But, I don't think a link belongs on slashdot, given that MANY people read/. from work (for better or worse).
So what? If your workplace is so anal that you can get in trouble for bringing up a page with a *link* to an adult site, then they're probably also not happy with you reading Slashdot in the first place.
The next president will put at least two judges in the Supreme Court. Push through some "yes-man" and when Lexmark appeals to the SC, the current ruling will be overruled.
And again, what makes you think that Kerry-appointed justices will be an improvement? He's said nothing about digital rights (other than his meaningless "yeah, I'll look into it" comment on the DMCA a few days ago), and his record on civil liberties in general is lousy, as noted in my sig. (Fun fact: Kerry supported the Clipper Chip, in opposition to both John Ashcroft and the ACLU).
I want some really smart lawyers to box the judges into a corner and force them to come out and either say any sale can have arbitrary license terms appended onto it after the fact, or no sale can. They need to be forced to look at this in the transactive and contractual context, and not get distracted by the red herring of copyright issues - the works in question are already copyrighted, and they have many avenues of recourse against copyright violators - the EULA is not a tool of copyright enforcement, it's a tool of consumer control and anti-competitive practices.
Bingo. Nobody argues that when you buy a book you really only have a "license to read". In that case we figured out that person A can *own* a *copy* of a work while person B owns the *copyright*, but somehow with the move to software we allowed that balance to be almost completely eliminated.
In the meantime, I've gotten into the habit of saying "I disagree" whenever I click an "I agree" button. Not that it matters, as there's nothing that says I can't lie to my own software, and the only thing that says it's not my software is the EULA, which I don't agree to.
All you Libertarians are seriously deluding yourselves if you think leaving it in the hands of "the market" will solve anything.
Markets aren't perfect, but they easily beat central planning, as demonstrated by the entire 20th century.
It's composed of essentially psychopathic entities (corporations)
The market is composed of individuals such as yourself, who can choose to not do business with entities whose practices you disapprove of.
To believe that some magic forces can somehow act in the favor of society and correct things by themselves is beyond wishful thinking
And yet it's perfectly rational to believe that government acts in the best interests of the people, and not in ways that benefit current officeholders? Corporations have to produce something that people want, or they go out of business. Governments can take what they want at gunpoint.
What do you think will happen if government stops taking part in regulating industries?
We'd all be dead from rat poison in our food, no doubt.
Elect GW Bush for another term, and expect DMCA and Patriot act engrained in the constitution by an act of Congress.
Um, Congress can't amend the Constitution. And I see no reason to expect the party of Hollywood to suddenly develop an interest in fair use rights. After all, it was Clinton who signed the DMCA.
However- in so doing we're ignoring the larger cost of using up the world's energy resources before we have a replacement.
Um no, that's reflected in the price. As a commodity becomes more scarce, the price rises, encouraging conservation and exploration of alternatives. Although I suspect trying to explain basic economic principles to a self-described Marxist is going to be futile.
Because we have, and because the corporations want to earn huge profits, they're making practically everything we need elsewhere
To the extent that's true, it's because it's cheaper to make stuff elsewhere, even including the cost of shipping it here. The cost savings are reflected in lower prices to customers and increased returns to shareholders.
we could EASILY make everything here at home if we choose to, thus cutting our shipping fuel needs down exponentially
And raising prices, and lowering our standard of living. See "comparative advantage".
Your one possibly valid point is that the cost of oil doesn't take into account the negative externalities of being dependent on terrorist-infested hellholes, which may or may not be the case. If it is, then raise the tax on oil to compensate. But ending all imports would be immensely destructive.
Except for the ones that are too stupid. The ones who raise big early, tilting the game more towards chance than skill.
You absolutely do want to play against those types. They might as well be handing you their money directly. Sure they'll get lucky a few times and you'll curse their stupidity for staying in when it should have been obvious you had the best hand, but long term you'll clean them out.
With online poker? Where you can't read your opponent's face (unless he has a webcam)?
Sure. Picking up tells is much less important than most people think. It's far more useful to understand the probabilities and relative hand strengths, and to maintain your discipline.
Thinking you have some special skill in a game that mostly depends on luck is the first step in becoming a gambling addict.
Poker does not depend mostly on luck. Over the long term skill dominates, and a player who is sufficiently better than average *will* come out ahead. (A player who is exactly average will lose, because of the casino fees). There's a reason there are professional poker players but no professional craps players.
Even the BEST in the world, Brunson, Chan, etc., go through long losing streaks due to the high variance of poker. You can make the correct decision each and every time based on the proper odds, yet lose money for weeks at a time.
Absolutely, and this is an essential feature. If the bad players couldn't get lucky and win occasionally, they'd stop playing and the good players would have no source of profits.
And without even realizing it, they ask questions which imply that programmers are smarter than the average person. That bugs me.
I would be astonished if this were not the case, at least for any common definition of "smart".
People tend to want to be good at what they do.
Most people *are* good at what they do, at least better than the average person would be at that job. Most construction workers will be stronger than the average person. Most salesmen will have better people skills than the average person. Etc, etc. People don't just pick their careers by rolling dice, they focus on what they like doing, which is going to be strongly correlated with what they're good at.
But for what it's worth, poker does have about the same amount of excitement as any other sporting event. It's a whole lotta nothing followed by 20 seconds of excitement.
Yes and no. Most poker broadcasts are heavily edited, so you only see the "exciting" hands. But there was recently a tournament broadcast live (actually with a 5 minute delay to avoid the possibility of cheating), and it worked really well, at least I thought so. The "boring" hands where nobody has much of anything are actually quite interesting if you know what's going on.
Certain members of the Muslim world are riled up because we allow women to drive cars.
3000 Americans died in WTC 911. But every day 5000 Americans die, many of cancer and heart disease...
Everybody dies eventually. (Although I support anti-aging research to possibly correct that). There's a huge difference between dying of natural causes and being randomly blown up by lunatics. A nuclear bomb detonated in a major city could kill a million or so directly, and inflict trillions of dollars of economic damage. It's easily worth a few hundred billion to reduce that probability. (Whether current policies actually do reduce it is another matter).
That is the population supported by the population to contribute the the faschist government's power and directly controlled by then while being turned to a useless existence.
I mean, where is your logic to tell N number of people, "Everything will be great for you! Just make sure you are one of the lucky top 10%!"? What about the other 90%?
What about them? The economy isn't a zero-sum game; we all benefit from economic growth and technological advancement. Yes, the rich get richer, but if you're not too busy being envious of them you'll notice that the poor get richer too.
look at what is happening in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, France, etc
Stagnant economies with high unemployment? Thanks, I'll pass.
Re:I'd put more money on the animals...
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Hack all you damn want, just don't break copyright or patent law, that's what I say.
So don't try to figure out how to play your own DVDs on your own computer. The problem is that unbalanced copyright laws mean that you *can't* hack all you want, or even close to it.
This country has been so innovative because of its encouragement through patents and copyright law.
And with reasonable limitations on same. IBM would have loved to have stopped Compaq from cloning the PC BIOS with something like the DMCA, but we're much better off because they couldn't.
Well, you didn't actually respond to my sig, but that's ok.
Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics.
Misleading for several reasons. The majority of government spending is on entitlements that were put in place by previous (mostly Democratic) administrations. The "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War was going to result in lower deficits for either party. And a great deal of Clinton's proposed spending was blocked by Republicans in Congress.
Having said that, I fully agree that Bush is spending like a drunken sailor and it needs to stop. Unfortunately Kerry proposes to spend even more, so the only way that's a reason to vote for him is to hope that gridlock will prevent most of it if Congress stays GOP.
Also, since you are talking about GNUstep as one of the creators of this, I assume this is open source?
GNUstep is LGPL.
And finally, is is language agnostic?
Sort of. There are bindings available for many languages such as Perl, Python, and Ruby. C++ won't work because it doesn't have the necessary dynamic and introspective capabilities.
Most OS X apps use Cocoa & Objective-C for their front-end.
Or Carbon and C/C++.
That's not to say I don't think Objective-C is elegant but I'd still prefer C++
No, you really wouldn't. C++ just doesn't have the dynamic capabilities that Cocoa apps exploit to substantially reduce code. Simple example: given an arbitrary object, determine if it implements a named method. One line of code in ObjC, and this allows Cocoa apps to automatically enable and disable menu items depending on what actions are valid for the current selection.
Slashdot Mirror
But, I don't think a link belongs on slashdot, given that MANY people read /. from work (for better or worse).
So what? If your workplace is so anal that you can get in trouble for bringing up a page with a *link* to an adult site, then they're probably also not happy with you reading Slashdot in the first place.
The next president will put at least two judges in the Supreme Court. Push through some "yes-man" and when Lexmark appeals to the SC, the current ruling will be overruled.
And again, what makes you think that Kerry-appointed justices will be an improvement? He's said nothing about digital rights (other than his meaningless "yeah, I'll look into it" comment on the DMCA a few days ago), and his record on civil liberties in general is lousy, as noted in my sig. (Fun fact: Kerry supported the Clipper Chip, in opposition to both John Ashcroft and the ACLU).
I want some really smart lawyers to box the judges into a corner and force them to come out and either say any sale can have arbitrary license terms appended onto it after the fact, or no sale can. They need to be forced to look at this in the transactive and contractual context, and not get distracted by the red herring of copyright issues - the works in question are already copyrighted, and they have many avenues of recourse against copyright violators - the EULA is not a tool of copyright enforcement, it's a tool of consumer control and anti-competitive practices.
Bingo. Nobody argues that when you buy a book you really only have a "license to read". In that case we figured out that person A can *own* a *copy* of a work while person B owns the *copyright*, but somehow with the move to software we allowed that balance to be almost completely eliminated.
In the meantime, I've gotten into the habit of saying "I disagree" whenever I click an "I agree" button. Not that it matters, as there's nothing that says I can't lie to my own software, and the only thing that says it's not my software is the EULA, which I don't agree to.
All you Libertarians are seriously deluding yourselves if you think leaving it in the hands of "the market" will solve anything.
Markets aren't perfect, but they easily beat central planning, as demonstrated by the entire 20th century.
It's composed of essentially psychopathic entities (corporations)
The market is composed of individuals such as yourself, who can choose to not do business with entities whose practices you disapprove of.
To believe that some magic forces can somehow act in the favor of society and correct things by themselves is beyond wishful thinking
And yet it's perfectly rational to believe that government acts in the best interests of the people, and not in ways that benefit current officeholders? Corporations have to produce something that people want, or they go out of business. Governments can take what they want at gunpoint.
What do you think will happen if government stops taking part in regulating industries?
We'd all be dead from rat poison in our food, no doubt.
Elect GW Bush for another term, and expect DMCA and Patriot act engrained in the constitution by an act of Congress.
Um, Congress can't amend the Constitution. And I see no reason to expect the party of Hollywood to suddenly develop an interest in fair use rights. After all, it was Clinton who signed the DMCA.
However- in so doing we're ignoring the larger cost of using up the world's energy resources before we have a replacement.
Um no, that's reflected in the price. As a commodity becomes more scarce, the price rises, encouraging conservation and exploration of alternatives. Although I suspect trying to explain basic economic principles to a self-described Marxist is going to be futile.
That is impressive. And it probably even gets around Apple's BS EULA clause that claims you can only install OS X on Apple hardware.
Because we have, and because the corporations want to earn huge profits, they're making practically everything we need elsewhere
To the extent that's true, it's because it's cheaper to make stuff elsewhere, even including the cost of shipping it here. The cost savings are reflected in lower prices to customers and increased returns to shareholders.
we could EASILY make everything here at home if we choose to, thus cutting our shipping fuel needs down exponentially
And raising prices, and lowering our standard of living. See "comparative advantage".
Your one possibly valid point is that the cost of oil doesn't take into account the negative externalities of being dependent on terrorist-infested hellholes, which may or may not be the case. If it is, then raise the tax on oil to compensate. But ending all imports would be immensely destructive.
There has been one case so far where Senator Kerry had to decide about security vs. freedom
There's been many more than one case of that nature, and the results aren't encouraging. See the link in my sig.
they will ALWAYS raise the same multiplier of the big blind
Actually that's not a bad strategy. Raising more with stronger hands can give information to your opponents.
Except for the ones that are too stupid. The ones who raise big early, tilting the game more towards chance than skill.
You absolutely do want to play against those types. They might as well be handing you their money directly. Sure they'll get lucky a few times and you'll curse their stupidity for staying in when it should have been obvious you had the best hand, but long term you'll clean them out.
Moderators: anything Paul Phillips posts about poker should immediately go to +5.
Yeah, I remember that. Tough one, don't think you could have done anything differently. Hope to watch you at many more final tables.
With online poker? Where you can't read your opponent's face (unless he has a webcam)?
Sure. Picking up tells is much less important than most people think. It's far more useful to understand the probabilities and relative hand strengths, and to maintain your discipline.
Thinking you have some special skill in a game that mostly depends on luck is the first step in becoming a gambling addict.
Poker does not depend mostly on luck. Over the long term skill dominates, and a player who is sufficiently better than average *will* come out ahead. (A player who is exactly average will lose, because of the casino fees). There's a reason there are professional poker players but no professional craps players.
Even the BEST in the world, Brunson, Chan, etc., go through long losing streaks due to the high variance of poker. You can make the correct decision each and every time based on the proper odds, yet lose money for weeks at a time.
Absolutely, and this is an essential feature. If the bad players couldn't get lucky and win occasionally, they'd stop playing and the good players would have no source of profits.
And without even realizing it, they ask questions which imply that programmers are smarter than the average person. That bugs me.
I would be astonished if this were not the case, at least for any common definition of "smart".
People tend to want to be good at what they do.
Most people *are* good at what they do, at least better than the average person would be at that job. Most construction workers will be stronger than the average person. Most salesmen will have better people skills than the average person. Etc, etc. People don't just pick their careers by rolling dice, they focus on what they like doing, which is going to be strongly correlated with what they're good at.
But for what it's worth, poker does have about the same amount of excitement as any other sporting event. It's a whole lotta nothing followed by 20 seconds of excitement.
Yes and no. Most poker broadcasts are heavily edited, so you only see the "exciting" hands. But there was recently a tournament broadcast live (actually with a 5 minute delay to avoid the possibility of cheating), and it worked really well, at least I thought so. The "boring" hands where nobody has much of anything are actually quite interesting if you know what's going on.
Heaven forbid we stop riling up the Muslim world
Certain members of the Muslim world are riled up because we allow women to drive cars.
3000 Americans died in WTC 911. But every day 5000 Americans die, many of cancer and heart disease...
Everybody dies eventually. (Although I support anti-aging research to possibly correct that). There's a huge difference between dying of natural causes and being randomly blown up by lunatics. A nuclear bomb detonated in a major city could kill a million or so directly, and inflict trillions of dollars of economic damage. It's easily worth a few hundred billion to reduce that probability. (Whether current policies actually do reduce it is another matter).
That is the population supported by the population to contribute the the faschist government's power and directly controlled by then while being turned to a useless existence.
Yes, nothing useful has ever come out of the military.
I mean, where is your logic to tell N number of people, "Everything will be great for you! Just make sure you are one of the lucky top 10%!"? What about the other 90%?
What about them? The economy isn't a zero-sum game; we all benefit from economic growth and technological advancement. Yes, the rich get richer, but if you're not too busy being envious of them you'll notice that the poor get richer too.
look at what is happening in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, France, etc
Stagnant economies with high unemployment? Thanks, I'll pass.
Hack all you damn want, just don't break copyright or patent law, that's what I say.
So don't try to figure out how to play your own DVDs on your own computer. The problem is that unbalanced copyright laws mean that you *can't* hack all you want, or even close to it.
This country has been so innovative because of its encouragement through patents and copyright law.
And with reasonable limitations on same. IBM would have loved to have stopped Compaq from cloning the PC BIOS with something like the DMCA, but we're much better off because they couldn't.
Well, you didn't actually respond to my sig, but that's ok.
Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics.
Misleading for several reasons. The majority of government spending is on entitlements that were put in place by previous (mostly Democratic) administrations. The "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War was going to result in lower deficits for either party. And a great deal of Clinton's proposed spending was blocked by Republicans in Congress.
Having said that, I fully agree that Bush is spending like a drunken sailor and it needs to stop. Unfortunately Kerry proposes to spend even more, so the only way that's a reason to vote for him is to hope that gridlock will prevent most of it if Congress stays GOP.
Also, since you are talking about GNUstep as one of the creators of this, I assume this is open source?
GNUstep is LGPL.
And finally, is is language agnostic?
Sort of. There are bindings available for many languages such as Perl, Python, and Ruby. C++ won't work because it doesn't have the necessary dynamic and introspective capabilities.
Most OS X apps use Cocoa & Objective-C for their front-end.
Or Carbon and C/C++.
That's not to say I don't think Objective-C is elegant but I'd still prefer C++
No, you really wouldn't. C++ just doesn't have the dynamic capabilities that Cocoa apps exploit to substantially reduce code. Simple example: given an arbitrary object, determine if it implements a named method. One line of code in ObjC, and this allows Cocoa apps to automatically enable and disable menu items depending on what actions are valid for the current selection.