Besides, if our software crashes on one particular workstation (or all for that matter), I don't think anyone will die.
Perhaps people are talking about two different types of equipment here. If I were plugged into one of those programmable, automated morphine dispensers after an operation, I certainly wouldn't want it to be running Windows or have any patches applied. And I absolutely would not want it to be hooked up to a network . . . Hmmm, then again, at that particular time, I probably wouldn't care much unless it stopped. [Insert joke about 4X speed/dosage update here.] People can die (and have) from software/firmware problems on medical equipment.
I tell them to cry me a fucking river. I was several thousand dollars in debt when my well-paid programming job was yanked from beneath me.
Several thousand dollars? I think you missed the point. Have you seen the debts that kids are leaving college with these days? 50 K is not unusual. It will take a good chunk of their lives to pay it off, and the reason many of them have that debt is because our so-called leaders and captains of industry told them to get a degree in CS. Then the same *leaders* offshored those jobs they were touting. The whole thing was nothing but posturing so congress would pass legislation favorable to the industry. Thirty years ago, I had an attitude similar to yours, but I outgrew it. Having a little compassion and understanding for others doesn't mean you're weak.
Come now. Nobody said that every unemployed IT person has to start his or her own business in order to work again.
That was the unspoken assumption in the thread that led to my comment. The wholesale offshoring of IT jobs by large American corporations is not going to be countered by your one-IT-guy-in-a-company premise. Look at the unemployment figures for engineers. That "is what actually happens in the real world".
"Sorry boss, our code has now reached a critical point: It is now unmaintainable beyond recognition. We have to start it from a scratch."
And then, the managers will see money they "lost", and "offshore outsourcing" will not be a buzzword anymore.
Wrong, grasshopper. The managers will never admit to being wrong. They will blame the problem on sabotage by local workers. I'm not kidding - there was an article in InfoWorld where one manager of offshored projects claimed exactly that. Finally, your butt will be fired, the managers will get a bonus, and they'll offshore the rest of your jobs.
And exactly how are you going to test "IT professionals" in a field that diverse? No single person on the planet understands all of "IT", and it's constantly expanding. I assume your proposed licensing exam will include everything *you* know about and nothing you don't know about. I'm a member of the IEEE, and I've looked at the material for their proposed software engineering "license", and it's just not comprehensive, IMHO.
Adapt! I've been a programmer, trench digger, electrician, soldier, telecom technician, and a locksmith at various times over the last 15 years. There's always work.
And which work did you prefer, and did it all pay the same? What do you tell people who are in debt for many thousands of dollars because they believed the PTB when they said we should retrain for *knowledge work*? Ha, ha, we were just kidding? Or pay for yet another education and get deeper into debt chasing another chimera?
The "suck it up and deal with it" posts are always good for the poster's self-esteem, but they don't help the betrayed people trying to support a family and pay off their debts. Thankfully, I still have a job, but I'm not going to claim I'm better than all the people who have lost their jobs. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
He's saying you have the ability to take a risk and start up your own business.
So American universities should stop offering courses in Computer Science and concentrate on business courses? Not everyone wants to run their own business, and I doubt there is a need for 100,000 new IT businesses this year.
In many states, if you want to do someone's nails, be a plumber, or even sell insurance, you are required to get a professional license. We IT-professionals need the same!
It's called a degree. You know, the same thing teachers, chemists, mathematicians, and engineers have. I've already got a couple, and I don't need no steenking license, thanks anyway. If you feel you need a MS cert, knock yourself out.
It was a bunch of people who were refusing to pass a slow old guy in a Crown Vic. They weren't actual vigilantes -- just people who were not passing someone who was going blow [sic, I hope] the limit and also not moving over so others could.
Okay, you've lost me. Why would people in the left lane not pass a slower driver in the right lane, and if they did not why would this be a conspiracy, and why would anyone be inclined to pass laws preventing a recurrence?
The one instance I can recall of people knowingly slowing traffic is a couple of local residents who used their vehicles to slow traffic from 75 MPH down to a honking crawl because of a house being moved that was stuck on a bridge around a blind corner. Lives were probably saved. Of course, nobody ever said "thank you" aside from a middle finger. Such is life, I guess.
It's not a jam, not that kind of pack. It's a group of people who know that they are moving more slowly than prevailing conditions, yet who have not respected the rules of the road by moving into the slow lane and permitting others to move on by.
You are seriously suggesting that there are speed-limit-vigilantes in packs out there? It's certainly not in any state I've recently been in, especially California, since anyone doing such a thing would be expected and legal road kill (disclaimer: I no longer live in California, nor did I kill anyone on California roads for less than a capital traffic offense).
Some states are actually making it a ticketable offense to fail to move to the slow lane except when passing because of the fact that this kind of behavior is causing crashes.
It has nothing to do with any vigilante behavior. In most states, it is, and has been, an offense to impede faster traffic while not in the slow lane, even if the traffic is moving above the posted speed limit. Nothing new.
A pack of slow cars indeed dangerous -- other drivers coming up over a hill at the prevailing speed aren't going to be able to see it and may plow into the rear of one of the pack cars, causing a chain reaction accident (I've seen several accidents of that sort).
Um, I not sure what you're referring to. If you have slow traffic in all lanes coming over a rise, that sounds like a traffic jam, not a problem with people driving under the speed limit. Slow traffic should indeed be on the right. In my experience, slow-traffic accidents are caused by drivers who do not obey the law. Basically, you have to wait for a clear space to pass, no matter how upset you are about people who aren't in as big as hurry as you are.
Re:Hypocracy on /. -- Is this really a suprise?
on
CAN-SPAM Is A Bust
·
· Score: 1
i hear moans and groans going on and on about letting the market fix itself and not over regulating it by overzealous laws etc.
but i guess we pick and choose what should and shouldn't be codified eh?
The no-call list happened after enough complaints, and the telemarketing industry claimed they *liked* it.
i love the smell of hypocracy in the morning.
Personally, I love the smell of napalm in the morning because . . . it smells like victory. And if the "gummint" had even the weak resolve now that it had during the 70s, spam would be a number of melted servers somewhere (with an agreement to pursue future talks and UN recognition for spammers).
That contains some good points, but the language didn't help to make it clearer.
So do the [people] who drive 15MPH slower than the flow of traffic. I don't [care] if the sign on the side of the road says 55, if the average flow of traffic is going 70, then if you are driving 55 you are JUST AS DANGEROUS as someone driving 85, if not more so.
There may be a reason for not doing 70, such as running on a "donut" spare tire or being a vehicle with computerized ignition that has gone into *limp home mode* - it happened to me. Watch what happens when a *shark* (AKA bear) is sighted, suddenly everyone is doing the speed limit. Are they all dangerous? There are also legal vehicles on some roads (bicycles) which may doing 15 MPH under the speed limit. I find that most drivers will try to pass a bicyclist in the same lane, which is illegal, or try to honk them off the road, which is also illegal and intimidation. Stop and think about the possibilities before assuming that someone is driving slow just to cause you problems. Some older drivers also reduce their speed to compensate for their slower reaction times.
If you want to talk about the real dangerous drivers, let's talk about the [drivers] who yap on their cell phones the whole trip, or the [divers] who spend all their time [adjusting] the radio or talking to their passenger instead of watching the road
Indeed, I was in a crosswalk in a parking lot and was nearly run over by a cellphone-using matron in a Ford SUV who didn't even realize it when I slammed the side of her bus. The so-called hands-off laws being enacted by some states are not going to help; phones are too distracting. I keep mine turned off while driving.
or the [drivers] who can't figure out how to use [the] turn signal, or (my pet peeve) the [morons] who can't maintain a safe following distance
As another slashbot pointed out, some people seem to think using a turn signal is divulging secret information. And I've been tailgated on icy roads, so I agree completely.
The spammers are starting to use media tactics, filling you with fear and sensationalism, and then using that fear to sell crap.
I wish I'd saved it now, but a couple of weeks ago I received a rehashed Nigerian spam scam that claimed they had operatives watching me, and if I didn't wire money to a certain account, they would "snip" me. Ouch! A new genre, blackmail/protection spam. Oh, and it didn't have an opt-out provision, so it did violate the PLEASE-SPAM-ME Act.
Someone please mod parent up. Ed Foster, in one of his InfoWorld articles, called it the YES-I-CAN-SPAM Act when it was first introduced. The act was basically written by lobbyists for large companies that don't want their *right* to spam infringed upon. It's nothing but a legalized list of loopholes. As the parent pointed out, it was worse than doing nothing.
The worst provision was making spam legal as long as you provide a *method* for opting out. These can include telephone, snail mail, or links that require you to fill out a form and then fail because the server is too busy (yeah, sure). Another example of having the best legislature money can buy and another reason to get out and vote.
Until developers realize they have to make linux work and look as well or better than windows.
Linux already works far better than Windows, and as far as I'm concerned the multiple desktops offered look just as good. I really don't want menus to fade in and out or slowly extend and retract. If you like wasting CPU time like that, oh well.
Also there needs to be less choice, or at least less differences by default.
Absolutely! Lack of choice is a good thing, and it's the Microsoft way.
Take a deep breath, install Mandrake, and you might find that having icons in a different position is not as life-threatening as MS tells you. The mouse can still find them. The computer still works (even better).
Linux will be ready for the desktop when it is as easy to install, run, and care for as carelessly as Windows users demand.
Linux is ready for the desktop now because many of us use it for that. It is already easy to install, run, and maintain. The fact that careless users may be discomfited the lack of spyware and viruses is too bad. I plug in my digital camera and the KDE desktop adds a new icon to access it. What is it supposed to do, take pictures for me? The last thing we need is an OS that repeats all of Microsoft's mistakes. Saying "It's not ready until it's Windows" is just plain nonsense. Look outside the box.
I won't join the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party, because that would mean I endorse their stranglehold on the American election system. So tell me again: How can my vote (any vote!) have weight?
Unless you're one of the very few actual *members*, you don't really join a party, you register as affiliated with a party. As to the weight of your vote, if you really dislike one party or another, register as affiliated with that party, and then vote for the weakest candidate(s) in the primaries belonging to *your* party. You're allowed to vote for anybody in the general election, so you've doubled the weight of your vote.
So tell me again: Where is the value in my vote?
To me, it seems that if you don't (at least) vote for the lesser of two evils, you've abdicated one of your most basic rights as a citizen and all your rights to complain about the people in power. If you don't vote, don't bitch. You are still entitled to bitch about the people you voted for.
Most elections are local, and from those elections come our future national representatives. Many local elections are decided by a few votes. A recent election here for city council was decided by two votes. If the defeated candidate had managed to get his wife and one other person to vote for him, we'd have a different council.:) That candidate is young and has political ambitions which could include national office, and he'll be back in the next election.
If you want your vote to have any value at all, then use it. If you want to increase the value of your vote, then do your homework and plan how to use it. Finally, if you have an issue you're enthused about, communicate that to people you know, and perhaps give some apathetic people a reason to vote. Again, you've multiplied your vote. You won't always win. That's not a reason to give up. If you don't vote, you are voting for the status quo. I don't care if you're a right-wing reactionary, a left-wing ultra-liberal, or a slashdot-wing libertarian, just do your homework, get stoked about some issue or candidate, and VOTE. The alternative is Not Good (TM) for the country.
Darl already made millions by inflating the SCO stock so I don't think that he gives a damn what happens to SCO now.
From what I've seen of insider sales figures, it doesn't seem that Darl has made millions for himself, only for the previous SCO management, which is probably what he is being paid for.
The other possibility is that the interviewer offered Darl a dollar bill and a couple of lines. Evidence from the linked article:
McBride [with rolled dollar bill in nose]: . . . It's really a situation of going back to the future, if you will. [Sniffff].
Yes, this is the proper usage of Fascist. We are allowing our country to be opened to the control of the corporations.
Corporate control is a bad thing, but you should look up *fascism*. I believe that what you are referring to is more of a plutocracy since it's really control by corporate top management.
Modding up +Funny will not help, it's just an invitation to have more karma removed when it gets modded down again. Someone appreciating the comment should mod it underrated or another +category other than Funny.
Isn't that like saying a dictionary has metadata because the words are alphabetized? Pushing semantics to the limit, at best the metadata would be the fact that the files are executable, and that is more attribute than information.
I think it is reasonable to think that with the availabilty of a file system that supports additional metadata, programs will take more and more advantage of it automatically or with a minimum of user interaction. The fact that such programs don't exist right now is not really surprising or an indication of what will be available in the future.
Sure, almost anything is possible at some future time, but (using your example) I see no way any OS or filesystem is going to be able to determine the identity of people in a jpeg or their relationship to you until we get that mind reading computer. Until that time, I don't see the benefits of a database-filesystem outweighing the wasted overhead for most users.
After reading through all this 0 and -1 flaming desktop zealotry, I think that at the very least Slashdot should not allow AC posts from an address that has already posted a user comment in a discussion or allow user posts from an address that has posted AC in a discussion. The discussions would be probably be much more civil, and if not, the mods could sort it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, if our software crashes on one particular workstation (or all for that matter), I don't think anyone will die.
Perhaps people are talking about two different types of equipment here. If I were plugged into one of those programmable, automated morphine dispensers after an operation, I certainly wouldn't want it to be running Windows or have any patches applied. And I absolutely would not want it to be hooked up to a network . . . Hmmm, then again, at that particular time, I probably wouldn't care much unless it stopped. [Insert joke about 4X speed/dosage update here.] People can die (and have) from software/firmware problems on medical equipment.
I tell them to cry me a fucking river. I was several thousand dollars in debt when my well-paid programming job was yanked from beneath me.
Several thousand dollars? I think you missed the point. Have you seen the debts that kids are leaving college with these days? 50 K is not unusual. It will take a good chunk of their lives to pay it off, and the reason many of them have that debt is because our so-called leaders and captains of industry told them to get a degree in CS. Then the same *leaders* offshored those jobs they were touting. The whole thing was nothing but posturing so congress would pass legislation favorable to the industry. Thirty years ago, I had an attitude similar to yours, but I outgrew it. Having a little compassion and understanding for others doesn't mean you're weak.
Come now. Nobody said that every unemployed IT person has to start his or her own business in order to work again.
That was the unspoken assumption in the thread that led to my comment. The wholesale offshoring of IT jobs by large American corporations is not going to be countered by your one-IT-guy-in-a-company premise. Look at the unemployment figures for engineers. That "is what actually happens in the real world".
"Sorry boss, our code has now reached a critical point: It is now unmaintainable beyond recognition. We have to start it from a scratch."
And then, the managers will see money they "lost", and "offshore outsourcing" will not be a buzzword anymore.
Wrong, grasshopper. The managers will never admit to being wrong. They will blame the problem on sabotage by local workers. I'm not kidding - there was an article in InfoWorld where one manager of offshored projects claimed exactly that. Finally, your butt will be fired, the managers will get a bonus, and they'll offshore the rest of your jobs.
And exactly how are you going to test "IT professionals" in a field that diverse? No single person on the planet understands all of "IT", and it's constantly expanding. I assume your proposed licensing exam will include everything *you* know about and nothing you don't know about. I'm a member of the IEEE, and I've looked at the material for their proposed software engineering "license", and it's just not comprehensive, IMHO.
Adapt! I've been a programmer, trench digger, electrician, soldier, telecom technician, and a locksmith at various times over the last 15 years. There's always work.
And which work did you prefer, and did it all pay the same? What do you tell people who are in debt for many thousands of dollars because they believed the PTB when they said we should retrain for *knowledge work*? Ha, ha, we were just kidding? Or pay for yet another education and get deeper into debt chasing another chimera?
The "suck it up and deal with it" posts are always good for the poster's self-esteem, but they don't help the betrayed people trying to support a family and pay off their debts. Thankfully, I still have a job, but I'm not going to claim I'm better than all the people who have lost their jobs. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
He's saying you have the ability to take a risk and start up your own business.
So American universities should stop offering courses in Computer Science and concentrate on business courses? Not everyone wants to run their own business, and I doubt there is a need for 100,000 new IT businesses this year.
My brother, who was a programmer and project manager, is finishing his MBA in (gasp) marketing.
Sigh. Another soul lost to the dark side.
In many states, if you want to do someone's nails, be a plumber, or even sell insurance, you are required to get a professional license. We IT-professionals need the same!
It's called a degree. You know, the same thing teachers, chemists, mathematicians, and engineers have. I've already got a couple, and I don't need no steenking license, thanks anyway. If you feel you need a MS cert, knock yourself out.
It was a bunch of people who were refusing to pass a slow old guy in a Crown Vic. They weren't actual vigilantes -- just people who were not passing someone who was going blow [sic, I hope] the limit and also not moving over so others could.
Okay, you've lost me. Why would people in the left lane not pass a slower driver in the right lane, and if they did not why would this be a conspiracy, and why would anyone be inclined to pass laws preventing a recurrence?
The one instance I can recall of people knowingly slowing traffic is a couple of local residents who used their vehicles to slow traffic from 75 MPH down to a honking crawl because of a house being moved that was stuck on a bridge around a blind corner. Lives were probably saved. Of course, nobody ever said "thank you" aside from a middle finger. Such is life, I guess.
It's not a jam, not that kind of pack. It's a group of people who know that they are moving more slowly than prevailing conditions, yet who have not respected the rules of the road by moving into the slow lane and permitting others to move on by.
You are seriously suggesting that there are speed-limit-vigilantes in packs out there? It's certainly not in any state I've recently been in, especially California, since anyone doing such a thing would be expected and legal road kill (disclaimer: I no longer live in California, nor did I kill anyone on California roads for less than a capital traffic offense).
Some states are actually making it a ticketable offense to fail to move to the slow lane except when passing because of the fact that this kind of behavior is causing crashes.
It has nothing to do with any vigilante behavior. In most states, it is, and has been, an offense to impede faster traffic while not in the slow lane, even if the traffic is moving above the posted speed limit. Nothing new.
A pack of slow cars indeed dangerous -- other drivers coming up over a hill at the prevailing speed aren't going to be able to see it and may plow into the rear of one of the pack cars, causing a chain reaction accident (I've seen several accidents of that sort).
Um, I not sure what you're referring to. If you have slow traffic in all lanes coming over a rise, that sounds like a traffic jam, not a problem with people driving under the speed limit. Slow traffic should indeed be on the right. In my experience, slow-traffic accidents are caused by drivers who do not obey the law. Basically, you have to wait for a clear space to pass, no matter how upset you are about people who aren't in as big as hurry as you are.
i hear moans and groans going on and on about letting the market fix itself and not over regulating it by overzealous laws etc.
but i guess we pick and choose what should and shouldn't be codified eh?
The no-call list happened after enough complaints, and the telemarketing industry claimed they *liked* it.
i love the smell of hypocracy in the morning.
Personally, I love the smell of napalm in the morning because . . . it smells like victory. And if the "gummint" had even the weak resolve now that it had during the 70s, spam would be a number of melted servers somewhere (with an agreement to pursue future talks and UN recognition for spammers).
That contains some good points, but the language didn't help to make it clearer.
So do the [people] who drive 15MPH slower than the flow of traffic. I don't [care] if the sign on the side of the road says 55, if the average flow of traffic is going 70, then if you are driving 55 you are JUST AS DANGEROUS as someone driving 85, if not more so.
There may be a reason for not doing 70, such as running on a "donut" spare tire or being a vehicle with computerized ignition that has gone into *limp home mode* - it happened to me. Watch what happens when a *shark* (AKA bear) is sighted, suddenly everyone is doing the speed limit. Are they all dangerous? There are also legal vehicles on some roads (bicycles) which may doing 15 MPH under the speed limit. I find that most drivers will try to pass a bicyclist in the same lane, which is illegal, or try to honk them off the road, which is also illegal and intimidation. Stop and think about the possibilities before assuming that someone is driving slow just to cause you problems. Some older drivers also reduce their speed to compensate for their slower reaction times.
If you want to talk about the real dangerous drivers, let's talk about the [drivers] who yap on their cell phones the whole trip, or the [divers] who spend all their time [adjusting] the radio or talking to their passenger instead of watching the road
Indeed, I was in a crosswalk in a parking lot and was nearly run over by a cellphone-using matron in a Ford SUV who didn't even realize it when I slammed the side of her bus. The so-called hands-off laws being enacted by some states are not going to help; phones are too distracting. I keep mine turned off while driving.
or the [drivers] who can't figure out how to use [the] turn signal, or (my pet peeve) the [morons] who can't maintain a safe following distance
As another slashbot pointed out, some people seem to think using a turn signal is divulging secret information. And I've been tailgated on icy roads, so I agree completely.
The spammers are starting to use media tactics, filling you with fear and sensationalism, and then using that fear to sell crap.
I wish I'd saved it now, but a couple of weeks ago I received a rehashed Nigerian spam scam that claimed they had operatives watching me, and if I didn't wire money to a certain account, they would "snip" me. Ouch! A new genre, blackmail/protection spam. Oh, and it didn't have an opt-out provision, so it did violate the PLEASE-SPAM-ME Act.
Someone please mod parent up. Ed Foster, in one of his InfoWorld articles, called it the YES-I-CAN-SPAM Act when it was first introduced. The act was basically written by lobbyists for large companies that don't want their *right* to spam infringed upon. It's nothing but a legalized list of loopholes. As the parent pointed out, it was worse than doing nothing.
The worst provision was making spam legal as long as you provide a *method* for opting out. These can include telephone, snail mail, or links that require you to fill out a form and then fail because the server is too busy (yeah, sure). Another example of having the best legislature money can buy and another reason to get out and vote.
Until developers realize they have to make linux work and look as well or better than windows.
Linux already works far better than Windows, and as far as I'm concerned the multiple desktops offered look just as good. I really don't want menus to fade in and out or slowly extend and retract. If you like wasting CPU time like that, oh well.
Also there needs to be less choice, or at least less differences by default.
Absolutely! Lack of choice is a good thing, and it's the Microsoft way.
Take a deep breath, install Mandrake, and you might find that having icons in a different position is not as life-threatening as MS tells you. The mouse can still find them. The computer still works (even better).
Linux will be ready for the desktop when it is as easy to install, run, and care for as carelessly as Windows users demand.
Linux is ready for the desktop now because many of us use it for that. It is already easy to install, run, and maintain. The fact that careless users may be discomfited the lack of spyware and viruses is too bad. I plug in my digital camera and the KDE desktop adds a new icon to access it. What is it supposed to do, take pictures for me? The last thing we need is an OS that repeats all of Microsoft's mistakes. Saying "It's not ready until it's Windows" is just plain nonsense. Look outside the box.
I won't join the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party, because that would mean I endorse their stranglehold on the American election system. So tell me again: How can my vote (any vote!) have weight?
Unless you're one of the very few actual *members*, you don't really join a party, you register as affiliated with a party. As to the weight of your vote, if you really dislike one party or another, register as affiliated with that party, and then vote for the weakest candidate(s) in the primaries belonging to *your* party. You're allowed to vote for anybody in the general election, so you've doubled the weight of your vote.
So tell me again: Where is the value in my vote?
To me, it seems that if you don't (at least) vote for the lesser of two evils, you've abdicated one of your most basic rights as a citizen and all your rights to complain about the people in power. If you don't vote, don't bitch. You are still entitled to bitch about the people you voted for.
Most elections are local, and from those elections come our future national representatives. Many local elections are decided by a few votes. A recent election here for city council was decided by two votes. If the defeated candidate had managed to get his wife and one other person to vote for him, we'd have a different council. :) That candidate is young and has political ambitions which could include national office, and he'll be back in the next election.
If you want your vote to have any value at all, then use it. If you want to increase the value of your vote, then do your homework and plan how to use it. Finally, if you have an issue you're enthused about, communicate that to people you know, and perhaps give some apathetic people a reason to vote. Again, you've multiplied your vote. You won't always win. That's not a reason to give up. If you don't vote, you are voting for the status quo. I don't care if you're a right-wing reactionary, a left-wing ultra-liberal, or a slashdot-wing libertarian, just do your homework, get stoked about some issue or candidate, and VOTE. The alternative is Not Good (TM) for the country.
Darl already made millions by inflating the SCO stock so I don't think that he gives a damn what happens to SCO now.
From what I've seen of insider sales figures, it doesn't seem that Darl has made millions for himself, only for the previous SCO management, which is probably what he is being paid for.
The other possibility is that the interviewer offered Darl a dollar bill and a couple of lines. Evidence from the linked article:
McBride [with rolled dollar bill in nose]: . . . It's really a situation of going back to the future, if you will. [Sniffff].
Linus was mostly right.
Yes, this is the proper usage of Fascist. We are allowing our country to be opened to the control of the corporations.
Corporate control is a bad thing, but you should look up *fascism*. I believe that what you are referring to is more of a plutocracy since it's really control by corporate top management.
Modding up +Funny will not help, it's just an invitation to have more karma removed when it gets modded down again. Someone appreciating the comment should mod it underrated or another +category other than Funny.
The metadata here is their location.
Isn't that like saying a dictionary has metadata because the words are alphabetized? Pushing semantics to the limit, at best the metadata would be the fact that the files are executable, and that is more attribute than information.
I think it is reasonable to think that with the availabilty of a file system that supports additional metadata, programs will take more and more advantage of it automatically or with a minimum of user interaction. The fact that such programs don't exist right now is not really surprising or an indication of what will be available in the future.
Sure, almost anything is possible at some future time, but (using your example) I see no way any OS or filesystem is going to be able to determine the identity of people in a jpeg or their relationship to you until we get that mind reading computer. Until that time, I don't see the benefits of a database-filesystem outweighing the wasted overhead for most users.
After reading through all this 0 and -1 flaming desktop zealotry, I think that at the very least Slashdot should not allow AC posts from an address that has already posted a user comment in a discussion or allow user posts from an address that has posted AC in a discussion. The discussions would be probably be much more civil, and if not, the mods could sort it out.
Well, I've heard both terms and the GP's reasoning makes sense, but if you think "Your wrong" is right then you're wrong. Right? :)