Personally, I'll never play it (I may try if they give out a couple of months and the program for free)
Does this mean that if TSO is not doing well and needs to register more users we will be inundated with millions of CDs entitled "TSO 7.0 - Now Better Than Ever!"
I totally agree with your sermon. Nobody is forcing anyone to read articles - if you don't like it, then don't read it!
And for the original poster - if you really think that your opinions are worth something, why are you posting behind a veil of anonymity? At least this Marketing Geek has the courage to stand by his name, and take some flak for it. That's worth a +1 bravery in my books.
I read the first part of the interview, and there was a point that Bill made that struck me as very profound. He said that refactoring can cause severe differences between a stream that has been refactored and one that has not. I think that there has to be a limit on refactoring, especially once a code gets beyond a certain number of iterations (releases). For a Configuration Management person, or for CM software, refactoring can quickly turn into a nightmare.
By your own admission, you state that there are agencies that require specific OS's. Oh but wait, there's a loophole - low level managers can bring in a system, as long as they support it, and are considered untrusted. Gee, not everyone is willing to do that. So I guess, by your admission, it's a reality.
Anyway, thank you for answering your own question.
1) [user purchasing a computer] is a personal choice, based upon user ignorance and inexperience.
2) [government agency] is a political choice, as well as a functional requirement (closed/proprietary). That's the choice they went with - I wouldn't call it a "wrong" policy.
3) [business] may be a political choice, but I'd call it more of a business decision. There are more to these decisions than the liberal application of hookers - sometimes it's based on business sense and the needs of the business. I also wouldn't call it a "wrong" policy, simply because you disagree with it. You can call it wrong if you can prove that choosing Linux over M$ will save "real" money as well as save "imaginary" money - all those intangibles like support, productivity, user satisfaction, etc.
I'm sure there are those of you thinking about the chance of bumping into a former spouse/lover or getting slugged because the guy whose face you took was an asshole.
1) They'll check for rejection first (DUH!)
2) They'll make sure that they at least get the right skin colour.
3) You can probably so "no" if you don't like the guy's face.
4) The face won't look the same, due to the fact that the flesh and bones will shape the face.
5) If you still don't like it, GET A FACE LIFT
Karma: Excellent (Mostly affected by being served with fava beans and a nice Chianti)
1) You have just purchased a computer from [insert large national computer chain here]. The computer you purchased is shipped with Windows installed (included in the purchase price). The tech support guy at the store knows nothing about Linux, and you, as a user, have no interest/knowledge in installing and supporting an OS that you have no idea about. It's a reality.
2) You work for government agency [insert name of agency here], whose policy states that the OS they will use must be closed and proprietary. It's a reality.
3) You work for a large corporation, [insert name of large corporation here], that has an agreement with a company that sells an OS. Your IT department forbids you from loading Linux on your machine. It's a reality.
Proprietary software companies such as Microsoft have labeled open-source software as a serious threat and have begun to oppose its use by governments. At the same time, however, nations such as France and Germany have begun to encourage open-source software to limit their dependence on proprietary vendors and to stimulate local software development.
As a community of Open Source users, there is often a "ram-it-down-your-throat" style of preaching your brand of OS religion. Sure, a free OS is great, but it's not for everyone. Ultimately, a group of knowledgable professionals within the DoD will make a choice. You can agree or disagree with that choice, but they are entitled to it. Besides, their criteria are different from yours, which are different from France's and Germany's.
Having said that, Microsoft, along with Cisco & Intel, have taken what I feel is the low road. It is one thing to advocate your product, but what they are essentially doing here is mudslinging. While this seems to be a fine tradition in American politics, I'm not sure that it's an ethical business practice, even for Microsoft (OK, I may have said that tongue-in-cheek).
Karma: Basking in the warm afterglow of post-coital whoring.
For all you lazy geeks - blatantly stolen! No credit!
- How about modular faces you can switch out at will? Tom Cruise on Monday... Brad Pitt on Tuesday... Weird Al on Wednsday... -=-=-=-=-=-=- Why do I imagine that Michael Jackson was the tragically unsuccessful guinea pig for most of this experimentation? It would explain so much. Trying to give that poor man the face of some long dead woman
Inside a dark room, the man who calls himself Linux Torvalds awakes.
Linus: What...what has happened to me?
Stands up, groggily making his way to the mirror - but what looks back at him isn't his face, it's...Steve Balmer!
Linus: Nooooooo!
Meanwhile, thousands of miles away at Linuxworld....
Hacker (in crowd): Hey, is it just me, but did Linus gain like 300 pounds?
Hacker2: Totally. The guy needs to go back on his mac n' cheese diet.
On the stage, a man who's face looks like Linus's is jumping about the stage, clapping his hands.
Steve: Developers, developers, developers....!
-
It's not just the flesh, it's the bone that shapes your face for the most part. That's why they can make those clay facial recreations when they find an unidentified skeleton. And that's also why Face/Off was so ridiculous...
-
I think this face transplanting has been going on for quite some time. Why, as a student I would go out to a bar and go home with a beautiful stunner. But, next day her face had been 'transplanted' leaving the stunner with the face of a munter.;-)
Um actually, the microscope was on page four. If you RTFA, then you might have seen on page five:
- Adopt a Whale
- Sponsor a Big Cat
- Blue Planet (documentary)
Or are there specific whales/big cats that are not politically correct to adopt, and therefore don't count?
Karma: Neutered (Mostly affected by lack of balls)
I'll agree that the use of pheremones has military applications, but I don't see it happening. Maybe it's 'cause I'm just too cynical, or I don't have the mind set of Oliver Stone, or it's because I live in Canada.
I also think that if the military (I'm assuming you're talking US military) is taking an interest in it (which I doubt), it's not, as you say, an OBSCENE interest. If the DoD develops (at a great expense) some kind of pheremonal weapon, then 1) It will be branded as a cruel and unusual weapon by the general public. 2) It will be easy for terrorists to steal and use. (can't have that!)
And at the risk of sounding humourous, the thought of a testing accident that would affect civilians bring chills to my spine and a tent to my trousers. Now there's a business plan...
1) Create pheromone that induces copulation
2) ????
3) Hell, who cares about profit!!!
Thinking of writing a thesis on a technical topic? Why not post a question to Slashdot.org. In only a few hours, vast reams of research data can be obtained for even the most complex question.
And don't think that technical subjects are the only card up our sleeve. No! You can also try pseudo-science, advertising (blatant and subliminal), geek subjects (Trekkies & Star Wars), even religious wars (Trekkies vs Star Wars).
As an added bonus, try our Slashdot Effect (tm) server loading services at no extra cost!
Slashdot - serving all your information gathering and server loading needs. (See CmdrTaco for the latest rates)
The article seemed to say that anyone can do bridge inspections, because the bridges are there for everyone to see. In actual fact, not even a Civil Engineer can do a bridge inspection, because he needs to look at the design, the materials, the entire building process. He can inspect for signs of wear, but he has no idea whether or not the piers are firmly anchored.
The authour tried to make an analogy between bridges and software, and in my mind, he did not bridge that gap (*groan*). You mentioned that software design is usually (or should usually be) easier to inspect. I bring it back to who is supposed to be inspecting this available code. Which company does it? some Ralph Nader agency? Or, as the authour seems to suggest, anyone off the street? There are few people off the street that I would say can do the job.
belong in National Enquirer, along with pictures of two headed babies and Michael Jackson.
The article itself is just blatant flamebaited advertising. I fail to see how he addressed any of the points in his previous article (which I also thought was codswallop).
Did anyone ever see films of the Verrazano Narrows bridge collapse? There's an example of a bridge that looks fine on external viewing, (even by TRAINED experts), but doesn't work for real. Joe Average knows squat about bridges, and won't recognize a faulty design unless he's falling into the river with it.
As for the 1% of "real" code in a product - what a load! If your key code is buried deep in some subroutine, then how can you "remove" it from your product and still make it functional?
Slashdot Mirror
MechWarrior.
Personally, I'll never play it (I may try if they give out a couple of months and the program for free)
Does this mean that if TSO is not doing well and needs to register more users we will be inundated with millions of CDs entitled
"TSO 7.0 - Now Better Than Ever!"
Shoot me now.
I totally agree with your sermon. Nobody is forcing anyone to read articles - if you don't like it, then don't read it!
And for the original poster - if you really think that your opinions are worth something, why are you posting behind a veil of anonymity? At least this Marketing Geek has the courage to stand by his name, and take some flak for it. That's worth a +1 bravery in my books.
I read the first part of the interview, and there was a point that Bill made that struck me as very profound. He said that refactoring can cause severe differences between a stream that has been refactored and one that has not. I think that there has to be a limit on refactoring, especially once a code gets beyond a certain number of iterations (releases). For a Configuration Management person, or for CM software, refactoring can quickly turn into a nightmare.
Just my $.02
Which version are they releasing?
- Carpal Diem - My wrist hurts today
I believe it's not just other countries that have UFO-coverup stories; other planets have them, too.
- This side of the river is intentionally left bank.
...your Beowulf cluster of Frist Posts are belonging to goatse.cx!
What reality, you ask?
By your own admission, you state that there are agencies that require specific OS's. Oh but wait, there's a loophole - low level managers can bring in a system, as long as they support it, and are considered untrusted. Gee, not everyone is willing to do that. So I guess, by your admission, it's a reality.
Anyway, thank you for answering your own question.
...um, all over again.
...all over again.
1) [user purchasing a computer] is a personal choice, based upon user ignorance and inexperience.
2) [government agency] is a political choice, as well as a functional requirement (closed/proprietary). That's the choice they went with - I wouldn't call it a "wrong" policy.
3) [business] may be a political choice, but I'd call it more of a business decision. There are more to these decisions than the liberal application of hookers - sometimes it's based on business sense and the needs of the business. I also wouldn't call it a "wrong" policy, simply because you disagree with it. You can call it wrong if you can prove that choosing Linux over M$ will save "real" money as well as save "imaginary" money - all those intangibles like support, productivity, user satisfaction, etc.
I'm sure there are those of you thinking about the chance of bumping into a former spouse/lover or getting slugged because the guy whose face you took was an asshole.
1) They'll check for rejection first (DUH!)
2) They'll make sure that they at least get the right skin colour.
3) You can probably so "no" if you don't like the guy's face.
4) The face won't look the same, due to the fact that the flesh and bones will shape the face.
5) If you still don't like it, GET A FACE LIFT
Karma: Excellent (Mostly affected by being served with fava beans and a nice Chianti)
Yes.
1) You have just purchased a computer from [insert large national computer chain here]. The computer you purchased is shipped with Windows installed (included in the purchase price). The tech support guy at the store knows nothing about Linux, and you, as a user, have no interest/knowledge in installing and supporting an OS that you have no idea about. It's a reality.
2) You work for government agency [insert name of agency here], whose policy states that the OS they will use must be closed and proprietary. It's a reality.
3) You work for a large corporation, [insert name of large corporation here], that has an agreement with a company that sells an OS. Your IT department forbids you from loading Linux on your machine. It's a reality.
Proprietary software companies such as Microsoft have labeled open-source software as a serious threat and have begun to oppose its use by governments. At the same time, however, nations such as France and Germany have begun to encourage open-source software to limit their dependence on proprietary vendors and to stimulate local software development.
As a community of Open Source users, there is often a "ram-it-down-your-throat" style of preaching your brand of OS religion. Sure, a free OS is great, but it's not for everyone. Ultimately, a group of knowledgable professionals within the DoD will make a choice. You can agree or disagree with that choice, but they are entitled to it. Besides, their criteria are different from yours, which are different from France's and Germany's.
Having said that, Microsoft, along with Cisco & Intel, have taken what I feel is the low road. It is one thing to advocate your product, but what they are essentially doing here is mudslinging. While this seems to be a fine tradition in American politics, I'm not sure that it's an ethical business practice, even for Microsoft (OK, I may have said that tongue-in-cheek).
Karma: Basking in the warm afterglow of post-coital whoring.
For all you lazy geeks - blatantly stolen! No credit!
;-)
-
How about modular faces you can switch out at will?
Tom Cruise on Monday...
Brad Pitt on Tuesday...
Weird Al on Wednsday...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Why do I imagine that Michael Jackson was the tragically unsuccessful guinea pig for most of this experimentation? It would explain so much. Trying to give that poor man the face of some long dead woman
Inside a dark room, the man who calls himself Linux Torvalds awakes.
Linus: What...what has happened to me?
Stands up, groggily making his way to the mirror - but what looks back at him isn't his face, it's...Steve Balmer!
Linus: Nooooooo!
Meanwhile, thousands of miles away at Linuxworld....
Hacker (in crowd): Hey, is it just me, but did Linus gain like 300 pounds?
Hacker2: Totally. The guy needs to go back on his mac n' cheese diet.
On the stage, a man who's face looks like Linus's is jumping about the stage, clapping his hands.
Steve: Developers, developers, developers....!
-
It's not just the flesh, it's the bone that shapes your face for the most part. That's why they can make those clay facial recreations when they find an unidentified skeleton. And that's also why Face/Off was so ridiculous...
-
I think this face transplanting has been going on for quite some time. Why, as a student I would go out to a bar and go home with a beautiful stunner. But, next day her face had been 'transplanted' leaving the stunner with the face of a munter.
...who named his son Pete. He had another son, so he called him Repete.
(buh-dump) Thank, you, I'll be here all week.
Karma: Nuetral (Mostly effected by misspeling and tpyos)
Um actually, the microscope was on page four. If you RTFA, then you might have seen on page five:
- Adopt a Whale
- Sponsor a Big Cat
- Blue Planet (documentary)
Or are there specific whales/big cats that are not politically correct to adopt, and therefore don't count?
Karma: Neutered (Mostly affected by lack of balls)
I'll agree that the use of pheremones has military applications, but I don't see it happening. Maybe it's 'cause I'm just too cynical, or I don't have the mind set of Oliver Stone, or it's because I live in Canada.
I also think that if the military (I'm assuming you're talking US military) is taking an interest in it (which I doubt), it's not, as you say, an OBSCENE interest. If the DoD develops (at a great expense) some kind of pheremonal weapon, then
1) It will be branded as a cruel and unusual weapon by the general public.
2) It will be easy for terrorists to steal and use. (can't have that!)
And at the risk of sounding humourous, the thought of a testing accident that would affect civilians bring chills to my spine and a tent to my trousers. Now there's a business plan...
1) Create pheromone that induces copulation
2) ????
3) Hell, who cares about profit!!!
...but it does get better.
I particularly liked the Cat-a-pult, though I'm sure they caution "not to be used with real cats". He-he-he...
Even were it only a handful of species, it's the equivalent of a trigger that causes ALL primates to engage in the same activity.
You mean a trigger such as posting a story on Slashdot, causing thousands of users to flock to a single web site?
Karma: Basking in the warm afterglow of post-coital whoring.
Thinking of writing a thesis on a technical topic? Why not post a question to Slashdot.org. In only a few hours, vast reams of research data can be obtained for even the most complex question.
And don't think that technical subjects are the only card up our sleeve. No! You can also try pseudo-science, advertising (blatant and subliminal), geek subjects (Trekkies & Star Wars), even religious wars (Trekkies vs Star Wars).
As an added bonus, try our Slashdot Effect (tm) server loading services at no extra cost!
Slashdot - serving all your information gathering and server loading needs. (See CmdrTaco for the latest rates)
Sorry, but I had to respond.
The article seemed to say that anyone can do bridge inspections, because the bridges are there for everyone to see. In actual fact, not even a Civil Engineer can do a bridge inspection, because he needs to look at the design, the materials, the entire building process. He can inspect for signs of wear, but he has no idea whether or not the piers are firmly anchored.
The authour tried to make an analogy between bridges and software, and in my mind, he did not bridge that gap (*groan*). You mentioned that software design is usually (or should usually be) easier to inspect. I bring it back to who is supposed to be inspecting this available code. Which company does it? some Ralph Nader agency? Or, as the authour seems to suggest, anyone off the street? There are few people off the street that I would say can do the job.
...should go to M$ and see if M$ will "undercut the competitor's prices". That way, they'd get money from M$ to remain on Windows.
Whether that's a true savings or not is left as an excercise for the reader...
How do you spell it - "D'oh", "Doh", or "D'o"? I'm leaning towards the first one...
Although there is a Verrazano Narrows bridge, I was thinking about the one in the Pacific Northwest, but had a brain fart.
belong in National Enquirer, along with pictures of two headed babies and Michael Jackson.
The article itself is just blatant flamebaited advertising. I fail to see how he addressed any of the points in his previous article (which I also thought was codswallop).
Did anyone ever see films of the Verrazano Narrows bridge collapse? There's an example of a bridge that looks fine on external viewing, (even by TRAINED experts), but doesn't work for real. Joe Average knows squat about bridges, and won't recognize a faulty design unless he's falling into the river with it.
As for the 1% of "real" code in a product - what a load! If your key code is buried deep in some subroutine, then how can you "remove" it from your product and still make it functional?
Feh!