Well, the whole idea of open source is that you can fix things if you don't like it. Maybe someone could make a Linux distro that doesn't leave traces of everything you've ever done, hidden in some config file in some obscure directory.
In some states, parole for sex offenders can require that they don't look at pornography.
So let me get this straight, if some girl you have sex with suddenly decides it was a bad idea and cries 'rape', now you can't look at even legal porn in your own home? Sounds like an infringement of human rights to me.
Maybe, that's what I'd expect someone who's primarily a GUI user to do.
However, a command-line commando doesn't think like that. Someone who regularly uses pipes thinks in terms of the path of data. In this case it's more intuitive to think that cat opens the file and sends all the data via the pipe to the grep program, which then filters the output, which is then printed to the screen.
Also with your example you need to remember which way the parameters go round. That's often caused me problems with 'ld'.
Tthat got modded up. Slashdot's moderation system is now officially meaningless. I mean, come on. I was was browing at 2+, and saw that, I'd ask for my money back. Even if I wasn't a subscriber, I'd want compensating for my time being wasted.
If, however, musicians were actually paid the money for those songs a lot of people might feel guilty about "ripping off" their favorite bands.
Even if musicians were given more money, it wouldn't make a difference to people's opinions. Musicians are already millionaires, giving them MORE money from CD sales isn't going to make people feel sorry for them. Probably less so, meaning that there would be EVEN LESS guilt!
I don't have much of an opinion on gun ownership, but I know that if I was in New Orleans, with martial law, rioting, looting and effective anarchy, I'd rather be tooled up than not.
Ergo, in a Libertarian society, following the sacred rules, there would be no aid.
I don't know much about all your American political terminology, but I'm sure that Libertarianism involves being able to use your money how you want without the goverment getting involved and taxing it, so how on earth could there be a rule against charity? Or have I missed something?
I would that thought that under Libertarianism you could give as much or as little as you wanted, rather than the government taxing you and doing it for you. I'm not sure who Ayn Rand is or how one person's opinion can dictate an entire political ideology.
But then political discussions on this site, no matter the subject, rapidly descend into idiotic, close-minded, immature, uninformed flamewars, so I don't think I'll get involved in this one.
I do wonder how many businesses will move anything not stolen into the back room, claim a 100% loss on insurance and then sell the stuff thats left off the books in an effort to make some more money.
It's not right, but having lived with people like that for a while, I do understand it. They are ruled by their desires and they have never had the resources to develop generosity.
When your home and business have been trashed, your town reduced to a giant rotting pond, and your family killed or lost, being a 'good citizen' probably comes pretty far down on the priority list. Trying to get enough money to rebuild their lives is probably more on their mind.
I don't see what generosity has to do with insurance fraud. It's not like the insurance companies never fuck people over. They're legitimate targets for anything they that get. What's the betting they do anything they can to refuse payouts to people whose houses/possessions have been ruined by the Hurricane?
"Oh sorry, your stuff was looted through the window, our policy only covers things looted via the door. It's there in extra-small print on page 87 paragraph 4 word seven, written in the dot over the 'i'. Standard policy, everyone knows about that."
For a start, 'great' is completely subjective. I mean, one person's greatness is another person's garbage.
Secondly, I don't think that great works being unpopular is due to marketing, but more to do with how many people it appeals to. Something which is vague, generic and shallow can appeal to more people, and is easier to get into.
A book like Harry Potter might not be great literature, but it's easy enough so that many people who don't like grinding through 1000 pages of pretentious writing and stiff dialogue can enjoy it. Most people are not hardcore readers, so more people will prefer the book which has a low barrier to entry.
I don't think your complain holds up to films though. The more popular films are often the better ones. Look at the imdb listing (yeah it's crap but good for a vague general idea of quality), and the top films are usually the best ones. If an obscure but arguably great film isn't up there, it's probably because it's too obscure and esoteric for anyone to find interesting.
Againt, the companies don't want their customers to get the benefits of globalization, but want them reserved for themselves.
Probably, but I can't really criticise them for that. Everyone looks after their best interests.
An analogy which will get modded down in about 15 seconds:
Again, Slashdotters don't want record companies to get the benefits of copyright law (piracy), but want them reserved for themselves (GPL).
For the record, I think DVD regions are a big bag of shit. I will never buy a regionless player. If there's a point where that's all that are sold, I just won't buy any. I'll vote with my wallet rather than whining on the Internet about how unfair the world is.
Yeah, I don't know what the hell Routers is, I just read Slashdot. Mainly out of routine (it's long since gone downhill). But it's more for the technology-slant and the comments.
That link's a load of communist claptrap. References from the 70s? Come back with something relevent. The things on that list are complete non-stories.
In that sort of job you don't need to be complicit to anything, just running the computers.
He is a CIO of a company sufficiently large for politics being the dominant form of ascention in the ranks.
So in other words you know nothing about him? But you still try to indirectly criticise him. Of course it's indirect criticism, you can't criticise directly because you have actually nothing to go on, other than 'he's in a high position in a big company', which I don't think is a crime.
Perhaps next time you want to criticise someone, try actually finding faults with them. Then you won't just look like a bitter underling.
But then again it is all probably sounding good to a worshipper of greed and "get-on-top-at-any-cost" type of "making something of one's life".
Can you tell me what 'costs' this CIO has spent in order to get to his position? Come on, anything. Anything solid, at all. Can you do it? Thought not, you're just a common troll.
Any company that wants to be successful wants to crush competitors. That's what the word 'competition' means. No-one's forcing anyone to sell out to EA.
as well as obtain exclusivity over a wide array of content to stifle creativity...
How exactly does that stifle creativity? Not being able to use official names doesn't make games any more creative. In fact you could argue that it forces developers to come up with more original ideas.
Sounds like trustbuilding to me.
Sounds like the tin-foil hat brigade are out again.
I know that Slashdot is just a text website, but you can almost HEAR the bitterness in this thread.
Jesus, are there that many angry, miserable, low-level grunts who resent anyone who is even slightly more successful than they are?
Surely if you're that much cleverer than all those top executives (if you say they only get there through incompetence), then start your own company with a better promotion policy. But then that would require skill, hard work, intelligence and balls. Some qualities that usually increase as you go up the ladder.
Are you calling the CIO of Unilever a thief? What exactly has he done wrong other than turning down your pet piece of software?
No point throwing mindless anti-capitalist insults around just because someone else had the balls to make something of his life rather than just sit in a cubicle printing out Dilbert cartoons.
This business about suing customers after the point of sale is ridiculous.
I think the point is here, they're pirating, which means they downloaded it illegally, hence no point of sale. If they wanted to be considered customers, surely they should have bought it legally?
Seems pretty simple to me, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Did these people not know about copyright law? Maybe they did and just chose to ignore it. In which case they can't really be too surprised when the copyright holders don't like back and take it. They knew what they were getting into, probably thought they just wouldn't get caught.
No one's forcing them to participate in a business model which is horribly out-of-step with the technology of the day.
So effectively you're saying that copyright is out of date. Meaning that once you've bought a DVD or CD, you're free to copy it endlessly to everyone in the world. If you mean that, then say it, don't just beat around the bush attacking easy targets like like corporations.
Of course realise that this means that films and TV programmes are effectively unmakable by anyone other than generous billionaires, except on a BBC-style licence system, which wouldn't work in isolation as it relies a lot on outside material. In fact that wouldn't work either as no-one would bother paying the free.
And don't expect much quality music when no-one can afford a recording studio.
+4 interesting? It seems that the moderation system, instead of the intended purpose of filtering out trolls and giving the better posts more visibility, just serves as a system for like-minded people to moderate up each others posts as a sort of clique, and moderating down outsiders.
If you want to get modded up on Slashdot, don't post what you think, don't post something that you think people will find interesting, just post what you think they'll agree with. Post 'feel good' posts. Here are some good starting points:
"Google is innovative, Microsoft just steals." "The ipod is better than anything, because the interface counts more than anything on a device which spends 99.9% of its life in your pocket." "Piracy is great, anyone who says otherwise is a MPAA shill." "Patents are always evil."
Accuracy, facts or reason don't matter, what matters is the 'fuzzies' it generates in the moderators. This is a place for people who were unpopular at high school to feel popular. Agreeing with the group-think makes them part of the in crowd.
It's hypocritical to ignore a law when convenient, and then to criticise other people doing the same.
It's like drink driving and then condemning people driving 10mph over the limit.
If Slashdotter's weren't interested in piracy, or Linux, there wouldn't be all this wailing and gnashing of teethin every piracy article, they'd just accept that copyright infringement isn't acceptable and get on with their lives. It's the double-standards based on convenience that piss me off.
Surveys suggest that users pirate music and buy more music than other people.
It's funny how people unquestioningly believe surveys when they like the results. If there was a survey showing that pirates buy less music, you'd all write hundreds of pages finding faults in it. But in this case you don't even bat an eyelid.
My reckoning is that people who pirate music generally don't answer surveys like that, or if they do, they don't answer it honestly:
Q: Do you pirate music? A: Well, a bit. Once. Accidently. I deleted it three seconds later. Q: How much music do you buy? A: Oh loads, honest, really. £100 a week on music, that I sampled online. Honest to god.
Penguins are interesting animals. The most interesting fact is that penguins are the only mammals in the world that can fly, hence the suitability for this project.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the whole idea of open source is that you can fix things if you don't like it. Maybe someone could make a Linux distro that doesn't leave traces of everything you've ever done, hidden in some config file in some obscure directory.
In some states, parole for sex offenders can require that they don't look at pornography.
So let me get this straight, if some girl you have sex with suddenly decides it was a bad idea and cries 'rape', now you can't look at even legal porn in your own home? Sounds like an infringement of human rights to me.
Maybe, that's what I'd expect someone who's primarily a GUI user to do.
However, a command-line commando doesn't think like that. Someone who regularly uses pipes thinks in terms of the path of data. In this case it's more intuitive to think that cat opens the file and sends all the data via the pipe to the grep program, which then filters the output, which is then printed to the screen.
Also with your example you need to remember which way the parameters go round. That's often caused me problems with 'ld'.
The method seems to be "if you give us the virgin, we'll make sure the volcano doesn't destroy their village."
It's OK, I have volcano insurance.
Tthat got modded up. Slashdot's moderation system is now officially meaningless. I mean, come on. I was was browing at 2+, and saw that, I'd ask for my money back. Even if I wasn't a subscriber, I'd want compensating for my time being wasted.
:-(
The tin-foil hat briage are in charge
If, however, musicians were actually paid the money for those songs a lot of people might feel guilty about "ripping off" their favorite bands.
Even if musicians were given more money, it wouldn't make a difference to people's opinions. Musicians are already millionaires, giving them MORE money from CD sales isn't going to make people feel sorry for them. Probably less so, meaning that there would be EVEN LESS guilt!
I don't have much of an opinion on gun ownership, but I know that if I was in New Orleans, with martial law, rioting, looting and effective anarchy, I'd rather be tooled up than not.
Ergo, in a Libertarian society, following the sacred rules, there would be no aid.
I don't know much about all your American political terminology, but I'm sure that Libertarianism involves being able to use your money how you want without the goverment getting involved and taxing it, so how on earth could there be a rule against charity? Or have I missed something?
I would that thought that under Libertarianism you could give as much or as little as you wanted, rather than the government taxing you and doing it for you. I'm not sure who Ayn Rand is or how one person's opinion can dictate an entire political ideology.
But then political discussions on this site, no matter the subject, rapidly descend into idiotic, close-minded, immature, uninformed flamewars, so I don't think I'll get involved in this one.
I do wonder how many businesses will move anything not stolen into the back room, claim a 100% loss on insurance and then sell the stuff thats left off the books in an effort to make some more money.
It's not right, but having lived with people like that for a while, I do understand it. They are ruled by their desires and they have never had the resources to develop generosity.
When your home and business have been trashed, your town reduced to a giant rotting pond, and your family killed or lost, being a 'good citizen' probably comes pretty far down on the priority list. Trying to get enough money to rebuild their lives is probably more on their mind.
I don't see what generosity has to do with insurance fraud. It's not like the insurance companies never fuck people over. They're legitimate targets for anything they that get. What's the betting they do anything they can to refuse payouts to people whose houses/possessions have been ruined by the Hurricane?
"Oh sorry, your stuff was looted through the window, our policy only covers things looted via the door. It's there in extra-small print on page 87 paragraph 4 word seven, written in the dot over the 'i'. Standard policy, everyone knows about that."
Great work is seldom popular work.
For a start, 'great' is completely subjective. I mean, one person's greatness is another person's garbage.
Secondly, I don't think that great works being unpopular is due to marketing, but more to do with how many people it appeals to. Something which is vague, generic and shallow can appeal to more people, and is easier to get into.
A book like Harry Potter might not be great literature, but it's easy enough so that many people who don't like grinding through 1000 pages of pretentious writing and stiff dialogue can enjoy it. Most people are not hardcore readers, so more people will prefer the book which has a low barrier to entry.
I don't think your complain holds up to films though. The more popular films are often the better ones. Look at the imdb listing (yeah it's crap but good for a vague general idea of quality), and the top films are usually the best ones. If an obscure but arguably great film isn't up there, it's probably because it's too obscure and esoteric for anyone to find interesting.
Againt, the companies don't want their customers to get the benefits of globalization, but want them reserved for themselves.
Probably, but I can't really criticise them for that. Everyone looks after their best interests.
An analogy which will get modded down in about 15 seconds:
Again, Slashdotters don't want record companies to get the benefits of copyright law (piracy), but want them reserved for themselves (GPL).
For the record, I think DVD regions are a big bag of shit. I will never buy a regionless player. If there's a point where that's all that are sold, I just won't buy any. I'll vote with my wallet rather than whining on the Internet about how unfair the world is.
Yeah, I don't know what the hell Routers is, I just read Slashdot. Mainly out of routine (it's long since gone downhill). But it's more for the technology-slant and the comments.
I bet you don't get good flamewars on Routers.
That link's a load of communist claptrap. References from the 70s? Come back with something relevent. The things on that list are complete non-stories.
In that sort of job you don't need to be complicit to anything, just running the computers.
He is a CIO of a company sufficiently large for politics being the dominant form of ascention in the ranks.
So in other words you know nothing about him? But you still try to indirectly criticise him. Of course it's indirect criticism, you can't criticise directly because you have actually nothing to go on, other than 'he's in a high position in a big company', which I don't think is a crime.
Perhaps next time you want to criticise someone, try actually finding faults with them. Then you won't just look like a bitter underling.
But then again it is all probably sounding good to a worshipper of greed and "get-on-top-at-any-cost" type of "making something of one's life".
Can you tell me what 'costs' this CIO has spent in order to get to his position? Come on, anything. Anything solid, at all. Can you do it? Thought not, you're just a common troll.
Any company that wants to be successful wants to crush competitors. That's what the word 'competition' means. No-one's forcing anyone to sell out to EA.
as well as obtain exclusivity over a wide array of content to stifle creativity...
How exactly does that stifle creativity? Not being able to use official names doesn't make games any more creative. In fact you could argue that it forces developers to come up with more original ideas.
Sounds like trustbuilding to me.
Sounds like the tin-foil hat brigade are out again.
I know that Slashdot is just a text website, but you can almost HEAR the bitterness in this thread.
Jesus, are there that many angry, miserable, low-level grunts who resent anyone who is even slightly more successful than they are?
Surely if you're that much cleverer than all those top executives (if you say they only get there through incompetence), then start your own company with a better promotion policy. But then that would require skill, hard work, intelligence and balls. Some qualities that usually increase as you go up the ladder.
Are you calling the CIO of Unilever a thief? What exactly has he done wrong other than turning down your pet piece of software?
No point throwing mindless anti-capitalist insults around just because someone else had the balls to make something of his life rather than just sit in a cubicle printing out Dilbert cartoons.
Declare them a monopoly, even though there are countless others making games, and absolutely no barrier to entry?
Sounds like you'd enjoy it in Cuba.
My sister was later a lifeguard at a pool that didn't have a swim test policy. She probably had to pull somebody out of the water twice a week!
So in one week she does 5 minutes work? Sounds like a good job to me, just sitting there in a chair like a sort of Swimming Pool Overlord.
This business about suing customers after the point of sale is ridiculous.
I think the point is here, they're pirating, which means they downloaded it illegally, hence no point of sale. If they wanted to be considered customers, surely they should have bought it legally?
Seems pretty simple to me, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Did these people not know about copyright law? Maybe they did and just chose to ignore it. In which case they can't really be too surprised when the copyright holders don't like back and take it. They knew what they were getting into, probably thought they just wouldn't get caught.
No one's forcing them to participate in a business model which is horribly out-of-step with the technology of the day.
So effectively you're saying that copyright is out of date. Meaning that once you've bought a DVD or CD, you're free to copy it endlessly to everyone in the world. If you mean that, then say it, don't just beat around the bush attacking easy targets like like corporations.
Of course realise that this means that films and TV programmes are effectively unmakable by anyone other than generous billionaires, except on a BBC-style licence system, which wouldn't work in isolation as it relies a lot on outside material. In fact that wouldn't work either as no-one would bother paying the free.
And don't expect much quality music when no-one can afford a recording studio.
+4 interesting? It seems that the moderation system, instead of the intended purpose of filtering out trolls and giving the better posts more visibility, just serves as a system for like-minded people to moderate up each others posts as a sort of clique, and moderating down outsiders.
If you want to get modded up on Slashdot, don't post what you think, don't post something that you think people will find interesting, just post what you think they'll agree with. Post 'feel good' posts. Here are some good starting points:
"Google is innovative, Microsoft just steals."
"The ipod is better than anything, because the interface counts more than anything on a device which spends 99.9% of its life in your pocket."
"Piracy is great, anyone who says otherwise is a MPAA shill."
"Patents are always evil."
Accuracy, facts or reason don't matter, what matters is the 'fuzzies' it generates in the moderators. This is a place for people who were unpopular at high school to feel popular. Agreeing with the group-think makes them part of the in crowd.
It's hypocritical to ignore a law when convenient, and then to criticise other people doing the same.
It's like drink driving and then condemning people driving 10mph over the limit.
If Slashdotter's weren't interested in piracy, or Linux, there wouldn't be all this wailing and gnashing of teethin every piracy article, they'd just accept that copyright infringement isn't acceptable and get on with their lives. It's the double-standards based on convenience that piss me off.
Surveys suggest that users pirate music and buy more music than other people.
It's funny how people unquestioningly believe surveys when they like the results. If there was a survey showing that pirates buy less music, you'd all write hundreds of pages finding faults in it. But in this case you don't even bat an eyelid.
My reckoning is that people who pirate music generally don't answer surveys like that, or if they do, they don't answer it honestly:
Q: Do you pirate music?
A: Well, a bit. Once. Accidently. I deleted it three seconds later.
Q: How much music do you buy?
A: Oh loads, honest, really. £100 a week on music, that I sampled online. Honest to god.
In my experience rar gives file sizes about half the size of gzip or bzip2. Zip doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.
If it's not keeping up with inflation, it IS a cut.
Penguins are interesting animals. The most interesting fact is that penguins are the only mammals in the world that can fly, hence the suitability for this project.