I don't care if something is open source or not unless that gives me a benefit.
The benefit is: If it crashes, you can do something about it.
You have the source. You can compile it yourself. If it doesn't work the way you'd like, you can change it.
With open source, you have many eyes looking at the code. If there is a subtle bug it will more easily be found by 10,000 people looking at it rather than 10 or 20.
It means you have to be able to demonstrate that the service you are selling is capable of getting up to that rate. It does not mean that it is a minimum. It's simple English.
We agree on the deceptive part though. Keep your eyes open for "up to" in advertising. You'd be surprised how often it shows up. Once you know it's a ceiling and not any other promise you'll be shocked.
Exactly! Thank you for getting my point. When someone says "up to", what they are saying is "you won't get any better than this." It's not a promise of a minimum, it's the promise of a maximum. "You will not exceed this." That's all it really means.
Oh, and ask Google about where to find a picture of Lucas wearing a "Han shot first" t-shirt. He definitely has a sense of humor about these things.
It's his sense of humor that bothers me. Like adding 52 seconds of cutting room floor footage and billing $75 for it.
Hell if people made me into a billionaire like that I'd probably have a good sense of humor too. I'd spend my days rolling around on the floor in piles of hundred dollar bills giggling like a maniac.
Don't believe me? Go to the mall. Find the dumbest fanny pack wearing "I'm with stupid" t shirt guy you can.
Now imagine that guy submitting plans to zoning because he'd like to build something.
Imagine what they would look like. Imagine how far away from sanity they would be. Imagine how many times this guy is going to come back after a round of changes and say "how about now?"
I'm not exaggerating. My wife has told me some absolute horror stories. Yes, you need an engineer to approve plans. Otherwise you'd have duct tape and roofing tin construction falling on your head every time the wind picked up.
Zoning is important. It's what keeps cities from looking like spaghetti. My wife used to work in the local city's plans and permits division. You'd be amazed what some people come in there looking to do. Zoning is a good thing and having qualified engineers review your plans is super important - trust me.
And FWIW, $75,000 was collected for 250 people. That's $75000/250=$300 bucks per person. That's the fine - I'm guessing the permit would be cheaper. Three hundred bucks to have a qualified engineer review your pool plans to make sure it's not a deathtrap that will kill your neighbor's kids when they sneak into it is money well spent. To my way of thinking it is an excellent thing these guys are using Google Earth to go find these cheap morons. Another example of technology making the world a better place.
It is worth mentioning though that the permit might be more expensive than the fine. Sometimes that is the case. I know of an example. My wife used to tell people straight up when they would try to purchase the "moving a huge thing through your city on the freeway" permit. She'd tell them the cost. They would complain. Smart ones would ask them how much the fine is, and she would tell them the truth - a number about half the cost of the permit. They would both share a laugh, and she would wish them a good day and hang up.
You wouldn't want that kind of fun to stop, would you? That's one of the best parts of sarcasm. Pitching it over the heads of stupid people and watching them not get it. There is an element of sadism to really good sarcasm, and a punctuation mark to make it obvious would ruin that.
That does not sound like a win-win situation to me. Not at all, no sir. That sounds like the RIAA fucked themselves proper and that you might have spent a couple hundred dollars had they not been such douchebags. They LOST revenue because of how you FELT about their ACTIONS.
I agree. But hell, how many people think that much about the things they buy? I'm a rarity. I know it.
If everyone put the same amount of thought into their music purchases, well then nobody would know who the fuck Lady Gaga is, would they? But they do don't they?
Most people don't give a rat's ass about anything. I don't think the RIAA is overly concerned about losing the educated portion of the public as part of their customer base. We're a minuscule market segment.
You're not looking at the expense correctly. It's not revenue they're hoping to regain. If that was the case spending $16M to gain $391k is a losing deal and any idiot could see that.
This money was spent as advertising, to spread fear about. And for what they've got for their $16M, it's been a bargain.
Back when Napster ruled the nets and music was free and nobody was getting stripped of their entire future just to listen to Madonna, the music industry was looking at a pretty dire situation. Now significantly fewer people download music. I sure as hell don't. Too rich for my blood - I won't do it. From that point of view it is a win. There are plenty of people who now will pay for music rather than risk having the RIAA's pack of rabid lunatics take an interest in your life. Me, I simply do without. I won't fund these assholes, but I won't risk the future of my family just to hear Rush's latest album either. I simply abstain.
Remember the "music industry" is nothing more than privileged middlemen. They produce nothing. They are to music what a toll booth is to travel. The whole goal is to keep the scam going. Spending $16M to keep the status quo? Totally worth it. Look at their revenue generated during the period in which they spent the $16M. Pennies on the dollar.
With all of these near-billion dollar ventures showing a bogus loss, isn't Uncle Sam losing out on tax revenue?
I seem to recall that Sam gets pretty ticked off when he doesn't get paid. They put Capone away for tax evasion, you know. They didn't mind the murders as much.
Well, halfway anyways. Release the other half (the user space) part as FOSS and you'll be golden.
The biggest problem I've seen in embedded Linux is poor graphics performance. You have all this video acceleration that CE/XPe can take advantage of, and Linux doesn't get but a mere teaspoon of the graphics speed the hardware is capable of.
You really want to see your platform take off? Want your CPU sales to go through the roof? Give us something that is as accelerated as the Microsoft side of the equation. Give us the source. It won't hurt your sales. It won't help your competitors. Reverse engineering would take more time than actual R&D. Who wants to copy a video device that's already on the market when you can make better and faster by the next quarter anyways?
Seriously - this is the way to go. Release your driver source. All it can do is help move your product into more market spaces.
Unlike you, however, I'd like to see more of the power in the hands of the people.
Nowhere in this thread did I state my preference. I'm just saying how things are. Not how I'd wish them to be. Of course I'd wish for more power in the hands of the people. I'm not some kind of sadist.
And yes you do have a certain amount of haggle power - if your skill set is amazing. The reality of it is that you are most likely very replaceable, which means that the employer doesn't really need to listen to your haggling. There are a dozen other guys with your skill set waiting in line that won't argue terms most likely. Extending the cucumber metaphor, sure you can haggle. But if there are a dozen people in line who accept the original terms of the sale, why not deal with them instead?
The part you're not getting is that we are not "giving corporations a power over you". They have money. You want a job. Since they are the point of sale, they get to dictate the terms.
You can't walk into a store and say "this cucumber is only worth 30 cents so that's what I'm paying" and walk out.
Likewise, the corporation is vending you a job. You don't get to dictate the terms. They can place any terms they like onto the deal, since they are the ones doing the offering.
Don't like a given company's policies? Don't work there. If enough people dislike the policy, if they lose enough people through their crappy policy - they will change their policy. Much like the cucumber for sale. If they are offering bad terms for the sale, then nobody will buy the cucumber and they'll have to change their pricing.
It is simple economics. Seller dictates the terms, market responds. If the market response is favorable, the terms are valid. If the market response is lousy, change the terms. And apparently having a no tattoos policy for some jobs don't net a large enough loss to change that policy.
If it really pisses you off, start a petition, be an activist, do something about it. Let the companies know they are losing more than they are gaining. Which will someday soon be the case. Tattoos and body mods are increasingly popular. Eventually the people doing the hiring will have them and the issue will go away. We're in a transitional state right now on the topic. So if it really bothers you - help out.
Me, I don't give a crap either way. A significant percentage of my friends are modded. Doesn't mean jack to me. My office wouldn't care - they're pretty hip. We even extend insurance to same sex couples. But not everyone is in this century yet. So either be patient and wait it out, or help.
Just don't expect Uncle Sam to dash in and fix everything for you. The first amendment isn't some golden hammer that fixes everything that's wrong with personal expression. It only does a few very specific things, and it's best to know what they are.
Yours is exactly the self-negating attitude I was referring to.
Nonsense. I am merely pointing out that your argument that this goes against the first amendment of the Bill of Rights is bunk. Because it is. Read it and I'm sure you will agree.
They're rights regardless of whether they are in the Constitution.
Perhaps. Perhaps you're a big fan of the whole natural law thing. But I think you'll find that if you get fired for having a tattoo and walk into the local courthouse waving around a copy of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, your case will not go well. At all.
I was merely addressing your legal interpretation, that the first amendment protects you in this way. It does not. A literal reading simply means that Congress cannot pass a law taking away your right of free speech.
So until Congress passes a dress code, your argument does not hold.
Why not? Tattooed people aren't a "protected class". An employer could look you dead in the eye and say you look like a carny so we're not hiring you. They're allowed to have a dress code.
I had to contract with a company that had a strict dress code. Slacks, white shirts, thin black ties mandatory. No facial hair past a mustache and a goatee. All legal.
Of course being a contractor I could look how I wished. But it was really strange the first day. I showed up in a polo shirt, no tie, and a full beard. You'd have thought I had been out in the parking lot clubbing puppies. People would get whiplash when I'd walk by. They'd turn, glare - then notice the Visitor badge and relax. A little.
the question here isn't of law, it's of whether something is right or wrong.
Ah, but it *is* a question of law. That was my whole point.
OP said that the First Amendment somehow made it okay for him to have tattoos and get any job he wants. Which is absolutely silly if you've ever taken the time to read it. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from making laws that abridge free speech.
The morality of it is a different conversation, and one that has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment.
54% of the arable land in North America is not utilized. If you want to live on a farm go do it.Uncle Sam will even help. But if you're totally punk rock and don't want to "be part of the machine", then go be Amish. They manage it pretty well.
The reason why nobody actually does this is because that way of life is stupefyingly difficult. Up before dawn to a full day of hard labor every single day.
Go spend a week on a real farm. Just a single week. I'm sure they'd be glad for the help. I'll bet you don't last two days. I doubt I would.
The "no visible tattoo" policy is the antithesis of the 1st Amendment.
Please people, read the first amendment and try to understand it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It starts - and pay attention - "Congress shall make no law".
Do you see anywhere that Congress has made a law that says visible tattoos are bad?
This is a corporate policy. If you are hired, they are welcoming you in the door onto their property - on their terms. If they say you have to wear purple underwear to work here, guess what? YOU DO.
Employment is optional. Nobody has to give you a job. If they don't like your tattoos they don't have to hire you. It is really as simple as that. You have to do what the boss says - it's a job. It is not a right.
So back OT, to the guy who wants a sleeve of math equations, my advice would be DON'T. It's fun, it's nerdy, I can see the appeal. But you are limiting your options.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care if something is open source or not unless that gives me a benefit.
The benefit is: If it crashes, you can do something about it.
You have the source. You can compile it yourself. If it doesn't work the way you'd like, you can change it.
With open source, you have many eyes looking at the code. If there is a subtle bug it will more easily be found by 10,000 people looking at it rather than 10 or 20.
That's your benefit right there.
No, "up to" means exactly that. Up. To.
It means you have to be able to demonstrate that the service you are selling is capable of getting up to that rate. It does not mean that it is a minimum. It's simple English.
We agree on the deceptive part though. Keep your eyes open for "up to" in advertising. You'd be surprised how often it shows up. Once you know it's a ceiling and not any other promise you'll be shocked.
"Up to" does not mean "less than or equal to".
Yes it does.
To make it easy we'll stick to integers and start at zero. Now - name all the numbers starting at zero "up to" ten.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Done.
The mathematical operation you've just seen is "less than or equal to."
Exactly! Thank you for getting my point. When someone says "up to", what they are saying is "you won't get any better than this." It's not a promise of a minimum, it's the promise of a maximum. "You will not exceed this." That's all it really means.
"Up To" means "Less Than or Equal To".
What are all the numbers you can name from zero "up to" 6.7? Would you expect to encounter 3 and 4 on your way up to 6.7?
It's misleading maybe, but it's not a lie. They are publishing their maximum possible speed. YMMV.
Oh, and ask Google about where to find a picture of Lucas wearing a "Han shot first" t-shirt. He definitely has a sense of humor about these things.
It's his sense of humor that bothers me. Like adding 52 seconds of cutting room floor footage and billing $75 for it.
Hell if people made me into a billionaire like that I'd probably have a good sense of humor too. I'd spend my days rolling around on the floor in piles of hundred dollar bills giggling like a maniac.
Yes.
Don't believe me? Go to the mall. Find the dumbest fanny pack wearing "I'm with stupid" t shirt guy you can.
Now imagine that guy submitting plans to zoning because he'd like to build something.
Imagine what they would look like. Imagine how far away from sanity they would be. Imagine how many times this guy is going to come back after a round of changes and say "how about now?"
I'm not exaggerating. My wife has told me some absolute horror stories. Yes, you need an engineer to approve plans. Otherwise you'd have duct tape and roofing tin construction falling on your head every time the wind picked up.
Zoning is important. It's what keeps cities from looking like spaghetti. My wife used to work in the local city's plans and permits division. You'd be amazed what some people come in there looking to do. Zoning is a good thing and having qualified engineers review your plans is super important - trust me.
And FWIW, $75,000 was collected for 250 people. That's $75000/250=$300 bucks per person. That's the fine - I'm guessing the permit would be cheaper. Three hundred bucks to have a qualified engineer review your pool plans to make sure it's not a deathtrap that will kill your neighbor's kids when they sneak into it is money well spent. To my way of thinking it is an excellent thing these guys are using Google Earth to go find these cheap morons. Another example of technology making the world a better place.
It is worth mentioning though that the permit might be more expensive than the fine. Sometimes that is the case. I know of an example. My wife used to tell people straight up when they would try to purchase the "moving a huge thing through your city on the freeway" permit. She'd tell them the cost. They would complain. Smart ones would ask them how much the fine is, and she would tell them the truth - a number about half the cost of the permit. They would both share a laugh, and she would wish them a good day and hang up.
If you can't read something and know it's sarcasm, well...stupidity should be painful. Just ask all those news organizations who keep quoting The Onion stories as real news.
You wouldn't want that kind of fun to stop, would you? That's one of the best parts of sarcasm. Pitching it over the heads of stupid people and watching them not get it. There is an element of sadism to really good sarcasm, and a punctuation mark to make it obvious would ruin that.
...make that "replace substance with style."
Fucking coffee. How does it work?
Just so you know people in the 90s were saying this about 80s games, and in the 2000s saying it about 90s games.
Or maybe as Moore's law marches forward it becomes continually easier to replace style with substance.
That does not sound like a win-win situation to me. Not at all, no sir. That sounds like the RIAA fucked themselves proper and that you might have spent a couple hundred dollars had they not been such douchebags. They LOST revenue because of how you FELT about their ACTIONS.
I agree. But hell, how many people think that much about the things they buy? I'm a rarity. I know it.
If everyone put the same amount of thought into their music purchases, well then nobody would know who the fuck Lady Gaga is, would they? But they do don't they?
Most people don't give a rat's ass about anything. I don't think the RIAA is overly concerned about losing the educated portion of the public as part of their customer base. We're a minuscule market segment.
You're not looking at the expense correctly. It's not revenue they're hoping to regain. If that was the case spending $16M to gain $391k is a losing deal and any idiot could see that.
This money was spent as advertising, to spread fear about. And for what they've got for their $16M, it's been a bargain.
Back when Napster ruled the nets and music was free and nobody was getting stripped of their entire future just to listen to Madonna, the music industry was looking at a pretty dire situation. Now significantly fewer people download music. I sure as hell don't. Too rich for my blood - I won't do it. From that point of view it is a win. There are plenty of people who now will pay for music rather than risk having the RIAA's pack of rabid lunatics take an interest in your life. Me, I simply do without. I won't fund these assholes, but I won't risk the future of my family just to hear Rush's latest album either. I simply abstain.
Remember the "music industry" is nothing more than privileged middlemen. They produce nothing. They are to music what a toll booth is to travel. The whole goal is to keep the scam going. Spending $16M to keep the status quo? Totally worth it. Look at their revenue generated during the period in which they spent the $16M. Pennies on the dollar.
With all of these near-billion dollar ventures showing a bogus loss, isn't Uncle Sam losing out on tax revenue?
I seem to recall that Sam gets pretty ticked off when he doesn't get paid. They put Capone away for tax evasion, you know. They didn't mind the murders as much.
It's not that he doesn't understand - he *can't* understand. Because he's crazy.
Let Kevin Smith tell you all about it. You should see follow up links for part 2 and 3 in the sidebar if you're interested.
Well, halfway anyways. Release the other half (the user space) part as FOSS and you'll be golden.
The biggest problem I've seen in embedded Linux is poor graphics performance. You have all this video acceleration that CE/XPe can take advantage of, and Linux doesn't get but a mere teaspoon of the graphics speed the hardware is capable of.
You really want to see your platform take off? Want your CPU sales to go through the roof? Give us something that is as accelerated as the Microsoft side of the equation. Give us the source. It won't hurt your sales. It won't help your competitors. Reverse engineering would take more time than actual R&D. Who wants to copy a video device that's already on the market when you can make better and faster by the next quarter anyways?
Seriously - this is the way to go. Release your driver source. All it can do is help move your product into more market spaces.
Unlike you, however, I'd like to see more of the power in the hands of the people.
Nowhere in this thread did I state my preference. I'm just saying how things are. Not how I'd wish them to be. Of course I'd wish for more power in the hands of the people. I'm not some kind of sadist.
And yes you do have a certain amount of haggle power - if your skill set is amazing. The reality of it is that you are most likely very replaceable, which means that the employer doesn't really need to listen to your haggling. There are a dozen other guys with your skill set waiting in line that won't argue terms most likely. Extending the cucumber metaphor, sure you can haggle. But if there are a dozen people in line who accept the original terms of the sale, why not deal with them instead?
I'm sorry, but that's the reality of it.
The part you're not getting is that we are not "giving corporations a power over you". They have money. You want a job. Since they are the point of sale, they get to dictate the terms.
You can't walk into a store and say "this cucumber is only worth 30 cents so that's what I'm paying" and walk out.
Likewise, the corporation is vending you a job. You don't get to dictate the terms. They can place any terms they like onto the deal, since they are the ones doing the offering.
Don't like a given company's policies? Don't work there. If enough people dislike the policy, if they lose enough people through their crappy policy - they will change their policy. Much like the cucumber for sale. If they are offering bad terms for the sale, then nobody will buy the cucumber and they'll have to change their pricing.
It is simple economics. Seller dictates the terms, market responds. If the market response is favorable, the terms are valid. If the market response is lousy, change the terms. And apparently having a no tattoos policy for some jobs don't net a large enough loss to change that policy.
If it really pisses you off, start a petition, be an activist, do something about it. Let the companies know they are losing more than they are gaining. Which will someday soon be the case. Tattoos and body mods are increasingly popular. Eventually the people doing the hiring will have them and the issue will go away. We're in a transitional state right now on the topic. So if it really bothers you - help out.
Me, I don't give a crap either way. A significant percentage of my friends are modded. Doesn't mean jack to me. My office wouldn't care - they're pretty hip. We even extend insurance to same sex couples. But not everyone is in this century yet. So either be patient and wait it out, or help.
Just don't expect Uncle Sam to dash in and fix everything for you. The first amendment isn't some golden hammer that fixes everything that's wrong with personal expression. It only does a few very specific things, and it's best to know what they are.
Don't tell me, let me guess. You think fuckin magnets are miracles, right?
Yours is exactly the self-negating attitude I was referring to.
Nonsense. I am merely pointing out that your argument that this goes against the first amendment of the Bill of Rights is bunk. Because it is. Read it and I'm sure you will agree.
They're rights regardless of whether they are in the Constitution.
Perhaps. Perhaps you're a big fan of the whole natural law thing. But I think you'll find that if you get fired for having a tattoo and walk into the local courthouse waving around a copy of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, your case will not go well. At all.
I was merely addressing your legal interpretation, that the first amendment protects you in this way. It does not. A literal reading simply means that Congress cannot pass a law taking away your right of free speech.
So until Congress passes a dress code, your argument does not hold.
Why not? Tattooed people aren't a "protected class". An employer could look you dead in the eye and say you look like a carny so we're not hiring you. They're allowed to have a dress code.
I had to contract with a company that had a strict dress code. Slacks, white shirts, thin black ties mandatory. No facial hair past a mustache and a goatee. All legal.
Of course being a contractor I could look how I wished. But it was really strange the first day. I showed up in a polo shirt, no tie, and a full beard. You'd have thought I had been out in the parking lot clubbing puppies. People would get whiplash when I'd walk by. They'd turn, glare - then notice the Visitor badge and relax. A little.
the question here isn't of law, it's of whether something is right or wrong.
Ah, but it *is* a question of law. That was my whole point.
OP said that the First Amendment somehow made it okay for him to have tattoos and get any job he wants. Which is absolutely silly if you've ever taken the time to read it. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from making laws that abridge free speech.
The morality of it is a different conversation, and one that has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment.
This is the most poignant question you've seen in a long time? Seriously?
Ok, look. Here's some wiki for you.
2,332,760 / 4,314,880 * 100% = 54%
54% of the arable land in North America is not utilized. If you want to live on a farm go do it. Uncle Sam will even help. But if you're totally punk rock and don't want to "be part of the machine", then go be Amish. They manage it pretty well.
The reason why nobody actually does this is because that way of life is stupefyingly difficult. Up before dawn to a full day of hard labor every single day.
Go spend a week on a real farm. Just a single week. I'm sure they'd be glad for the help. I'll bet you don't last two days. I doubt I would.
"We're all raised to be a part of this machine, and one cannot simply find some nice, fertile spot of land to raise crops and lovestock these days. "
Well...whatever floats your boat AC.
The "no visible tattoo" policy is the antithesis of the 1st Amendment.
Please people, read the first amendment and try to understand it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It starts - and pay attention - "Congress shall make no law".
Do you see anywhere that Congress has made a law that says visible tattoos are bad?
This is a corporate policy. If you are hired, they are welcoming you in the door onto their property - on their terms. If they say you have to wear purple underwear to work here, guess what? YOU DO.
Employment is optional. Nobody has to give you a job. If they don't like your tattoos they don't have to hire you. It is really as simple as that. You have to do what the boss says - it's a job. It is not a right.
So back OT, to the guy who wants a sleeve of math equations, my advice would be DON'T. It's fun, it's nerdy, I can see the appeal. But you are limiting your options.