In #1, you requested an exorbitant sum for a copyrighted work. Thus you could be accused of acting in bad faith. If you were actually found in the wrong, you could also be accused of extortion.
#2 is again just extortion, and you clearly just don't know what you're talking about. What would be the subject of this "massive DMCA complaint" that you are going to file? What content has Toyota posted that infringes on your copyright that would allow you to issue them (or rather, their service provider) a DMCA takedown notice?
What does #3 even mean? It appears that Toyota hasn't even officially issued a DMCA takedown notice, so... what "DMCA violation" would you accuse them of?
I disagree with what Toyota is doing just like most people here, but you're not really helping...
And hell, entertainingly enough your "Japanese" car was probably built in the US anyway! So clearly Detroit's whining about how expensive it is to build cars in the US isn't true. To be fair, they do have the union problem; at least Toyota (I think Honda as well, but not sure) resists allowing their workforce to unionize. But otherwise it's pretty much as you say: Detroit only heavily markets vehicles people don't want to buy anymore.
There must be a reason for that intelligence, and if you think that reason is so we can rape pillage and destroy lesser beings, you need a lesson in humility.
Why? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but why is this such a fundamental premise?
First, where is it set in stone that there must be some sort of 'reason' why humans are intelligent?
And even if there is some sort of reason, why does it necessarily follow that we're somehow 'required' to use that intelligence for purposes on which you've arbitrarily decided?
Is there actually real evidence that military sonar affects marine life in a negative way? I'm seriously asking; it doesn't seem like anyone's presented any evidence either way.
Please, I've admined AIX and Solaris boxes in the past. They're not that bad. Most of the "difficulty" is just that they have different conventions on many things than Linux does.
Having said that, I *do* prefer Linux machines... probably just out of familiarity.
They're worse than cowards. They're dishonest and aren't worth their word. Presumably the only reason they're afraid of being fired for leaking information is because they signed something as part of their employment contract in which they agree won't do things like this. So basically they've violated their employment contracts and are whining about being anonymous because otherwise they'll get fired. I can't say I have any sympathy for them.
If you're the kind of person who actively doesn't trust your jabber server, then I imagine you're the kind of person who will actually check OTR key fingerprints, and thus the MITM attack described in your link doesn't really work. (Well, ok, it works, but it's trivially detectable.)
Right now, it's a PITA to get git working under MacOSX.
Really? If you don't mind installing MacPorts, it's as easy as 'sudo port install git-core' (1.6.0.2 in there right now, so it's definitely kept up to date). Fink probably has a package for it as well. I imagine it wouldn't be hard for someone to make an installer.pkg if they really wanted to. The lack of this isn't git's fault, it's just lack of interest.
It's easier to back up a central server than it is to get developers to back up their machines on a regular basis. Who wants to risk losing code?
I could go either way on this one. SVN suffers from the same root "problem" -- if you don't commit code to the central repo, you risk losing it if your hard drive dies. But git also tends to encourage more "offline" workflows than svn does.
Good tools exist that non-technical people can use to check things in and out of SVN on a variety of platforms.
Yep, that's the thing that a lot of people have problems with. Git's IDE integration and GUI tools are almost nonexistent, and from what I understand is a bitch to get running on Windows (though you seem to have the misconception that it's hard to get running on Mac, so this could just be a misconception on my part).
But even then, it's hard to fuck up git, and easy to fuck up SVN.
Really? Seems the opposite to me. You can very easily wipe out large amounts of local history with git, and if you haven't pushed it elsewhere, it's gone, forever. Git's tools and poor documentation make it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. With SVN, after you commit, your changes are pretty much immortalized without direct repository editing on the server.
Granted, it's sorta the same -- with both git and svn you can lose data if you don't push/commit to another location -- but git more or less encourages you *not* to push anywhere until/unless you need to, and provides a host of potentially 'dangerous' tools that work on your local repository that svn doesn't provide.
This is really useful when some people are committing crazy shit
This isn't a technology problem, it's a social problem. To solve this, you actually TALK to the developer in question and tell him to stop committing crazy shit. If he has a problem with that, you revoke his commit access and require he submit patches to you for review.
Not only is that roughly the same amount of work (the main difference being that, instead of pulling from someone, you have to wait until the out-of-band push to you), but you teach someone an important lesson: how not to be an asshole in a group collaboration setting.
Having said that, there are lots of other awesome reasons to prefer git over svn, easy/quick local branching being one of them, as you mentioned.
The times where mass-murder is advocated are interesting. [...] The point being, that while it isn't as explicit as most of us would be comfortable with, there is a precedent there of still allowing individuals a chance to repent if they were really open to it.
Bottom line: these stories tell of a supernatural being who caused/ordered/advocated the killing of large numbers of people because they didn't conform to what he arbitrarily decided was "right." Not cool. Especially after allegedly giving them free will to do as they pleased. What's the point of free will if you can't exercise it?
(And please, no comments about how we as a society do the same thing. It's one thing for peers to decide how they want to live in society and punish others for failing to abide by those rules. It's quite another thing for an all-powerful entity to *create* life, tell it "hey, you have the ability to do whatever the hell you want," and then destroy that life when it doesn't do what was "expected of it.")
Hell, it's still available on every single piece of Apple hardware it was before... except for two out of the three models of MacBook offered. It's not like this is a huge change.
Yeah, I've noticed that too. If I change my focus greatly, I can see slight reflections of the overhead lights in my screen. But when I'm focusing normally on the contents of the screen, I don't notice the reflections at all.
I dunno... I have an old PowerBook with a matte screen (obviously) as my personal laptop, and a MacBook with a glossy screen for work. I like the glossy screen much better. The people I know with glossy screens also seem to like them (or at least don't dislike them). So: I see your useless anecdotal evidence and raise you... useless anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
If your priorities are exchanging inane, mindless messages ("OMG! LOL!") with "friends" and showing photos of yourself when you're drunk or high, Facebook/MySpace is probably a good site for you.
Yes, because that's actually *all* that goes on on Facebook. I find it entertaining when people make sweeping statements about things they refuse to use or take part in. Just think, maybe you don't actually know what you're talking about?
Sure, there's a lot of crap on Facebook, but there's a lot of crap everywhere. I've been getting a decent amount of IT consulting spam on LinkedIn recently. It's lame, but it's crap that I accept is going to appear from time to time when joining a community.
Your sense of balance has to begin with respecting those that desire privacy, for whatever their reasons, first.
Why is the burden on me, though? You're the one with the problem, not me. I'll take reasonable steps to not post anything about my friends that they might find objectionable, but if there's a group photo I really like (for example) and want to share it... well, too bad, I'm going to share it.
Those that want to know me will find that I'm not a bunch of icons and widgets on a web page. I'm human.
Really? NO WAI! I totally thought that everyone on Facebook really is just the sum of their profile page. You've totally opened my eyes to a new reality! Wow!
I'm amused when I run across a teenage relative that's completely shocked that his/her parents have looked into their MySpace, Facebook, or other social networking pages where they 'bare their souls'.
Yes, and people who do that deserve what they get. They took an action, and there are consequences to that action.
You've surrendered a battle you didn't realize you were fighting: self-respect...
So basically because I have different values than you, it means I've surrendered my self-respect? Someone needs to leave the high horse at home...
... and the ability to leave a small footprint upon the culture of your friends through the use of high-currency communications.
... but I think these are less likely to hit me in the long run than publicly available and mineable personal information over which I essentially have no control.
What's going to hit you? I'm seriously curious. Sure, there are some bits of information about me (mostly just things I think that would be embarrassing) that I don't want made public, but aside from the nebulous and over-hyped concept of "identity theft" (the majority of which is still accomplished via offline means), I can't really think of any actual harm sharing a reasonable amount of information about yourself could do.
But I really am curious -- it seems that *so* many people are really interested in this strong privacy thing... so there must be some actual concrete reasons, right?
Your broadly cast seeming truisms are indeed false, and suit you, and you and others that agree with it. There are many of us that don't. Privacy is part of liberty, and liberty an essential part of freedom.
Don't you think that's a bit self-contradictory? Who says your broadly-cast truism that "privacy is a part of liberty" isn't also false?
I'm not saying I disagree with you, or fully agree with the parent post, but really, there has to be a balance somewhere.
Personally, I don't mind things appearing about me on the internet. I self-censor a bit here and there, but for the most part I'm comfortable with a quite a bit less privacy.
In contrast, I have a friend who refuses to open a Facebook account (or an account on any other similar site). She has several reasons, one being an actual real privacy threat she's identified (not the usual unknown potential threats people seem to complain about here often). While I can sympathise with this, the actual reality is that you can't control what anyone posts about you, and in the end you really just have to adapt.
It's great when you have friends who understand your fears and will try to keep you out of things that get posted, but, really, it's kinda a bit much to ask sometimes. Can we all keep track of the privacy-related wishes of *all* our friends? Is it reasonable to expect our friends to always have our privacy wishes in mind when doing pretty much anything with a social networking site? I really don't think so.
As far as I'm concerned, social networking sites are a total waste of time that are suited for teenagers.
So basically your entire thesis is "I personally haven't found a use for Facebook, so I declare it to be a useless waste of time suited to a demographic that 'real adults' consider a bunch of immature fools."
Do I even need to point out how stupid that is?
Guess what? Not everyone finds LinkedIn useful. That doesn't make it a waste of time, does it?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, he's typing, not speaking. (See, we can all be pedantic bores!)
They'll probably pick #4: ignore you.
In #1, you requested an exorbitant sum for a copyrighted work. Thus you could be accused of acting in bad faith. If you were actually found in the wrong, you could also be accused of extortion.
#2 is again just extortion, and you clearly just don't know what you're talking about. What would be the subject of this "massive DMCA complaint" that you are going to file? What content has Toyota posted that infringes on your copyright that would allow you to issue them (or rather, their service provider) a DMCA takedown notice?
What does #3 even mean? It appears that Toyota hasn't even officially issued a DMCA takedown notice, so... what "DMCA violation" would you accuse them of?
I disagree with what Toyota is doing just like most people here, but you're not really helping...
And hell, entertainingly enough your "Japanese" car was probably built in the US anyway! So clearly Detroit's whining about how expensive it is to build cars in the US isn't true. To be fair, they do have the union problem; at least Toyota (I think Honda as well, but not sure) resists allowing their workforce to unionize. But otherwise it's pretty much as you say: Detroit only heavily markets vehicles people don't want to buy anymore.
There must be a reason for that intelligence, and if you think that reason is so we can rape pillage and destroy lesser beings, you need a lesson in humility.
Why? I'm not saying I disagree with you, but why is this such a fundamental premise?
First, where is it set in stone that there must be some sort of 'reason' why humans are intelligent?
And even if there is some sort of reason, why does it necessarily follow that we're somehow 'required' to use that intelligence for purposes on which you've arbitrarily decided?
Is there actually real evidence that military sonar affects marine life in a negative way? I'm seriously asking; it doesn't seem like anyone's presented any evidence either way.
Please, I've admined AIX and Solaris boxes in the past. They're not that bad. Most of the "difficulty" is just that they have different conventions on many things than Linux does.
Having said that, I *do* prefer Linux machines... probably just out of familiarity.
They're worse than cowards. They're dishonest and aren't worth their word. Presumably the only reason they're afraid of being fired for leaking information is because they signed something as part of their employment contract in which they agree won't do things like this. So basically they've violated their employment contracts and are whining about being anonymous because otherwise they'll get fired. I can't say I have any sympathy for them.
If they get shitty performance with Safari but good performance with Opera Mini, why wouldn't they, if given the choice?
If you're the kind of person who actively doesn't trust your jabber server, then I imagine you're the kind of person who will actually check OTR key fingerprints, and thus the MITM attack described in your link doesn't really work. (Well, ok, it works, but it's trivially detectable.)
The problem is that $185k isn't really a "good lump" of money to many companies. It's more like "pocket change."
Right now, it's a PITA to get git working under MacOSX.
Really? If you don't mind installing MacPorts, it's as easy as 'sudo port install git-core' (1.6.0.2 in there right now, so it's definitely kept up to date). Fink probably has a package for it as well. I imagine it wouldn't be hard for someone to make an installer .pkg if they really wanted to. The lack of this isn't git's fault, it's just lack of interest.
It's easier to back up a central server than it is to get developers to back up their machines on a regular basis. Who wants to risk losing code?
I could go either way on this one. SVN suffers from the same root "problem" -- if you don't commit code to the central repo, you risk losing it if your hard drive dies. But git also tends to encourage more "offline" workflows than svn does.
Good tools exist that non-technical people can use to check things in and out of SVN on a variety of platforms.
Yep, that's the thing that a lot of people have problems with. Git's IDE integration and GUI tools are almost nonexistent, and from what I understand is a bitch to get running on Windows (though you seem to have the misconception that it's hard to get running on Mac, so this could just be a misconception on my part).
But even then, it's hard to fuck up git, and easy to fuck up SVN.
Really? Seems the opposite to me. You can very easily wipe out large amounts of local history with git, and if you haven't pushed it elsewhere, it's gone, forever. Git's tools and poor documentation make it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. With SVN, after you commit, your changes are pretty much immortalized without direct repository editing on the server.
Granted, it's sorta the same -- with both git and svn you can lose data if you don't push/commit to another location -- but git more or less encourages you *not* to push anywhere until/unless you need to, and provides a host of potentially 'dangerous' tools that work on your local repository that svn doesn't provide.
This is really useful when some people are committing crazy shit
This isn't a technology problem, it's a social problem. To solve this, you actually TALK to the developer in question and tell him to stop committing crazy shit. If he has a problem with that, you revoke his commit access and require he submit patches to you for review.
Not only is that roughly the same amount of work (the main difference being that, instead of pulling from someone, you have to wait until the out-of-band push to you), but you teach someone an important lesson: how not to be an asshole in a group collaboration setting.
Having said that, there are lots of other awesome reasons to prefer git over svn, easy/quick local branching being one of them, as you mentioned.
The times where mass-murder is advocated are interesting. [...] The point being, that while it isn't as explicit as most of us would be comfortable with, there is a precedent there of still allowing individuals a chance to repent if they were really open to it.
Bottom line: these stories tell of a supernatural being who caused/ordered/advocated the killing of large numbers of people because they didn't conform to what he arbitrarily decided was "right." Not cool. Especially after allegedly giving them free will to do as they pleased. What's the point of free will if you can't exercise it?
(And please, no comments about how we as a society do the same thing. It's one thing for peers to decide how they want to live in society and punish others for failing to abide by those rules. It's quite another thing for an all-powerful entity to *create* life, tell it "hey, you have the ability to do whatever the hell you want," and then destroy that life when it doesn't do what was "expected of it.")
Hell, it's still available on every single piece of Apple hardware it was before... except for two out of the three models of MacBook offered. It's not like this is a huge change.
I think the defining characteristic of the people you know probably isn't "Mac owner" but "hippie liberal douche."
Yeah, I've noticed that too. If I change my focus greatly, I can see slight reflections of the overhead lights in my screen. But when I'm focusing normally on the contents of the screen, I don't notice the reflections at all.
I dunno... I have an old PowerBook with a matte screen (obviously) as my personal laptop, and a MacBook with a glossy screen for work. I like the glossy screen much better. The people I know with glossy screens also seem to like them (or at least don't dislike them). So: I see your useless anecdotal evidence and raise you... useless anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
If your priorities are exchanging inane, mindless messages ("OMG! LOL!") with "friends" and showing photos of yourself when you're drunk or high, Facebook/MySpace is probably a good site for you.
Yes, because that's actually *all* that goes on on Facebook. I find it entertaining when people make sweeping statements about things they refuse to use or take part in. Just think, maybe you don't actually know what you're talking about?
Sure, there's a lot of crap on Facebook, but there's a lot of crap everywhere. I've been getting a decent amount of IT consulting spam on LinkedIn recently. It's lame, but it's crap that I accept is going to appear from time to time when joining a community.
Some people find network television useful, but it is still a waste of time.
In your "esteemed" opinion, perhaps.
Truth is not a popularity contest.
Don't confuse truths with subjective opinions.
Your sense of balance has to begin with respecting those that desire privacy, for whatever their reasons, first.
Why is the burden on me, though? You're the one with the problem, not me. I'll take reasonable steps to not post anything about my friends that they might find objectionable, but if there's a group photo I really like (for example) and want to share it... well, too bad, I'm going to share it.
Those that want to know me will find that I'm not a bunch of icons and widgets on a web page. I'm human.
Really? NO WAI! I totally thought that everyone on Facebook really is just the sum of their profile page. You've totally opened my eyes to a new reality! Wow!
I'm amused when I run across a teenage relative that's completely shocked that his/her parents have looked into their MySpace, Facebook, or other social networking pages where they 'bare their souls'.
Yes, and people who do that deserve what they get. They took an action, and there are consequences to that action.
You've surrendered a battle you didn't realize you were fighting: self-respect...
So basically because I have different values than you, it means I've surrendered my self-respect? Someone needs to leave the high horse at home...
... and the ability to leave a small footprint upon the culture of your friends through the use of high-currency communications.
Um... what? Parser failed: idiot-speak encountered.
... but I think these are less likely to hit me in the long run than publicly available and mineable personal information over which I essentially have no control.
What's going to hit you? I'm seriously curious. Sure, there are some bits of information about me (mostly just things I think that would be embarrassing) that I don't want made public, but aside from the nebulous and over-hyped concept of "identity theft" (the majority of which is still accomplished via offline means), I can't really think of any actual harm sharing a reasonable amount of information about yourself could do.
But I really am curious -- it seems that *so* many people are really interested in this strong privacy thing... so there must be some actual concrete reasons, right?
Why?
Your broadly cast seeming truisms are indeed false, and suit you, and you and others that agree with it. There are many of us that don't. Privacy is part of liberty, and liberty an essential part of freedom.
Don't you think that's a bit self-contradictory? Who says your broadly-cast truism that "privacy is a part of liberty" isn't also false?
I'm not saying I disagree with you, or fully agree with the parent post, but really, there has to be a balance somewhere.
Personally, I don't mind things appearing about me on the internet. I self-censor a bit here and there, but for the most part I'm comfortable with a quite a bit less privacy.
In contrast, I have a friend who refuses to open a Facebook account (or an account on any other similar site). She has several reasons, one being an actual real privacy threat she's identified (not the usual unknown potential threats people seem to complain about here often). While I can sympathise with this, the actual reality is that you can't control what anyone posts about you, and in the end you really just have to adapt.
It's great when you have friends who understand your fears and will try to keep you out of things that get posted, but, really, it's kinda a bit much to ask sometimes. Can we all keep track of the privacy-related wishes of *all* our friends? Is it reasonable to expect our friends to always have our privacy wishes in mind when doing pretty much anything with a social networking site? I really don't think so.
As far as I'm concerned, social networking sites are a total waste of time that are suited for teenagers.
So basically your entire thesis is "I personally haven't found a use for Facebook, so I declare it to be a useless waste of time suited to a demographic that 'real adults' consider a bunch of immature fools."
Do I even need to point out how stupid that is?
Guess what? Not everyone finds LinkedIn useful. That doesn't make it a waste of time, does it?