The only thing you are required to do when using publicly available, non-restricted code in your work code, is the same thing you would be required to do when not using it: make damn sure that it does what it's supposed to do, does it well, and doesn't do anything else.
If you rewrite it, and want the same level of reliability as you can expect from code posted in a forum for a while, make sure to post your rewritten code for peer review and then wait for the flood of corrections.
Pretty simple to get around that, really, just make an outer instance of VMware act like a mac, and then have an instance of VMware running on the virtual mac go ahead and do it's checks - it will think it's running on one.
I like to see the common (wo)man fucking with the corporations who fuck with them as a matter of policy.
As for 'artificially boosting sales figures', who gives a crap - it's still wasting the money of any company compliant in the scheme. They'll figure it out eventually when they look for the money leak..
If they want to sell you a game with targeted ads, the game should be FREE.
Now that there's a game out there with targeted marketing, the best way to take it down as well as the financial motivation to do it again is simple (but takes a lot of help):
Buy it, wait a week or so, and return it. Then buy it somewhere else, wait a week or so, and return it. If just 5000 people were to do this 5 times each, it could destroy the percieved marketability, and it would be attributed to targeting issue. Enough people wasting enough time of enough computer stores, and computer stores would be best off not carrying it.
Then the investors / decision makers who committed to this sickness get discliplined / lose money, and new investors get scared to do this again.
One way to underclock by 10% or so is to drink right after giving blood (** NOT RECOMMENDED **). With 10% less blood (giving 1/~10 pints), you're going to have a 10% higher BAC for the same amount of alcohol (or your favorite other blood-borne whatever).
When you pay several hundred dollars for a piece of software, you have a right to expect it to actually work. For that matter, when you buy any piece of software, you have a right to expect to be able to pop the disk in your computer and use it.
Uh, you have a 'right to expect' that the sun will fall out of the sky and boil the seas, but that won't make it happen. You can expect whatever the hell you want. But if you expect microsoft software to work properly and benefit the customer as much as microsoft (if at all), that is just exercising your right to be stupid.
You fool, you need to grow up. Stop acting like "third parties" aren't a necessary PART of the system. The media and a more self-absorbed version of wanting to hang with the popular kids might prevent you from considering voting for the not-yet-corrupt, but it's idiotic to voluntarily contribute to the process.
No matter how screwed up it is, you don't just give up and help screw it up some more. This whole "2-party system" thing is a red herring to distract people. It's bullshit based on statistics based on people believing bullshit.
It doesn't "challenge" that view at all. Evolution is mutation plus competition, you need the competition part. Of course they co-existed, as must have all consecutive evolution stages in every being's evolution.
I'm not saying that representatives listening to their constituents is a bad thing. It's wonderful.
The bad thing is when they are RUNNING for office, and use a constantly changing series of the latest poll results to change their presentation of themselves and their positions; sometimes even changing their (public) positions.
To put it bluntly, there is in my opinion a lot less actual content in the (metaphorical) democratic mission statement vs the (metaphorical) libertarian one. It's too vague - there aren't enough clear assertions for me. If there was such an official statement (there may be, I didn't check), I bet it would include a lot of marketing bs.
The basic idea I've gotten growing up in California, a heavily democratic state, was that they are populist. They were supposed to be "for the people", support civil rights (against the surveillance-state republicans), stand up for the small guy, you know.. union type stuff on a larger scale. That has been my impression of what their core focus is.
But being about someone else, even those you represent, cedes responsibility about policy decisions to a mythical public opinion, which a hypothetical perfect democrat would obviously modulate through her or his own feelings about right and wrong, as would any other human being.
The public opinion part is the problem. It's easy for anyone to claim that the public thinks anything. Most people act as if they believe that "public opinion" is whatever beliefs news programs express. They can come out with "surveys" or do selected interviews or change any story to be told from any angle.
There are also polling-scams, cross-party interference, gender and ethnic bias, etc.. My basic point is that nowadays, with mass media, you can not trust "public opinion" to be accurate, period. Yet policy and campaign decisions are made on these issues regularly.
At it's heart, it feels to me like the democratic party doesn't really know what it supports, except the people. Thus it's constantly showing it's weak side, acting in service of so many different interests that it's trivial for it's own enemies to influence these interests and thus the party.
---
Libertarians on the other hand have a VERY clear concept of which policies they support or do not, without having to resort to an insecure constant checking and re-checking of who agrees on this one. Libertarians are not about compromise. We're about freedom of the individual and minimal intrusion of government.
I believe that it should be the case that my rights end where yours begin, and that they are equal. It all grows out from that core.
I believe that the government is there to help moderate those boundaries and solve issues too large for individuals - such as prosecuting murders - and that it should do so with minimum overhead and minimum intrusion into any person's freedom.
I also believe that other governments and their citizens should be treated with the same respect, unless/until they prove unworthy of it. Country interaction is just a fractal expansion of the same core principal for individuals - equal rights, opportunities.
No true Libertarian would EVER vote to authorize a government to spy on it's own people without a strong duty of proof that it was justified. Or to invade a non-threatening country. Or to take away any person's rights unless they threatened or violated some other person's... enough ranting. that's my take.
Obviously. Here are some more apt comparisons, imho:
A vote for a republican is "almost as good as":
- Giving $100 million to each and every Anti-American group to support terrorist recruitment.
- Killing millions of innocent civilians in foreign country for PR, without achieving any actual goals, and then refusing to even set any goals.
- Supporting the fools who continue to do the above (oops, that's "exactly as good as").
- Switching the US dollar to be officially backed by rotted poached eggs.
- Receiving a steel-toed kick in the nuts.
- Popping your own eye with a fork.
Dude, I know it's a popular misconception, especially among the R's, but Libertarians are NOTHING LIKE republicans, and it's just as easy for us to see their behavior is deceitful, wasteful, totalitarian, and just plain disgusting.
We libertarians believe in things like civil rights and limitations on federal government power. If republicans have ever supported these concepts, it hasn't been during my politically aware lifetime (last 15 years or so.)
I don't know what the hell Ron Paul thinks he's doing acting like part of that group of idiots. And don't tell me that they are both supposed to be "conservative". The pointless and unnecessary wars they tend to start and glamorize are the most expensive, wasteful, and downright suicidal (on a national level) government programs I've ever seen.
Libertarians are much more similar to democrats these days - Oh, except we have actual beliefs where democrats* use polling.
--- * Dennis Kucinich and possibly Mike Gravel excluded
A fair election could be prevented if the administration could wiretap as they pleased. Well, at least that would be true if such a thing weren't already being prevented in so many other ways.
How could the democrats be so completely powerless and stupid as to bend over for ANY bill they don't have a LOT of support on. And hint, most americans don't want to be spied upon. Really.
I'd really rather see the government as a whole shut down than to continue on it's current suicidal path.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could elect open-source algorithms to make voting decisions? The source could finally be completely known and people could know what they're voting for.
Back before buy-it-now, it was an online swap meet where normal people could buy and sell stuff. Now, the "store hoster" part has greedily taken over and it's nearly impossible to find a decent selection of used or weird stuff.
Now, with buy-it-now in place, it's basically amazon.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, brave guy, your correction is wrong. There is nothing illegal about sharing of accumulated information in a technical discipline.
science != crime
Are you fucking kidding me?
The only thing you are required to do when using publicly available, non-restricted code in your work code, is the same thing you would be required to do when not using it: make damn sure that it does what it's supposed to do, does it well, and doesn't do anything else.
If you rewrite it, and want the same level of reliability as you can expect from code posted in a forum for a while, make sure to post your rewritten code for peer review and then wait for the flood of corrections.
- Paul
HELL YES.
mod parent WAY UP.
Microsoft does not know what an open standard IS, though they keep claiming to.
Hell, they don't really even know what a standard is.
Pretty simple to get around that, really, just make an outer instance of VMware act like a mac, and then have an instance of VMware running on the virtual mac go ahead and do it's checks - it will think it's running on one.
The whole point of return the video game is to make consumer privacy concerns into corporate financial concerns, so they will be paid more attention.
This is all about privacy.
Uh, no, i'm not astroturfing.
I like to see the common (wo)man fucking with the corporations who fuck with them as a matter of policy.
As for 'artificially boosting sales figures', who gives a crap - it's still wasting the money of any company compliant in the scheme. They'll figure it out eventually when they look for the money leak..
If they want to sell you a game with targeted ads, the game should be FREE.
Now that there's a game out there with targeted marketing, the best way to take it down as well as the financial motivation to do it again is simple (but takes a lot of help):
Buy it, wait a week or so, and return it. Then buy it somewhere else, wait a week or so, and return it. If just 5000 people were to do this 5 times each, it could destroy the percieved marketability, and it would be attributed to targeting issue. Enough people wasting enough time of enough computer stores, and computer stores would be best off not carrying it.
Then the investors / decision makers who committed to this sickness get discliplined / lose money, and new investors get scared to do this again.
Um, duh, then underclock your liver.
One way to underclock by 10% or so is to drink right after giving blood (** NOT RECOMMENDED **). With 10% less blood (giving 1/~10 pints), you're going to have a 10% higher BAC for the same amount of alcohol (or your favorite other blood-borne whatever).
Who do you trust more? Microsoft, or Google?
Uh, you have a 'right to expect' that the sun will fall out of the sky and boil the seas, but that won't make it happen. You can expect whatever the hell you want. But if you expect microsoft software to work properly and benefit the customer as much as microsoft (if at all), that is just exercising your right to be stupid.
- P
VERY screwed up. It's just temporary bullshit that society will work out. In the meantime, I feel free to ignore it. Just like everyone else.
You fool, you need to grow up. Stop acting like "third parties" aren't a necessary PART of the system. The media and a more self-absorbed version of wanting to hang with the popular kids might prevent you from considering voting for the not-yet-corrupt, but it's idiotic to voluntarily contribute to the process.
No matter how screwed up it is, you don't just give up and help screw it up some more. This whole "2-party system" thing is a red herring to distract people. It's bullshit based on statistics based on people believing bullshit.
It won't last forever. You don't always roll a 7.
Every US taxpayer is a terrorist supporter.
So THAT'S what I did wrong on that bus driver exam.
It makes so much more sense now.
As simple and stupid as that sounds, I totally agree.
Everyone wants a bigger slice.
It doesn't "challenge" that view at all. Evolution is mutation plus competition, you need the competition part. Of course they co-existed, as must have all consecutive evolution stages in every being's evolution.
Huh?
I'm not sure what you're trying to get across, but lately (and sadly), protecting civil rights would have to be done BY limiting federal power.
It's pretty obvious that federal power has been expanding at the expense of civil rights.
It's time to hit undo.
Think about it. The Libertarian candidate isn't going to win no matter what,
Only if enough sheep believe you.
I'm not saying that representatives listening to their constituents is a bad thing. It's wonderful.
..
The bad thing is when they are RUNNING for office, and use a constantly changing series of the latest poll results to change their presentation of themselves and their positions; sometimes even changing their (public) positions.
To put it bluntly, there is in my opinion a lot less actual content in the (metaphorical) democratic mission statement vs the (metaphorical) libertarian one. It's too vague - there aren't enough clear assertions for me. If there was such an official statement (there may be, I didn't check), I bet it would include a lot of marketing bs.
The basic idea I've gotten growing up in California, a heavily democratic state, was that they are populist. They were supposed to be "for the people", support civil rights (against the surveillance-state republicans), stand up for the small guy, you know.. union type stuff on a larger scale. That has been my impression of what their core focus is.
But being about someone else, even those you represent, cedes responsibility about policy decisions to a mythical public opinion, which a hypothetical perfect democrat would obviously modulate through her or his own feelings about right and wrong, as would any other human being.
The public opinion part is the problem. It's easy for anyone to claim that the public thinks anything. Most people act as if they believe that "public opinion" is whatever beliefs news programs express. They can come out with "surveys" or do selected interviews or change any story to be told from any angle.
There are also polling-scams, cross-party interference, gender and ethnic bias, etc.. My basic point is that nowadays, with mass media, you can not trust "public opinion" to be accurate, period. Yet policy and campaign decisions are made on these issues regularly.
At it's heart, it feels to me like the democratic party doesn't really know what it supports, except the people. Thus it's constantly showing it's weak side, acting in service of so many different interests that it's trivial for it's own enemies to influence these interests and thus the party.
---
Libertarians on the other hand have a VERY clear concept of which policies they support or do not, without having to resort to an insecure constant checking and re-checking of who agrees on this one. Libertarians are not about compromise. We're about freedom of the individual and minimal intrusion of government.
I believe that it should be the case that my rights end where yours begin, and that they are equal. It all grows out from that core.
I believe that the government is there to help moderate those boundaries and solve issues too large for individuals - such as prosecuting murders - and that it should do so with minimum overhead and minimum intrusion into any person's freedom.
I also believe that other governments and their citizens should be treated with the same respect, unless/until they prove unworthy of it. Country interaction is just a fractal expansion of the same core principal for individuals - equal rights, opportunities.
No true Libertarian would EVER vote to authorize a government to spy on it's own people without a strong duty of proof that it was justified. Or to invade a non-threatening country. Or to take away any person's rights unless they threatened or violated some other person's.
enough ranting. that's my take.
Obviously.
Here are some more apt comparisons, imho:
A vote for a republican is "almost as good as":
- Giving $100 million to each and every Anti-American group to support terrorist recruitment.
- Killing millions of innocent civilians in foreign country for PR, without achieving any actual goals, and then refusing to even set any goals.
- Supporting the fools who continue to do the above (oops, that's "exactly as good as").
- Switching the US dollar to be officially backed by rotted poached eggs.
- Receiving a steel-toed kick in the nuts.
- Popping your own eye with a fork.
Dude, I know it's a popular misconception, especially among the R's, but Libertarians are NOTHING LIKE republicans, and it's just as easy for us to see their behavior is deceitful, wasteful, totalitarian, and just plain disgusting.
We libertarians believe in things like civil rights and limitations on federal government power. If republicans have ever supported these concepts, it hasn't been during my politically aware lifetime (last 15 years or so.)
I don't know what the hell Ron Paul thinks he's doing acting like part of that group of idiots. And don't tell me that they are both supposed to be "conservative". The pointless and unnecessary wars they tend to start and glamorize are the most expensive, wasteful, and downright suicidal (on a national level) government programs I've ever seen.
Libertarians are much more similar to democrats these days - Oh, except we have actual beliefs where democrats* use polling.
---
* Dennis Kucinich and possibly Mike Gravel excluded
"only 41 Democrats"?????!
On the same positive tip, the administration is "only" wiping out MOST of our civil rights for now.
YAY!
A fair election could be prevented if the administration could wiretap as they pleased. Well, at least that would be true if such a thing weren't already being prevented in so many other ways.
How could the democrats be so completely powerless and stupid as to bend over for ANY bill they don't have a LOT of support on. And hint, most americans don't want to be spied upon. Really.
I'd really rather see the government as a whole shut down than to continue on it's current suicidal path.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could elect open-source algorithms to make voting decisions? The source could finally be completely known and people could know what they're voting for.
Sure.
Back before buy-it-now, it was an online swap meet where normal people could buy and sell stuff.
Now, the "store hoster" part has greedily taken over and it's nearly impossible to find a decent selection of used or weird stuff.
Now, with buy-it-now in place, it's basically amazon.
Disclaimer: I don't even like reserve prices.