If you want to say that harming and/or killing all animals for any purpose is wrong, OK.
But, I think there is a huge difference between killing animals in a humane way in order to eat them and torturing animals for fun.
By your logic, there is no difference between the state executing a criminal and someone murdering people for kicks. You might think that both are wrong, which is fine, but they aren't both *equally* wrong.
Cruelty to animals doesn't apply in beasts of burden, animals raised for food, animals used to test drugs, or animals used to save military lives. Cruelty only applies to animals kept as pets.
That's not true. For example, if you are working with research animals, you do what is necessary for your research, but you don't, for example, starve the animal to death unless it is part of the research. You don't beat it with a stick just for the hell of it. Any research done on an animal has to be approved by an IRB (Institutional Review Board). Their job is to make sure that harm to the animals is not more than is necessary and that the research is well thought out and not just an excuse to abuse animals (or people).
You might brand cows with a branding iron to identify them, but you don't hit the cow with a baseball bat just for fun.
People can be (and are sometimes) charged with animal cruelty for treating a non-pet animal inappropriately. It is appropriate to kill a cow to eat it. It is not appropriate to torture a cow for sadistic fun.
I get really tired of people equating dogs (or other pets) with children. I have a wife, a daughter and a dog. I care about the dog, but no where near what I care about my child or my wife.
My wife also has some birds and they are just damn annoying. I'd love to get rid of them.
No, you need to run Wine! If Wine doesn't run the program adequately, then either the program needs to be ported to Linux, or Wine needs to be improved.
Wine can be like the "Classic" compatibility environment for running MacOS 9 apps in MacOS X. You use it when you have to until the native app gets ported and and gets good enough.
As a former IBMer myself, I encourage you to try to migrate to Linux on some of your boxes. When you run into problems - report them and try to chase them down and get them solved!
IBM's move to Linux on the desktop could be the catalyzing event that kills Windows forever. Go for it!
OK. Well at least you admit that developer need to be able to install software and have test networks. That's more than a lot of system admins will admit. However, I think an annual budget of $100 for software for a developer is way, way, way too skimpy. One seat of Pure Coverage/Purify (from Rational) would blow my budget for a decade.
I'd better not ask for a copy of Resourcer, or a non-free bug tracking tool, or Visual Studio.
I'm a software developer at a big company with a bunch of idiotic sys admins. It is hell. (We keep talking about quitting.) I came here from a software startup where their bull shit wouldn't have flown for 2 seconds.
How do you keep development/test work off the corporate network when the corporate network and the development work both have to be wireless, and senior management has decreed that we have to be in the same building? (And IT claims being on a different BSSID is not good enough.)
Then these idiots come tell me I can't have a Mac in the building (cause years ago they "standardized" on Windows and the real reason they don't want me to have a Mac is that everyone else will want one too). A major part of my job is to write Mac software.
When people are that stupid, you just have to flip the bozo bit and ignore them.
dispel the myth that Open Source does not produce innovation... the paper is actually very well reasoned
I have to disagree with the paper's answer to the question of Open Source not producing innovation. My reasoning is that the answer cites Apache and SendMail, states that they are popular, therefore they are innovative.
This sounds like a Microsoft definition of innovation.
Was apache the first web server software? No.
Is it innovative to make a cheaper version of something that is already available and then price it less? Not really in my opinion.
Isn't the sendmail that Linux uses based on some non-free sendmail? It seems like a lot of Open Source software is simply a free version of something from the unix world.
Don't get me wrong. I am not against open source and I do think that open source can be innovative. For example, XML and XML-RPC are free technologies that are innovative.
Also, I'm not trying to badmouth Apache or sendmail. I just don't think they are good examples of innovation any more than Microsoft Excel is. Excel is probably the most popular spreadsheet ever, but it isn't innovative. VisiCalc, on the other hand, was innovative.
If your friend works in the courts or prisons, then it is basically the same thing (i.e. they only know crooks who got caught).
If your friend is in the mafia, then I ask you for more information and I will listen politely with respect because you have a perspective that is new to me.
Macs are not more expensive than an x86 - especially used. However, you can probably get some x86 systems free and you probably can't get a free Mac new enough to run OS X. (You need at least a Blue and White G3 or an iMac.)
I'd be scared too in their position. Once Linux for the desktop gets to the point where it is as usable as Windows (I know some people will argue that it is already there, and I will admit it isn't too far off, but there are still issues), then some catalyst will happen - not sure what that is. Maybe IBM relaunches a PC division centered around Linux or something. Maybe a major name PC maker drops Windows for Linux on all their PCs. However, once Linux gets seen by the general public to be a viable alternative to Windows on a desktop PC, Microsoft is doomed.
They only make money on two products - Windows and Office. Both of those have basically stagnate sales - they already have huge marketshare. They can't grow much and free alternatives are about to take over.
When that happens, they will have no choice but to start massive layoffs and kill many divisions off very fast. Say bye to the xBox because they loose a ton of money on that. Say bye to MSN, and their hardware division. Their tools group may be of strategic importance, but after they start loosing money they might think it would be OK if everyone used Borland tools instead.
When it happens it will be catastrophic (for them) and it will make the dark days at IBM look like sunshine and lollipops.
8 years from now, I predict that Linux will have about 85% marketshare of desktop OS. The Mac will probably stay the same or grow a bit and continue to be the R&D wing of the industry. Very few will be running Windows.
There are a group of people who want to ban anything that is fun.
The real reason why alchohol was banned was because big business decided that it interfered with worker productivity. They teamed up with the people who want to ban everything and voila.
That's why drugs stay banned - big business wants it that way. No matter how many people see through the idiocy. It is real hard to beat big business when they team up with religious idiots.
do you think Darl is a stupid retard who doesn't know how things work?
Yes.
[I agree with that one phrase alone, making no comment about the rest of the "pump and dump" thread. He is a stupid retard who doesn't understand how things like copyright law and the GPL work.]
I don't understand how they think the mini IPod will sell when a "real" Ipod is only $50 more.
Up until now, the best selling iPod has been the 10GB model. That one apparently has the highest cost per megabyte, so it is the worst deal you can get in an iPod. Yet it is the best selling iPod of all. Maybe they are trying to see how far out on that curve they can go. I think maybe they have gone too far.
Ever since the RIAA started suing little girls, when a stranger calls me on the phone to ask if I download music from the internet I now say "no - and what's more I never have" instead of "yes, in fact I'm doing it right now."
On the plus side, since the jails will be full of people trying to bootleg movies, I can finally get away with more serious crimes - like beating Jack Valentti senseless with a sock full of nickles.
The MPAA figures its cheaper to just buy the legislation than to enforce it themselves. After all, the only purpose of the government is to help the rich stay rich.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to say that harming and/or killing all animals for any purpose is wrong, OK.
But, I think there is a huge difference between killing animals in a humane way in order to eat them and torturing animals for fun.
By your logic, there is no difference between the state executing a criminal and someone murdering people for kicks. You might think that both are wrong, which is fine, but they aren't both *equally* wrong.
Cruelty to animals doesn't apply in beasts of burden, animals raised for food, animals used to test drugs, or animals used to save military lives. Cruelty only applies to animals kept as pets.
That's not true. For example, if you are working with research animals, you do what is necessary for your research, but you don't, for example, starve the animal to death unless it is part of the research. You don't beat it with a stick just for the hell of it. Any research done on an animal has to be approved by an IRB (Institutional Review Board). Their job is to make sure that harm to the animals is not more than is necessary and that the research is well thought out and not just an excuse to abuse animals (or people).
You might brand cows with a branding iron to identify them, but you don't hit the cow with a baseball bat just for fun.
People can be (and are sometimes) charged with animal cruelty for treating a non-pet animal inappropriately. It is appropriate to kill a cow to eat it. It is not appropriate to torture a cow for sadistic fun.
I get really tired of people equating dogs (or other pets) with children. I have a wife, a daughter and a dog. I care about the dog, but no where near what I care about my child or my wife.
My wife also has some birds and they are just damn annoying. I'd love to get rid of them.
Sorry, Apple doesn't make any machines as crappy as that.
No, you need to run Wine! If Wine doesn't run the program adequately, then either the program needs to be ported to Linux, or Wine needs to be improved.
Wine can be like the "Classic" compatibility environment for running MacOS 9 apps in MacOS X. You use it when you have to until the native app gets ported and and gets good enough.
As a former IBMer myself, I encourage you to try to migrate to Linux on some of your boxes. When you run into problems - report them and try to chase them down and get them solved!
IBM's move to Linux on the desktop could be the catalyzing event that kills Windows forever. Go for it!
You're thinking of the old MacOS.
Yeah, it was real funny when I read it 5 years ago.
OK. Well at least you admit that developer need to be able to install software and have test networks. That's more than a lot of system admins will admit. However, I think an annual budget of $100 for software for a developer is way, way, way too skimpy. One seat of Pure Coverage/Purify (from Rational) would blow my budget for a decade.
I'd better not ask for a copy of Resourcer, or a non-free bug tracking tool, or Visual Studio.
I'm a software developer at a big company with a bunch of idiotic sys admins. It is hell. (We keep talking about quitting.) I came here from a software startup where their bull shit wouldn't have flown for 2 seconds.
How do you keep development/test work off the corporate network when the corporate network and the development work both have to be wireless, and senior management has decreed that we have to be in the same building? (And IT claims being on a different BSSID is not good enough.)
Then these idiots come tell me I can't have a Mac in the building (cause years ago they "standardized" on Windows and the real reason they don't want me to have a Mac is that everyone else will want one too). A major part of my job is to write Mac software.
When people are that stupid, you just have to flip the bozo bit and ignore them.
1) In order to survive, everyone must obtain drinkable water continuously.
To stretch the analogy a little further, if you are using only Microsoft software, then it's like drinking no water - only Coke.
So, does that make the Mac RC Cola?
dispel the myth that Open Source does not produce innovation ... the paper is actually very well reasoned
I have to disagree with the paper's answer to the question of Open Source not producing innovation. My reasoning is that the answer cites Apache and SendMail, states that they are popular, therefore they are innovative.
This sounds like a Microsoft definition of innovation.
Was apache the first web server software? No.
Is it innovative to make a cheaper version of something that is already available and then price it less? Not really in my opinion.
Isn't the sendmail that Linux uses based on some non-free sendmail? It seems like a lot of Open Source software is simply a free version of something from the unix world.
Don't get me wrong. I am not against open source and I do think that open source can be innovative. For example, XML and XML-RPC are free technologies that are innovative.
Also, I'm not trying to badmouth Apache or sendmail. I just don't think they are good examples of innovation any more than Microsoft Excel is. Excel is probably the most popular spreadsheet ever, but it isn't innovative. VisiCalc, on the other hand, was innovative.
FWIW, my friend is not in law enforcement.
If your friend works in the courts or prisons, then it is basically the same thing (i.e. they only know crooks who got caught).
If your friend is in the mafia, then I ask you for more information and I will listen politely with respect because you have a perspective that is new to me.
Airport cards are not more than other decent wireless cards. You don't have to buy Apple's base station.
They sell the eMac which comes with a CRT monitor. If you buy a G5 tower, you can use whatever monitor you want.
Their hardware is priced higher than the cheapest possible x86 box you can buy, but it also doesn't suck and doesn't contain used parts.
Macs are not more expensive than an x86 - especially used. However, you can probably get some x86 systems free and you probably can't get a free Mac new enough to run OS X. (You need at least a Blue and White G3 or an iMac.)
Maybe you should consider a higher paying job?
Carbon has a lot in common with the API that preceeded it - called the MacOS Toolbox.
I'd be scared too in their position. Once Linux for the desktop gets to the point where it is as usable as Windows (I know some people will argue that it is already there, and I will admit it isn't too far off, but there are still issues), then some catalyst will happen - not sure what that is. Maybe IBM relaunches a PC division centered around Linux or something. Maybe a major name PC maker drops Windows for Linux on all their PCs. However, once Linux gets seen by the general public to be a viable alternative to Windows on a desktop PC, Microsoft is doomed.
They only make money on two products - Windows and Office. Both of those have basically stagnate sales - they already have huge marketshare. They can't grow much and free alternatives are about to take over.
When that happens, they will have no choice but to start massive layoffs and kill many divisions off very fast. Say bye to the xBox because they loose a ton of money on that. Say bye to MSN, and their hardware division. Their tools group may be of strategic importance, but after they start loosing money they might think it would be OK if everyone used Borland tools instead.
When it happens it will be catastrophic (for them) and it will make the dark days at IBM look like sunshine and lollipops.
8 years from now, I predict that Linux will have about 85% marketshare of desktop OS. The Mac will probably stay the same or grow a bit and continue to be the R&D wing of the industry. Very few will be running Windows.
Alchohol got banned in the US.
There are a group of people who want to ban anything that is fun.
The real reason why alchohol was banned was because big business decided that it interfered with worker productivity. They teamed up with the people who want to ban everything and voila.
That's why drugs stay banned - big business wants it that way. No matter how many people see through the idiocy. It is real hard to beat big business when they team up with religious idiots.
Freedom doesn't mean anything unless it means that people you don't like are free to do things you don't approve of.
do you think Darl is a stupid retard who doesn't know how things work?
Yes.
[I agree with that one phrase alone, making no comment about the rest of the "pump and dump" thread. He is a stupid retard who doesn't understand how things like copyright law and the GPL work.]
my parent's tax money
Is that because you're really like 8 years old or because there are no jobs in britain for anyone under 40?
$15,000 for a new car? Fuck that. I just walk everywhere!
...And to top that off - now I drive the bus!
$500 a month for an apartment? Screw that, I live in my Mom's basement!
$50 a month for a cell phone? Forget that, I got one of those fake ones that contains candy and it was only $2. Plus, it has candy.
I don't understand how they think the mini IPod will sell when a "real" Ipod is only $50 more.
Up until now, the best selling iPod has been the 10GB model. That one apparently has the highest cost per megabyte, so it is the worst deal you can get in an iPod. Yet it is the best selling iPod of all. Maybe they are trying to see how far out on that curve they can go. I think maybe they have gone too far.
Who would possibly consider getting a 4 GB model for $250 when you could get a 15 GB model for only $50 more?
Rumors had the price at $100
Yeah, I predict that Rumors will sell a lot more of them at that $100 price. Everyone should buy it from Rumors!
Ever since the RIAA started suing little girls, when a stranger calls me on the phone to ask if I download music from the internet I now say "no - and what's more I never have" instead of "yes, in fact I'm doing it right now."
On the plus side, since the jails will be full of people trying to bootleg movies, I can finally get away with more serious crimes - like beating Jack Valentti senseless with a sock full of nickles.
The MPAA figures its cheaper to just buy the legislation than to enforce it themselves. After all, the only purpose of the government is to help the rich stay rich.