Wow. The folks who provide humanitarian aid and save lives around the world are "fuckers."
You can do a lot of good things, and in some instances be a real fucker. In this case I think they're being complete sons of bitches, and the good they do doesn't change that. You speak as if you can't be a fucker and a saint at the same time. Sorry, but they don't cancel.
Like it or not the red cross symbol has been genericized. It's been used all over the place in games without the explicit permission of them. If they didn't like it, they should have stopped this years ago. They didn't, and now they just look like a bunch of asses.
If you work for really petty people I guess. But if the management is so petty they'll punish people for any minor dissent of believing, or not believing in a certain solution then you really should be looking for work elsewhere.
If your upper management is still believing FUD about linux after all this time, there's nothing you're going to say to them to disuade them. These guys just like believing garbage. You say you've been using linux for 5 years in the business, so someone must believe in it. Just ignore what the upper management is saying since it doesn't sound like they're micro-managing things down to the level of "we aren't using linux, period". Continue to make the right decisions about what OS to use and justify them with good evidence. Don't worry about the personal opinions of upper management, since they shouldn't be making those technical level decisions, and they should know that.
On a personal note, at one job I had the CTO once said "we'll never use Linux in the Enterprise". About one year later we were running ten low end linux servers to replace a single, very poor performing AIX machine. The CTO ate his words and admited the mistake. A lot of these guys just like to talk big just so people think they know what they're talking about.
Too bad Babbage didn't have legos when he was trying to get funding to build his computer!
Well, the design made out of Legos is far far simpler than Babbages machine, so obviously easier to produce. Difference Engine 2 was supposed to calculate 7th order polynomials to 31 digits of accuracy. The lego contraption can only calculate 2nd or 3rd order polynomials to 3 or 4 digits of accuracy.
Had Babbage been interested in actually producing these machines rather than designing them and finding out what's possible I'd bet he would have done something like this machine first as a "proof of concept", and then sought more funding. After all, if you can make this thing out of legos I'm sure it'd be fairly trivial to make it out of metal gears. Babbage was a mathematician though and not a business man or engineer so he wasn't really that interested in actually making the thing.
It makes you wonder what would have happened had someone figured out a business use for Babbages machine, and made some kind of deal with him to design a more practical calculating device. I think that's even the subject of a sci-fi book called "The Difference Engine".
I think the real deal is that Babbage was a mathematician, and not an engineer. He was far more interested in what was possible to do rather than actually doing it. He designed the difference engine and made some progress on actually creating it. It seems like after he decided it was possible he went right on into designing a far more advanced computer, the analytical engine. The analytical engine was far more advanced, and was actually turing complete. That means that given enough memory and time, it could perform any calculations that a modern computer could produce. Even though Babbage never made the analytical engine, many of the concept he created are all a part of modern computers.
Except that the gender disparity isn't ever increasing, it only shows up after middle age or so. Maybe young male recklessness accounts for a year of extra life (statistically speaking) for women, but the real gender disparity only shows up in the elderly. Just go to a retirement home sometime and see that it's mostly women. Those women all had husbands not many years ago.
Right, you just made an incredibly confusing statement about saying someone is wrong about something they never actually said (but in your imagination will say in the future).
Sir, you're wrong about the future statement you haven't even made yet!
AFAIK, the GPL is copyrighted by the FSF. That means that if you can't write a derivate work by them without their explicit permission.
This is specifically covered by the free software foundation. The short answer is it's fine, just call the license something else. Here's the text:
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.
Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.
People try and claim that the real threat to the future of F/OSS is on the other side of the ideological/economic divide...that Stallman is a hero. To people who would continue to maintain such a view of the man, I ask you to look at what he is doing here.
Bah. Stallman lost the ideology war long ago with most of the people in open source. I honestly don't think he has that many "followers". Anyway, I really think you're making quite a bit out of an offhanded comment made by Stallman. It's not as if he's waging some war against Linus, personally mailing each developer and trying to convince them to switch to GPL3. He just said it's up to the developers. Ultimately that's true, though obviously the most important developer it's up to is Linus himself.
Well, if the GPL3 stays as it is right now, I'd agree with you. But you'll notice that Linus said if the encryption key part is taken out he'd allow his code to be converted to GPL3. The GPL3 final version hasn't been released yet, so don't start saying never until we actually know what the GPL3 will actually be.
It's what every software project does when there's fundamental differences of opinion on which direction to go. If Linus and the other Linux software devs don't like GPL3, just fork the thing and take out the parts you don't like and use that license. After all, the text of the GPL 3 license should be able to be modified just like source code, right? You wouldn't be able to call it GPL 3, as it's just confusing. But GPL 2.99 might work nicely as a name.
How do you think these people get to be researchers? Lotto?
Researchers are usually pretty good (with the exception of the pseudo-scientists and publishing via media outlets). I think the journalists who write these articles are probbably chosen via some kind of lotto system though. It's as if science writing is the low man on the totem pole job, so it's almost always given to someone without a science background.
Nope, I'm pretty sure that's more due to the fact that they don't do stupid things as often.
If that were true you'd see a big gender difference at the young ages that men are doing reckless things. That isn't true, and the gender disparity only shows up much later in life. I'm not sure why the difference exists, but I've heard that women get heart disease much less often than men because of the protective effects of estrogen.
I just don't understand why Sony didn't create a seperate world for people who wanted this "simplified SWG" or whatever you want to call it. Just have a frontend that connects you to a different server that has the patched version if that's the world you want to play in. Is it simply that Sony didn't want to maintain two branches?
No, but all the DRM restrictions and nonsense about having a guy come to your house to provision the dam thing will probbably kill cableCard. The DIY crowd will just record off the analog out, it's really at the "good enough" state anyway. I read this article earlier today, and I still can't figure out why anyone would want this thing. It sounds like it was mandated by congress, but the cable companies didn't want to do it so they made a device that's so crippled no one will want it.
Let the advertisers set the most they're willing to spend per message and users set the least they're willing to make per spam message they get.
I actually like that idea. You'd run into some problems though with people "spam farming" though. What's to prevent someone from creating 10,000 mailboxes, setting the "spam me" bar low, and then writing a script to "read" each message and get part of the profits? I suppose the pay-spammers would have to be selective about who they send out mail to, since a lot of it could be "spam farmers".
Even he hated the idea, and he was proposing it as a sort of scorched earth defense of marriage. But why is that such a bad idea? Do I need the state's power to tell me someone's married?
I never understood the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage" that is apart from they're different words. In other words if it quacks like a duck... but "what it's all about" in terms of the state has a whole lot to do with property.
I don't dispute this, I just think that commitment and property are inter-related.
I'm explaining the reason why marriage is endorsed by the gov't.
It's endorsed by the government because you need some widely trusted entity to recognize anything. You're still making up the children argument, since even in the past people didn't ONLY get married to have children, and obiously many people got married and never planned to, nor did have children. As you put it: "Marriage is about commitment between two people, and that's all it's about." Let's just say that's true. If that is the case, then why on earth would the local, state, or federal gov't be involved? Answer that for me! What business does the gov't have in who I'm committed to?
Oh that's easy. You think it's all about kids, but marriage is about property, life/death decisions, health insurance, etc. When you die and you have no will who gets your stuff? If you're hit by a car and are in a coma, who decides if they do emergency brain surgery? Who has the right to see you in the hospital? These are ALL reasons why the government has a vested interest in knowing who you've commited to. That's why the government recognizes relationships, and that's why they should recognize gay relationships. It doesn't mean YOU personally have to approve of the relationship.
Your comparisons with a dolphin are just plain bigotry. If you can't understand a relationship between people is different than between a goddamned dolphin, then there really is no hope for you.
So why does gov't get involved in the institution of marriage at all? Because marriage is traditionally the basis for a family, and families are the conduits for bringing new lives into the nation and raising and nurturing them to be productive citizens.
I keep hearing this same garbage from the religious right as if you need to be married to have children. I don't recall any lesbian women (or straight women for that matter) worrying about being married before they have kids. Gay men adopt children all the time. I also know a lot of people that get married and never plan to have children. Or they get re-married after having children. Seems to me that marriage isn't just about having kids since it's neither a requirement to have kids, nor do people only get married to have them.
Marriage is about commitment between two people, and that's all it's about. Making up the idea that it's all about children and families is just a lot of nonsense, since that's just tangential to marriage. The problem comes from the religious christians who view marriage as their deity approving of a union between two people. Christianity is clearly opposed to homosexuality, so deity approving of that is obviously wrong. Thus the major opposition to gay marriage. If the christians can just admit this, we'll have made progress. Until then it's just lie after lie that they tell themselves to hide their own true beliefs.
What a load of malarky. I hate it when people try to redefine words to try to make a crappy point. Gay and straight isn't some construct created through how you look at yourself. Which gender do you want to fuck? It's just that simple. If you want the fuck the same gender as you are, you're gay. Opposite, straight. Both, bi. If anything society and peoples intellect has only served to confuse them, not define them.
It's been known for a long time that some animals want to fuck the same gender as they are. It's been observed in multiple species. Is that a construct too?
And if they set up a restaurant on their private property, they'd be able to refuse service to blacks?
Uhh... no one is trying to refuse service to anyone that's gay here, so this analogy is just plain terrible.
If you want an analogy, I'd compare it to an organized group of people walking around a mall carrying banners for (insert controversial subject here). WoW really has nothing to do with homosexuality. Blizzard just doesn't want to start up that kind of controversy in the game, probbably because they think it detracts from the game. Why shouldn't blizzard be able to protect the game experience from things they feel detract from it?
Thus, I could quite happily sell a hot beverage called Ford, in a cup of a style that I trademark Mercedes, with a Porchse stirring rod, and there's nothing the car companies can do
Eh, like many things in the law, it's not quite that simple. Trademarks also protect from consumer confusion. I can't start up a hamburger joint called McRonalds for instance, since consumers might be confused and think it's associated with McDonalds. It could be possible that consumers might be confused by a cup style called Mercedes, and think the car company is branching out into making (or endorsing) cups styles.
The formula we've perfected in the west requires only four components:
The west? I think you're talking about the United States here. I'm pretty sure many other western countries don't have a single party or two party system. I've never lived in a country other than the US, but my understanding is that in other countries there isn't the kind of polarization that seems to have only intensified in the last 6 years here. That's not to say other countries are perfect, or even better than the US. But your example of "the west" only applies to the US from what I know.
I don't know how they can try and publish a study where they look at such a small sample size, and assume the diffrence between the older and younger group's brain is based on maturity.
It all depends on the variability of the thing they're studying (specific brain structures) among the population, and among the two different groups. To give you (a really boneheaded, but simple to understand) example, I could study the height of 6 month old children vs 2 year old children with very small sample sizes and come up with a conclusion that children are growing in height over that 1 1/2 years. It would be much harder to do that same study with a small sample size if I were studying the height differences between 6 month olds and 6 1/2 month olds. It's all based on normal distributions (also called a gaussian distribution). It's really too bad more people aren't exposed to statistics as it's far more applicable to everyday life than say trigonometry, or even calculus.
The take-home is that small sample sizes aren't necessarily statistically meaningless. Probbably more problematic was the specifics they chose, Darmouth college students. That isn't exactly a random sample of the population at large.
People here seem to be jumping up and down claiming it's totally meaningless because they didn't have a diverse enough group to study. That's just preposterous. The study doesn't really prove anything, but it's certainly very interesting and warrants a larger, and more diverse study to see what's going on. It'd also be interesting to track indiduals over the same time period and see if the same brain structures change.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. The folks who provide humanitarian aid and save lives around the world are "fuckers."
You can do a lot of good things, and in some instances be a real fucker. In this case I think they're being complete sons of bitches, and the good they do doesn't change that. You speak as if you can't be a fucker and a saint at the same time. Sorry, but they don't cancel.
Like it or not the red cross symbol has been genericized. It's been used all over the place in games without the explicit permission of them. If they didn't like it, they should have stopped this years ago. They didn't, and now they just look like a bunch of asses.
If you work for really petty people I guess. But if the management is so petty they'll punish people for any minor dissent of believing, or not believing in a certain solution then you really should be looking for work elsewhere.
If your upper management is still believing FUD about linux after all this time, there's nothing you're going to say to them to disuade them. These guys just like believing garbage. You say you've been using linux for 5 years in the business, so someone must believe in it. Just ignore what the upper management is saying since it doesn't sound like they're micro-managing things down to the level of "we aren't using linux, period". Continue to make the right decisions about what OS to use and justify them with good evidence. Don't worry about the personal opinions of upper management, since they shouldn't be making those technical level decisions, and they should know that.
On a personal note, at one job I had the CTO once said "we'll never use Linux in the Enterprise". About one year later we were running ten low end linux servers to replace a single, very poor performing AIX machine. The CTO ate his words and admited the mistake. A lot of these guys just like to talk big just so people think they know what they're talking about.
Too bad Babbage didn't have legos when he was trying to get funding to build his computer!
Well, the design made out of Legos is far far simpler than Babbages machine, so obviously easier to produce. Difference Engine 2 was supposed to calculate 7th order polynomials to 31 digits of accuracy. The lego contraption can only calculate 2nd or 3rd order polynomials to 3 or 4 digits of accuracy.
Had Babbage been interested in actually producing these machines rather than designing them and finding out what's possible I'd bet he would have done something like this machine first as a "proof of concept", and then sought more funding. After all, if you can make this thing out of legos I'm sure it'd be fairly trivial to make it out of metal gears. Babbage was a mathematician though and not a business man or engineer so he wasn't really that interested in actually making the thing.
It makes you wonder what would have happened had someone figured out a business use for Babbages machine, and made some kind of deal with him to design a more practical calculating device. I think that's even the subject of a sci-fi book called "The Difference Engine".
I think the real deal is that Babbage was a mathematician, and not an engineer. He was far more interested in what was possible to do rather than actually doing it. He designed the difference engine and made some progress on actually creating it. It seems like after he decided it was possible he went right on into designing a far more advanced computer, the analytical engine. The analytical engine was far more advanced, and was actually turing complete. That means that given enough memory and time, it could perform any calculations that a modern computer could produce. Even though Babbage never made the analytical engine, many of the concept he created are all a part of modern computers.
Except that the gender disparity isn't ever increasing, it only shows up after middle age or so. Maybe young male recklessness accounts for a year of extra life (statistically speaking) for women, but the real gender disparity only shows up in the elderly. Just go to a retirement home sometime and see that it's mostly women. Those women all had husbands not many years ago.
Right, you just made an incredibly confusing statement about saying someone is wrong about something they never actually said (but in your imagination will say in the future).
Sir, you're wrong about the future statement you haven't even made yet!
AFAIK, the GPL is copyrighted by the FSF. That means that if you can't write a derivate work by them without their explicit permission.
This is specifically covered by the free software foundation. The short answer is it's fine, just call the license something else. Here's the text:
People try and claim that the real threat to the future of F/OSS is on the other side of the ideological/economic divide...that Stallman is a hero. To people who would continue to maintain such a view of the man, I ask you to look at what he is doing here.
Bah. Stallman lost the ideology war long ago with most of the people in open source. I honestly don't think he has that many "followers". Anyway, I really think you're making quite a bit out of an offhanded comment made by Stallman. It's not as if he's waging some war against Linus, personally mailing each developer and trying to convince them to switch to GPL3. He just said it's up to the developers. Ultimately that's true, though obviously the most important developer it's up to is Linus himself.
Well, if the GPL3 stays as it is right now, I'd agree with you. But you'll notice that Linus said if the encryption key part is taken out he'd allow his code to be converted to GPL3. The GPL3 final version hasn't been released yet, so don't start saying never until we actually know what the GPL3 will actually be.
I never meant to imply that at all. I'm only talking about potential conversion to a new licence. Sorry for any confusion.
It's what every software project does when there's fundamental differences of opinion on which direction to go. If Linus and the other Linux software devs don't like GPL3, just fork the thing and take out the parts you don't like and use that license. After all, the text of the GPL 3 license should be able to be modified just like source code, right? You wouldn't be able to call it GPL 3, as it's just confusing. But GPL 2.99 might work nicely as a name.
How do you think these people get to be researchers? Lotto?
Researchers are usually pretty good (with the exception of the pseudo-scientists and publishing via media outlets). I think the journalists who write these articles are probbably chosen via some kind of lotto system though. It's as if science writing is the low man on the totem pole job, so it's almost always given to someone without a science background.
Nope, I'm pretty sure that's more due to the fact that they don't do stupid things as often.
If that were true you'd see a big gender difference at the young ages that men are doing reckless things. That isn't true, and the gender disparity only shows up much later in life. I'm not sure why the difference exists, but I've heard that women get heart disease much less often than men because of the protective effects of estrogen.
I just don't understand why Sony didn't create a seperate world for people who wanted this "simplified SWG" or whatever you want to call it. Just have a frontend that connects you to a different server that has the patched version if that's the world you want to play in. Is it simply that Sony didn't want to maintain two branches?
Will this kill the DIY market?
No, but all the DRM restrictions and nonsense about having a guy come to your house to provision the dam thing will probbably kill cableCard. The DIY crowd will just record off the analog out, it's really at the "good enough" state anyway. I read this article earlier today, and I still can't figure out why anyone would want this thing. It sounds like it was mandated by congress, but the cable companies didn't want to do it so they made a device that's so crippled no one will want it.
Let the advertisers set the most they're willing to spend per message and users set the least they're willing to make per spam message they get.
I actually like that idea. You'd run into some problems though with people "spam farming" though. What's to prevent someone from creating 10,000 mailboxes, setting the "spam me" bar low, and then writing a script to "read" each message and get part of the profits? I suppose the pay-spammers would have to be selective about who they send out mail to, since a lot of it could be "spam farmers".
Even he hated the idea, and he was proposing it as a sort of scorched earth defense of marriage.
But why is that such a bad idea? Do I need the state's power to tell me someone's married?
I never understood the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage" that is apart from they're different words. In other words if it quacks like a duck...
but "what it's all about" in terms of the state has a whole lot to do with property.
I don't dispute this, I just think that commitment and property are inter-related.
I'm explaining the reason why marriage is endorsed by the gov't.
It's endorsed by the government because you need some widely trusted entity to recognize anything. You're still making up the children argument, since even in the past people didn't ONLY get married to have children, and obiously many people got married and never planned to, nor did have children.
As you put it: "Marriage is about commitment between two people, and that's all it's about." Let's just say that's true. If that is the case, then why on earth would the local, state, or federal gov't be involved?
Answer that for me! What business does the gov't have in who I'm committed to?
Oh that's easy. You think it's all about kids, but marriage is about property, life/death decisions, health insurance, etc. When you die and you have no will who gets your stuff? If you're hit by a car and are in a coma, who decides if they do emergency brain surgery? Who has the right to see you in the hospital? These are ALL reasons why the government has a vested interest in knowing who you've commited to. That's why the government recognizes relationships, and that's why they should recognize gay relationships. It doesn't mean YOU personally have to approve of the relationship.
Your comparisons with a dolphin are just plain bigotry. If you can't understand a relationship between people is different than between a goddamned dolphin, then there really is no hope for you.
So why does gov't get involved in the institution of marriage at all? Because marriage is traditionally the basis for a family, and families are the conduits for bringing new lives into the nation and raising and nurturing them to be productive citizens.
I keep hearing this same garbage from the religious right as if you need to be married to have children. I don't recall any lesbian women (or straight women for that matter) worrying about being married before they have kids. Gay men adopt children all the time. I also know a lot of people that get married and never plan to have children. Or they get re-married after having children. Seems to me that marriage isn't just about having kids since it's neither a requirement to have kids, nor do people only get married to have them.
Marriage is about commitment between two people, and that's all it's about. Making up the idea that it's all about children and families is just a lot of nonsense, since that's just tangential to marriage. The problem comes from the religious christians who view marriage as their deity approving of a union between two people. Christianity is clearly opposed to homosexuality, so deity approving of that is obviously wrong. Thus the major opposition to gay marriage. If the christians can just admit this, we'll have made progress. Until then it's just lie after lie that they tell themselves to hide their own true beliefs.
What a load of malarky. I hate it when people try to redefine words to try to make a crappy point. Gay and straight isn't some construct created through how you look at yourself. Which gender do you want to fuck? It's just that simple. If you want the fuck the same gender as you are, you're gay. Opposite, straight. Both, bi. If anything society and peoples intellect has only served to confuse them, not define them.
It's been known for a long time that some animals want to fuck the same gender as they are. It's been observed in multiple species. Is that a construct too?
And if they set up a restaurant on their private property, they'd be able to refuse service to blacks?
Uhh... no one is trying to refuse service to anyone that's gay here, so this analogy is just plain terrible.
If you want an analogy, I'd compare it to an organized group of people walking around a mall carrying banners for (insert controversial subject here). WoW really has nothing to do with homosexuality. Blizzard just doesn't want to start up that kind of controversy in the game, probbably because they think it detracts from the game. Why shouldn't blizzard be able to protect the game experience from things they feel detract from it?
Thus, I could quite happily sell a hot beverage called Ford, in a cup of a style that I trademark Mercedes, with a Porchse stirring rod, and there's nothing the car companies can do
Eh, like many things in the law, it's not quite that simple. Trademarks also protect from consumer confusion. I can't start up a hamburger joint called McRonalds for instance, since consumers might be confused and think it's associated with McDonalds. It could be possible that consumers might be confused by a cup style called Mercedes, and think the car company is branching out into making (or endorsing) cups styles.
The formula we've perfected in the west requires only four components:
The west? I think you're talking about the United States here. I'm pretty sure many other western countries don't have a single party or two party system. I've never lived in a country other than the US, but my understanding is that in other countries there isn't the kind of polarization that seems to have only intensified in the last 6 years here. That's not to say other countries are perfect, or even better than the US. But your example of "the west" only applies to the US from what I know.
I don't know how they can try and publish a study where they look at such a small sample size, and assume the diffrence between the older and younger group's brain is based on maturity.
It all depends on the variability of the thing they're studying (specific brain structures) among the population, and among the two different groups. To give you (a really boneheaded, but simple to understand) example, I could study the height of 6 month old children vs 2 year old children with very small sample sizes and come up with a conclusion that children are growing in height over that 1 1/2 years. It would be much harder to do that same study with a small sample size if I were studying the height differences between 6 month olds and 6 1/2 month olds. It's all based on normal distributions (also called a gaussian distribution). It's really too bad more people aren't exposed to statistics as it's far more applicable to everyday life than say trigonometry, or even calculus.
The take-home is that small sample sizes aren't necessarily statistically meaningless. Probbably more problematic was the specifics they chose, Darmouth college students. That isn't exactly a random sample of the population at large.
People here seem to be jumping up and down claiming it's totally meaningless because they didn't have a diverse enough group to study. That's just preposterous. The study doesn't really prove anything, but it's certainly very interesting and warrants a larger, and more diverse study to see what's going on. It'd also be interesting to track indiduals over the same time period and see if the same brain structures change.