I am an engineer. Ferreal. I have seen many things fall apart at some critical stage that I, and others, worked on. There is nothing more that you can do other than say the things I have said in the parent post. I attempted to do so in a humorous fashion that might be interesting to other readers with similar experiences or who might be able to empathize, unlike you.
As a graduate student working on my PhD in Biomedical Engineering who spent the better part of today evaluating various cost functions for a mixture model I can tell you that math ain't goin' to be done by no machine anytime soon.
Furthermore, for example, any basic course in signals and systems analysis will overwhelm even the best of students on a "good" day. Matlab's toolboxes might make the gruntwork easier, but the good engineers stand out from the sinkers in short order regardless of the help they get from "the machines".
They guy may be worried, but IMO he'll be long dead before the good engineers are replaced by uber-machines.
Somehow kids are more deserving because they happen to be closer geographically/politically/culturally?
Suppose someone notices that their neighbor is painting their fence and also just happens to already have plans to go the local hardware/home improvement store. Suppose, also that this person buys a can of paint for the neighbor because they want to be helpful. As a last supposition, imagine that the neighbor who is currently painting his fence doesn't exactly need this can of paint because it's not of the same quality paint that he is currently using.
This is the kind of situation that the people who are critiquing this act of kindness are in. They, for the most part, are not saying that giving computers to people who need it is a "bad thing". Just that perhaps there are more efficient ways to expend your altruistic energy.
Take, for example, the fact that the monies that I give to the government of the United States are given under the belief that they will be used to better the lives of another person within the United States (disregarding the vast amount of our tax money which is basically given away to other countries as aid). Wouldn't it seem reasonable that if I heard of a project wherein people who also lived in the United States chose to expend their energies helping people who do not also contribute to this same sort of fund that I would then have a valid critique?
Basically, the argument is, that if you help others out domestically they will contribute back to the pot more quickly than those helped outside the nation. This is important in the sense of preserving your own rights.
Just to state my opinion on this question, if anyone cares:
I believe all parents should be able to perform any and all testing they desire on their unborn children. I also believe that parents should be allowed to abort any children they are dissatisfied with before the children are actually brought to term.
Perhaps you are right to be so paranoid, but you neglect to mention that the particular line in "Gin and Juice" which is edited is something like, "Rollin' down the street smokin' endo, sippin' on gin and juice."
In almost all of the radio and tv versions I've heard, the word "endo" is replaced by a doubling of "smokin'" to achieve a ridiculous stutter that flies low on the listener's radar.
In any case, marijuana is therefore consistently edited out. The fact that the song portrays drinking and driving as cool is irrelevant.
I don't know what to say about the editing of the weaponry comments.
All of your examples seem to imply more than the number of originally purchased copies being sold.
The main argument is that if one buys 100 copies of a product, fiddles with them, and then resells those 100 copies he/she should be well within their rights.
I have seen this attitude first-hand. My grandfather, who I love and adore, surprised the hell out of me when, after screwing up his computer in some fashion or another, called Cox@Home to help him fix it.
I said, "Why the hell did you call them to help you get Quicken to work?" He just said, "It was worth a shot, and they fixed it anyway."
I think you have a good point there. The problem is that Tux has no offerings to contain McNabb.
It's unfortunate really, and, quite frankly, I don't see this problem being resolved by the kernel hackers anytime soon.
At least Linux is open source, so any of those coding linebackers who care to step up the proverbial plate (to mix sports) have an equal shot at helping the coach out.
I agree with you that the GPL puts coders in a strange situation WRT viewing someone else's code.
I don't feel that this is something that the GPL is aiming for, though. What I mean is, the GPL is viral in nature, and will continue to be so, because it is basically attacking an entrenched system of thought. I don't believe that many authors' intent, when licensing with GPL, is to limit reuse of their code so much as creating an environment wherein it is expected that the code will be handed around for free.
I was just afraid that you were slamming the GPL for existing and making GPL-protected code not free to steal. I don't think that the FSF _really_ wants all code to be viral in nature or that they _really_ want to spend all of their time hunting down coders who might have looked at someone else's code, but it's just a phase that our society needs to go through to get to open source nirvana.:)
Basically what I thought of, when I read your post, was, "WAH! I want to look at Company X's code and reuse it but they won't let me! Company X's policy sucks!" Where Company X's policy happens to be GPL.
Well, if I'm paying $2000/hour I want the person in charge (in this case a surgeon, I guess) to be doing whatever the hell they want to do. That could be playing music, wearing a corset or a clown mask, or whatever... as long as they're doing whatever it is that they have been doing to get them to where they are now.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah!
It _is_ "ontopic", moderator.
I am an engineer. Ferreal. I have seen many things fall apart at some critical stage that I, and others, worked on. There is nothing more that you can do other than say the things I have said in the parent post. I attempted to do so in a humorous fashion that might be interesting to other readers with similar experiences or who might be able to empathize, unlike you.
Allow me to be the first to say:
SONOFABITCH!!
GODDAMMIT!!
fuck
crap
*sigh*
As a graduate student working on my PhD in Biomedical Engineering who spent the better part of today evaluating various cost functions for a mixture model I can tell you that math ain't goin' to be done by no machine anytime soon.
Furthermore, for example, any basic course in signals and systems analysis will overwhelm even the best of students on a "good" day. Matlab's toolboxes might make the gruntwork easier, but the good engineers stand out from the sinkers in short order regardless of the help they get from "the machines".
They guy may be worried, but IMO he'll be long dead before the good engineers are replaced by uber-machines.
For math papers, OpenOffice works *better* ...
If you are seriously doing a lot of math papers you would be well served to familiarize yourself with LaTeX.
The PC port of GTA3 uses the keyboard for driving?
What a joke.
I was wondering why so many PC-based reviews of that game were underenthused.
Somehow kids are more deserving because they happen to be closer geographically/politically/culturally?
Suppose someone notices that their neighbor is painting their fence and also just happens to already have plans to go the local hardware/home improvement store. Suppose, also that this person buys a can of paint for the neighbor because they want to be helpful. As a last supposition, imagine that the neighbor who is currently painting his fence doesn't exactly need this can of paint because it's not of the same quality paint that he is currently using.
This is the kind of situation that the people who are critiquing this act of kindness are in. They, for the most part, are not saying that giving computers to people who need it is a "bad thing". Just that perhaps there are more efficient ways to expend your altruistic energy.
Take, for example, the fact that the monies that I give to the government of the United States are given under the belief that they will be used to better the lives of another person within the United States (disregarding the vast amount of our tax money which is basically given away to other countries as aid). Wouldn't it seem reasonable that if I heard of a project wherein people who also lived in the United States chose to expend their energies helping people who do not also contribute to this same sort of fund that I would then have a valid critique?
Basically, the argument is, that if you help others out domestically they will contribute back to the pot more quickly than those helped outside the nation. This is important in the sense of preserving your own rights.
Just to state my opinion on this question, if anyone cares:
I believe all parents should be able to perform any and all testing they desire on their unborn children. I also believe that parents should be allowed to abort any children they are dissatisfied with before the children are actually brought to term.
I hear they don't wear underwear under those things.
Perhaps you are right to be so paranoid, but you neglect to mention that the particular line in "Gin and Juice" which is edited is something like, "Rollin' down the street smokin' endo, sippin' on gin and juice."
In almost all of the radio and tv versions I've heard, the word "endo" is replaced by a doubling of "smokin'" to achieve a ridiculous stutter that flies low on the listener's radar.
In any case, marijuana is therefore consistently edited out. The fact that the song portrays drinking and driving as cool is irrelevant.
I don't know what to say about the editing of the weaponry comments.
All of your examples seem to imply more than the number of originally purchased copies being sold.
The main argument is that if one buys 100 copies of a product, fiddles with them, and then resells those 100 copies he/she should be well within their rights.
I have seen this attitude first-hand. My grandfather, who I love and adore, surprised the hell out of me when, after screwing up his computer in some fashion or another, called Cox@Home to help him fix it.
I said, "Why the hell did you call them to help you get Quicken to work?" He just said, "It was worth a shot, and they fixed it anyway."
WTF?
He looks like he basically already won here .
Follow the versus Batman link.
Since we're tossing opinions around ... I've also beaten both and I liked Starcraft better.
So, nyah.
My HS AP English teacher would fail any paper, no matter what length, if it had three grammatical or misspelling errors.
He actually did it, too. Some of the best students at my school experienced failure for the first time in that class.
I thought he was a total dick. I also don't really know how well the strategy worked.
eg: ie, qed, etc. :)
I think you have a good point there. The problem is that Tux has no offerings to contain McNabb.
It's unfortunate really, and, quite frankly, I don't see this problem being resolved by the kernel hackers anytime soon.
At least Linux is open source, so any of those coding linebackers who care to step up the proverbial plate (to mix sports) have an equal shot at helping the coach out.
I agree with you that the GPL puts coders in a strange situation WRT viewing someone else's code.
:)
I don't feel that this is something that the GPL is aiming for, though. What I mean is, the GPL is viral in nature, and will continue to be so, because it is basically attacking an entrenched system of thought. I don't believe that many authors' intent, when licensing with GPL, is to limit reuse of their code so much as creating an environment wherein it is expected that the code will be handed around for free.
I was just afraid that you were slamming the GPL for existing and making GPL-protected code not free to steal. I don't think that the FSF _really_ wants all code to be viral in nature or that they _really_ want to spend all of their time hunting down coders who might have looked at someone else's code, but it's just a phase that our society needs to go through to get to open source nirvana.
Basically what I thought of, when I read your post, was, "WAH! I want to look at Company X's code and reuse it but they won't let me! Company X's policy sucks!" Where Company X's policy happens to be GPL.
I'm having a hard time understanding your point.
The GPL provides a method for code to be reused in a fashion that enforces that the original authors' desires are fulfilled.
It seems to me that you would just like to look at other people's code, reuse it in any fashion that you feel like doing, and be done with it.
Because you can't do this, you slam the GPL for not giving you what you want.
This can't be your intention, is it?
If you want to be that guy who has the "soundtrack to my life" in Otherland then you NEED TO SEE A PSYCHIATRIST NOW.
This has been a PSA. You all should thank me. I'll probably be dead in the next couple of weeks.
Oh, yeah ... sweet.
Good idea.
Hey, you know, that's smart! I just read it again!
Sweet.
Well, if I'm paying $2000/hour I want the person in charge (in this case a surgeon, I guess) to be doing whatever the hell they want to do. That could be playing music, wearing a corset or a clown mask, or whatever ... as long as they're doing whatever it is that they have been doing to get them to where they are now.
Well, that's a different legitimate complaint, neh?
What's insecure about hosting something NOT anonymously via ftp?
And, BTW, I completely agree WRT the offtopic mods.
Pretty lame, I agree. But maybe it's his last name.