "agnostic" is one who believes that it's not possible to know whether gods exist or not. So, if we're going to get technical, I'm clearly not an agnostic.
I have no particular investment in you being agnostic, so if that label doesn't fit then fine. It just the closest one that comes to mind when I hear that someone simply doesn't believe there is a god. If you've got a better label for yourself, let me know. :-)
I didn't show my reasoning at all! I simply said that I have reasoned from the evidence available to me, and formed certain conclusions.
But don't you see that that is exactly the same thing the traditionally religious people are doing as well? They are just as certain of the foundation of their beliefs as you are of yours. It doesn't put you in a better reasoned position than theirs. So while you may like to feel you're somehow better by carrying the badge of an atheist around with you, that is not the case at all.
You really are into this weasel-worded, pure-aristotelian logic junk, aren't you? :)
Absolutely. :-) I only go beyond logic when I have to.
In other words, my decision to ignore these debates is the result of a minimax strategy analysis, not some sort of absolute and unwavering rule.
Point well taken. Still, in taking that approach you have placed the burden of and are relying on the efforts by other people to find your own personal enlightenment. I'm not nearly as completely trusting in the ability of others to do good work.
At most, I paid lip service to uncertainty, but in my heart, I've never believed any of this junk even for a second.
For all we've written, I'm not even sure what particular "junk" you don't believe in! Perhaps part of the issue is that you've let other people define what God is supposed to be, and that's why it seems like junk. And not everyone thinks God is a magical man in the sky, which is junk if taken literally. Or are you saying you're unable formulate a way to put the universe in perspective yourself? If you have tried to take a path you think is the best way to live life, isn't that an appeal to something greater; an ideal you could call God?
Why would the battery drain if the car isn't driven every day? Only the clock and a few other odds and ends should be attached to it while it's not on.
Well, I had my Jetta battery die, at least to the point where it wouldn't start the car, after a month of not driving it last summer (motorcycle had a lot more ass time :-). In that month, the alarm was always enabled, but probably not a big direct power draw. Only other thing I used, and probably a bigger energy suck than you might imagine, was the trunk remote every time I need to get/stash the bike cover. So it can happen, but it's probably quite rare.
I don't believe gods exist, period. And yes, that does mean that I believe gods don't exist. It's still just my belief; I'm still not trying to claim that it's a cold, hard fact.
Then you are not an atheist. I don't know why you seem to have an overwhelming need to fit such a label, but the fact is that you do not. The reason is you acknowledge that your view to be a belief, which is not allowed for a theist or an atheist. To them, they hold the truth and have no need to qualify their view as being a personal belief.
The existence of iPods is consistent with the worldview I've formed over the course of my life, and I find the witnesses credible. The same cannot be said for gods or purple unicorns.
You're failing to disassociate yourself from the example. You show no reasoning process that is any better than those who believe in some form of deity because it is consistent with their world view and their witnesses. That is, your belief in the iPod is as sound as most people's belief in God.
Most atheists, in my experience, don't care about the whole subject matter, and will simply ignore discussions about the existence of gods.
This, of course, completely contradicts your earlier statement of reasoning "based on the information available to me". By ignoring new information, you further damage your ability to reach sound conclusions.
I further suspect that most self-professed agnostics are really atheists who know they can't prove that there's no gods, and would rather claim to reserve judgement than get sucked into tedious and pointless debate.
Maybe being agnostic is a form of cop-out, but it is the limit of a reasonable response. To me, it simply represents that one is willing to acknowledge that they cannot know everything and that they therefore can not always reach the right conclusion. There is really nothing I can point to being convincing towards either theism or atheism.
I deny the existence of purple unicorns, but I don't think I do so with the "foundation of my person," whatever that means.
It means we probably wouldn't get along very well in person. :-) The problem is that you seem unwilling to ponder "silly" things, where I enjoy toying with ideas of all kinds.