I think you said what has to be said on this issue... IMHO the article is trying to incite a flamewar.
Regarding the other topic, it should be mentioned that only the most stupid people do not differentiate between personal information and information essentially meant for public consumption:-)
Re:You're forgetting about the WARMTH!!!!!!!
on
10 Technologies MIA
·
· Score: 1
Maxbe the mods want to give you points because your post is funny..? 30% insightful and 70% funny is still funny, so thank them for the insightful moderation (as funny gives no karma):-)
I think you are entirely correct and the GP is wrong. But maybe if the GP knows so much, he/she could describe what's wrong with the following (which I remember from the thermodynamics lessons I took): ?
Planck blackbody radiation simply describes the energy spectrum of bosons for any temperature T. If you have ordinary matter (fermions) in thermal equilibrium with photons, it means that both have the same temperature. As you can heat matter to any temperature you wish, so you can produce a spectrum of photons with the peak at any wavelength (Wien's law) - for example xrays.
In hindsight, it's easy to say the bombs shouldn't have been dropped. But at the time, things were very, very different.
Maybe true. There probably as many versions as there are history schoolbooks - in the end, noone knows, history does not repeat and this is clearly an unique event!
But I think this is not, in any way, the point of this slashdot story. It is not about whoever was 'right' in this conflict some 60 years ago.
It is there to show the atrocities of weapons, certain bombs - weapons of mass destruction - against civilian targets.
These anniversaries are there to reflect on whether it is wise to point 1000s of these with a much higher capacity against each other, in 'alert' mode.
You will find only the casual websurfer like you and me - and brand them as terrorists. Brilliant.
Is it now illegal to look at such websites? I don't know. But I surely googled 'jihad' etc once. What did I found? Unreadable arabic websites and some english ones which only enforced my view that these people are really such assholes as you can also see by looking at their actions.
But the fact that you nowadays could 'get flagged' or even get a very nasty visit by looking at such content is silly. More, it makes me both afraid and angry. Terrorists attacking our freedom. Oh yes, it seems that they are very effective now.
Yeah, but.. Quick question: How big's your system memory?
1GB. Ok, that's still a bit above average, I suppose:)
2) Dependency hell is worse than Windows 98 on a bad day. (four versions of the same library in RAM at the same time? HOLY HELL BATMAN!) [this is actually translatable to: "Using the latest and greatest library is *not* nessicarily a good thing"].
As far as I have seen this, it is more a problem of distributions offering libraries in a lot of versions (such as debian - which I am using). If the API is clean and the distribution sets a standard by including just a certain version of a library (SuSE/former Redhat), I see no problem here. But in most cases, even on debian you can pin all programs to a single version of a library. With recompilation from source, of course...
3) Code bloat tends to make maintainance hell. 4) Code bloat contributes to cycle bloat (something you said yourself that you cared about, almost contradictory to your previous point).
Well, I tried to express this, but english is not my mother tongue, so I may have been unclear about this: If you imply code bloat with new features, then I disagree. What must also be fulfilled is that the spaghettiness/entropy of the code increases with the new features (for example a lot of patches from a lot of different people who do not hesitate to look at your current code).
5) Most people do not have emmense hard drives (you may have a 250GB hd, but my mom's computer has a 40GB, and my sister's laptop, only a 20GB. Hell, my work desktop machine's hard drive is only 6GB, though I often will bring in an external) [but I guess this point doesn't really matter, because Linux isn't your mom, your work, or your sister's Operating System now is it;)].
Yes. But if less-used features of the application can be removed by the means of compiler switches or plugins, they do not need to be removed completely.
To sum it up: I just don't think throwing features *completely away* to get the software running on older hardware is the right way to go.
ok, but when will I finally see a list of REMOVED features.
You know - those features that was recognized to be shitty and unusable. Removed default applications that simply don't work(r). Sourcebase size shrinking by megabytes. Abstraction and unification instead of the Linux Way(tm).
I don't know about you, but lack of features in gnome is exactly why I switched back from Gnome to KDE.
The gnome devs. - IMHO - pulled out their chainsaws to remove every Gnome feature 'that is not in use by everyone'. (In the gnome 1.x -> 2.x transition). And they tried to enforce certain 'standard' ways of workflow. Both are things which I do not like. It may be perfect for others, but not for me.
I rather have a feature I need than a 'non bloated' application which is crippled. That is what I like about KDE.
I really do not understand all the fear about application bloat. Most of the time it is way easier to make features optional (with compiler flags, shared libraries etc.) than it is to implement new features. As a developer, I would rather spend time making new features than to think about what I could cut away from my application. If it is not easy to remove or disable the features, then it is IMHO not a problem of bloat but a problem of spaghetti code, i.e. a broken architecture.
Well, a few other reasons why I don't care so much about code bloat: - my/usr is 2.5GB. That is only 1% HDD usage! - the dynamic linker in linux only loads what is needed from HDD -> I don't care if my application or libraries contains code I do not use.
One last think that I'd like to add is that I still care about 'cycle bloat', i.e. applications that waste time just because it feels better to run it on top of a VM (GUIs implemented down to the pixel level in JAVA...). This annoys because it directly slows down my work. On the other hand, a few more MB/GB on HDD do not harm in any way.
I think you're only one of many many infected with this meme!;-P And no, I don't brand you racist, I surely could (I won't because it doesn't help), but instead I want to present my thoughts on that topic below. Maybe they are of interest to you and others.
Social darwinist arguments are coming back quickly and powerful now, 60+ years post WWII. But please consider these points (don't be offended by them, i.e. 'I did not say that', I know, I just wanted to make a more complete list:):
a) Of course, darwinism is a science and ID is crap. But that does not make social darwinism a science, it is a policy. And there is a difference between discovering a fact and having an opinion. Scientists too often do not differentiate between the two. You should do that. Else, science would be your religion. That is ignorant, too.
b) Social darwinism contains the premise of being inhumane for the sake of the betterment of humanity. IMHO, this is very close to what the environmentalist zealots think. You're essentially arguing that certain people should die before they procreate. Be honest about that. Now, I do value human life a bit more. Wouldn't it be better (especially considering all the other arguments) to fuel research into germline therapy and genetic therapy to save the genotype without sacrifying the phenotype?
c) The influence of genetic heritage on intelligence exists (btw, what is your definition for intelligence? IQ?), no doubt, but it is still disputed how much.
d) Number of generations matter. We're not a swarm of drosophila. You're arguing about a *long* time. Longer than any civilization endured.
e) Who says that more intelligent is more adapted to the environment in the long run? Who decides that? How can you be sure that such policies help the survival of the human race? Nature does it already, darwinism is happening all the time. But maybe stupidity correlates with resistance against certain germs. Who knows? Maybe the human species isn't resistant enough to survive WW III and only the rats are. BTW, isn't trying to avoid this a much more pressing issue than avoiding 'genetic degradation'?
Many environmentalists are in favor of sensible energy policy, which can include nuclear power when done correctly. A minority of them, however, are simply opposed to ALL forms of power generation.
I am not so sure about the proportions here. My impression is completely different. Most people I know who consider themselves "green" are rabidly anti-nuclear and even refuse to just talk about these things (fundamentalistic and ignorant).
Interestingly, some of those 'greens' who consider themselves 'rather moderate' are even in favour of drastic social darwinism. Maybe it fits their mindset because they think it somehow preserves something for mankind in the future.
Secondly, it's still useful to be able to dial into client servers--some have a service modem. Thirdly, it's pretty much a requirement in setting up Linux or a BSD on the small appliance machines from Soekris engineering, etc. 4th, it is a great way to tinker with hardware. But maybe removing the ttyS's and lp's is for more DRM compliance, to make the PC more and more like a television with attached keyboard and mouse. People are so ignorant. SIGH.
Well, first of all, this is research. I would probably have much less issues with my privacy if I would be a member of the group doing the study(*). I would
a) know and have control over what is being gathered b) know and hopefully have control over where the data is stored.
And, if the results are not skewed by some organization, it may as well give hints about what not to implement in society.
It's like, for example darwinism(*): Everyone with a clear mind sees that it happens, but making social darwinst policies out of it is a completely different matter.
Science is about facts, models and theories, not policies!
3) Who ever said we had to squeeze all of our data paths down into one byte stream anyway? It's the Internet ffs and we've got 65,535 ports to play with.
I agree.
(i) People more and more restrict the fields usable in (TCP/UDP) IP (firewalls only allowing port tcp/80 and maybe, maybe tcp/22, there are even ISP that only allow HTTP through proxies).
(ii) Now, as everything gets tunneled through HTTP, people and admins feel somehow safe because there is 'only one port open'. Running an application non-root on any TCP/UDP port is deemed 'unsafe', but writing yet-another script and putting it on the webserver (which, for 'pragmatic reasons' very often runs as root) is considered 'safe'.
(iii) But at the same time, "application level firewalls" are deployed which filter dependent e.g. on different "User-Agent" fields in HTTP.
(iv) goto (i), but this time with more overhead
Similar stupidity exists among those who think that NAT and 'port knocking' are ingenious features (they surely have their uses) or that most forms of P2P - which more and more zero in on being poorly implemented forms of application level multicast - is somehow more l33t than real multicast.
Those redundant backbone networks are nice, but they don't exist in the last mile. That's where damage is most likely to occur. I agree completely. And - although I don't work at an ISP and therefore don't have any network plans - I also doubt that there is much redundancy in the backbone networks. Traceroute do not support this (every time the same hops to similar locations) and "cost cutting" is a far more important word than "reliability".
I googled a bit and found that this is not exactly true. Scroll to Question #10.
Although, from the link: "The radioactive contaminants increase the radiation dose from the DU itself by less than 1 percent, which is considered insignificant.".
Ethanol is a renewable energy resource, but that does not make it environmentally friendly. Moreso than petroleum, perhaps, but combustion of ethanol still produces carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide is still one of the major alleged culprits of global warming.
No. To argue like you: We would drown in all the water produced by our hydrogen-powered vehicles.
Of course, this is pure BS. Hydrogen is only an energy carrier, and so are hydrocarbons and ethanol. The hydrogen used for your imaginary car is only temporarily taken from the oceans and will return into the cycle as soon as you burn it in your car.
But this would be also the case with the CO2 in the ethanol produced by nuclear power. It is taken from the environment and it will return to it.
But there are already efficient, working and affordable cars which run on ethanol. What is the point of hydrogen??
The mining, milling, and enrichment of uranium all produce significant greenhouse gases. In fact every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle produces green house gases. Let's not even consider CO2 produced in the building and decomissioning of the plant and facilities. Well we can't. No significant nuclear power plant has ever been attempted to be decomissioned. Huh???! Simply use nuclear energy to extract and refine your uranium and run your car. [In a converted form, of course!] No greenhouse gases, no emissions. Recycle the waste as much as possible (breeders) and put the rest into a subduction zone. That's it!
To take your bad analogy further - and to really say what this is about: This is like closing the front door of your company's amoeba house that extends and flows into every livingroom. This 'security mechanism' creeps into every corner of other houses. And you like that?
After all, computers are executing code and somewhere you do have to start, your haskell session starts by imperatively invoking your haskell interpreter/compiler/program!
No, neither is access to paper to print on, or printing presses, but we still take for granted that the government should not seize printing presses based on what ideas they were used to disseminate, and that that is a natural continuation of a basic human right, the freedom of expression (UN Declaration of the Human Rights, article 19, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [un.org]).
So, if you regulate the Internet to weed out uncomfortable ideas, you are indeed violating the UN declaration of the Human Rights, to which I believe China is a party.
I wonder how this relates to software patents. Really.
If there is any chance for those of us who are EU citizens to go to the European Court of Human Rights. (Against potential future swpat laws)
I am really pissed off with the "amateur" quote. Ant was built by its end users, but they were software developers, each solving their own little problem. As most software dev problems are common, the tool shares out. but amateur? Software professional in their spare time is more accurate.
I agree completely. Scientists, software professionals and others write software in their spare time, as well as self-taught tinkerers and similar folk. Many people who were once in the latter group are later in the first group - and vice versa. PEOPLE write software!
Nothing, really NOTHING says that a company that places distinct labels onto 'products' and talks about 'business', makes pretty foldouts etc. somehow produces 'better', 'more mature' or 'more professional' products.
[Rant: IMHO, this POV is closely related to the general obedience of many people and the far-reaching influence over them by fine rhetoric, glossy brochures and similar stuff.]
I'd say that if I write my software for myself (and maybe a couple of other people), I run a 100% customer-oriented business:-)
Rather unrelated and off-topic, but isn't usage of scripting languages and similar devices for development a waste of resources, too?
I always wonder about this. Writing something e.g. in python instead of C may get you 10% developer time, but then you have the additional cycles wasted (leading to more CO2, more fission products whatever..) in the PCs of hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of users.
No, I do use python regularly and consider it a wonderful language - this is no flamebait.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you said what has to be said on this issue... IMHO the article is trying to incite a flamewar.
:-)
Regarding the other topic, it should be mentioned that only the most stupid people do not differentiate between personal information and information essentially meant for public consumption
Maxbe the mods want to give you points because your post is funny..? :-)
30% insightful and 70% funny is still funny, so thank them for the insightful moderation (as funny gives no karma)
I think you are entirely correct and the GP is wrong.
But maybe if the GP knows so much, he/she could describe what's wrong with the following (which I remember from the thermodynamics lessons I took): ?
Planck blackbody radiation simply describes the energy spectrum of bosons for any temperature T.
If you have ordinary matter (fermions) in thermal equilibrium with photons, it means that both have the same temperature. As you can heat matter to any temperature you wish, so you can produce a spectrum of photons with the peak at any wavelength (Wien's law) - for example xrays.
In hindsight, it's easy to say the bombs shouldn't have been dropped. But at the time, things were very, very different.
Maybe true. There probably as many versions as there are history schoolbooks - in the end, noone knows, history does not repeat and this is clearly an unique event!
But I think this is not, in any way, the point of this slashdot story. It is not about whoever was 'right' in this conflict some 60 years ago.
It is there to show the atrocities of weapons, certain bombs - weapons of mass destruction - against civilian targets.
These anniversaries are there to reflect on whether it is wise to point 1000s of these with a much higher capacity against each other, in 'alert' mode.
You will find only the casual websurfer like you and me - and brand them as terrorists. Brilliant.
Is it now illegal to look at such websites? I don't know. But I surely googled 'jihad' etc once.
What did I found? Unreadable arabic websites and some english ones which only enforced my view that these people are really such assholes as you can also see by looking at their actions.
But the fact that you nowadays could 'get flagged' or even get a very nasty visit by looking at such content is silly. More, it makes me both afraid and angry. Terrorists attacking our freedom. Oh yes, it seems that they are very effective now.
Yeah, but.. Quick question: How big's your system memory?
:)
;)].
1GB. Ok, that's still a bit above average, I suppose
2) Dependency hell is worse than Windows 98 on a bad day. (four versions of the same library in RAM at the same time? HOLY HELL BATMAN!) [this is actually translatable to: "Using the latest and greatest library is *not* nessicarily a good thing"].
As far as I have seen this, it is more a problem of distributions offering libraries in a lot of versions (such as debian - which I am using). If the API is clean and the distribution sets a standard by including just a certain version of a library (SuSE/former Redhat), I see no problem here.
But in most cases, even on debian you can pin all programs to a single version of a library. With recompilation from source, of course...
3) Code bloat tends to make maintainance hell.
4) Code bloat contributes to cycle bloat (something you said yourself that you cared about, almost contradictory to your previous point).
Well, I tried to express this, but english is not my mother tongue, so I may have been unclear about this:
If you imply code bloat with new features, then I disagree. What must also be fulfilled is that the spaghettiness/entropy of the code increases with the new features (for example a lot of patches from a lot of different people who do not hesitate to look at your current code).
5) Most people do not have emmense hard drives (you may have a 250GB hd, but my mom's computer has a 40GB, and my sister's laptop, only a 20GB. Hell, my work desktop machine's hard drive is only 6GB, though I often will bring in an external) [but I guess this point doesn't really matter, because Linux isn't your mom, your work, or your sister's Operating System now is it
Yes. But if less-used features of the application can be removed by the means of compiler switches or plugins, they do not need to be removed completely.
To sum it up: I just don't think throwing features *completely away* to get the software running on older hardware is the right way to go.
ok, but when will I finally see a list of REMOVED features.
/usr is 2.5GB. That is only 1% HDD usage!
You know - those features that was recognized to be shitty and unusable. Removed default applications that simply don't work(r). Sourcebase size shrinking by megabytes. Abstraction and unification instead of the Linux Way(tm).
I don't know about you, but lack of features in gnome is exactly why I switched back from Gnome to KDE.
The gnome devs. - IMHO - pulled out their chainsaws to remove every Gnome feature 'that is not in use by everyone'. (In the gnome 1.x -> 2.x transition). And they tried to enforce certain 'standard' ways of workflow. Both are things which I do not like. It may be perfect for others, but not for me.
I rather have a feature I need than a 'non bloated' application which is crippled. That is what I like about KDE.
I really do not understand all the fear about application bloat. Most of the time it is way easier to make features optional (with compiler flags, shared libraries etc.) than it is to implement new features. As a developer, I would rather spend time making new features than to think about what I could cut away from my application. If it is not easy to remove or disable the features, then it is IMHO not a problem of bloat but a problem of spaghetti code, i.e. a broken architecture.
Well, a few other reasons why I don't care so much about code bloat:
- my
- the dynamic linker in linux only loads what is needed from HDD -> I don't care if my application or libraries contains code I do not use.
One last think that I'd like to add is that I still care about 'cycle bloat', i.e. applications that waste time just because it feels better to run it on top of a VM (GUIs implemented down to the pixel level in JAVA...). This annoys because it directly slows down my work. On the other hand, a few more MB/GB on HDD do not harm in any way.
Well, you basically said it yourself, this kind of data 'visual'ization can be used to do a first look if there are some patterns in a file!
;-)
The ear is very good at doing an audio-range FFT
I think you're only one of many many infected with this meme! ;-P And no, I don't brand you racist, I surely could (I won't because it doesn't help), but instead I want to present my thoughts on that topic below. Maybe they are of interest to you and others.
:):
Social darwinist arguments are coming back quickly and powerful now, 60+ years post WWII. But please consider these points (don't be offended by them, i.e. 'I did not say that', I know, I just wanted to make a more complete list
a) Of course, darwinism is a science and ID is crap. But that does not make social darwinism a science, it is a policy. And there is a difference between discovering a fact and having an opinion. Scientists too often do not differentiate between the two. You should do that. Else, science would be your religion. That is ignorant, too.
b) Social darwinism contains the premise of being inhumane for the sake of the betterment of humanity. IMHO, this is very close to what the environmentalist zealots think. You're essentially arguing that certain people should die before they procreate. Be honest about that.
Now, I do value human life a bit more. Wouldn't it be better (especially considering all the other arguments) to fuel research into germline therapy and genetic therapy to save the genotype without sacrifying the phenotype?
c) The influence of genetic heritage on intelligence exists (btw, what is your definition for intelligence? IQ?), no doubt, but it is still disputed how much.
d) Number of generations matter. We're not a swarm of drosophila. You're arguing about a *long* time. Longer than any civilization endured.
e) Who says that more intelligent is more adapted to the environment in the long run? Who decides that? How can you be sure that such policies help the survival of the human race?
Nature does it already, darwinism is happening all the time. But maybe stupidity correlates with resistance against certain germs. Who knows? Maybe the human species isn't resistant enough to survive WW III and only the rats are. BTW, isn't trying to avoid this a much more pressing issue than avoiding 'genetic degradation'?
Many environmentalists are in favor of sensible energy policy, which can include nuclear power when done correctly. A minority of them, however, are simply opposed to ALL forms of power generation.
I am not so sure about the proportions here. My impression is completely different. Most people I know who consider themselves "green" are rabidly anti-nuclear and even refuse to just talk about these things (fundamentalistic and ignorant).
Interestingly, some of those 'greens' who consider themselves 'rather moderate' are even in favour of drastic social darwinism. Maybe it fits their mindset because they think it somehow preserves something for mankind in the future.
Sigh.
Secondly, it's still useful to be able to dial into client servers--some have a service modem. Thirdly, it's pretty much a requirement in setting up Linux or a BSD on the small appliance machines from Soekris engineering, etc.
4th, it is a great way to tinker with hardware. But maybe removing the ttyS's and lp's is for more DRM compliance, to make the PC more and more like a television with attached keyboard and mouse.
People are so ignorant. SIGH.
Ooops... forget the non-existent footnotes.
Well, first of all, this is research. I would probably have much less issues with my privacy if I would be a member of the group doing the study(*).
I would
a) know and have control over what is being gathered
b) know and hopefully have control over where the data is stored.
And, if the results are not skewed by some organization, it may as well give hints about what not to implement in society.
It's like, for example darwinism(*): Everyone with a clear mind sees that it happens, but making social darwinst policies out of it is a completely different matter.
Science is about facts, models and theories, not policies!
3) Who ever said we had to squeeze all of our data paths down into one byte stream anyway? It's the Internet ffs and we've got 65,535 ports to play with.
I agree.
(i) People more and more restrict the fields usable in (TCP/UDP) IP (firewalls only allowing port tcp/80 and maybe, maybe tcp/22, there are even ISP that only allow HTTP through proxies).
(ii) Now, as everything gets tunneled through HTTP, people and admins feel somehow safe because there is 'only one port open'. Running an application non-root on any TCP/UDP port is deemed 'unsafe', but writing yet-another script and putting it on the webserver (which, for 'pragmatic reasons' very often runs as root) is considered 'safe'.
(iii) But at the same time, "application level firewalls" are deployed which filter dependent e.g. on different "User-Agent" fields in HTTP.
(iv) goto (i), but this time with more overhead
Similar stupidity exists among those who think that NAT and 'port knocking' are ingenious features (they surely have their uses) or that most forms of P2P - which more and more zero in on being poorly implemented forms of application level multicast - is somehow more l33t than real multicast.
Those redundant backbone networks are nice, but they don't exist in the last mile. That's where damage is most likely to occur.
I agree completely. And - although I don't work at an ISP and therefore don't have any network plans - I also doubt that there is much redundancy in the backbone networks.
Traceroute do not support this (every time the same hops to similar locations) and "cost cutting" is a far more important word than "reliability".
I googled a bit and found that this is not exactly true. Scroll to Question #10.
Although, from the link: "The radioactive contaminants increase the radiation dose from the DU itself by less than 1 percent, which is considered insignificant.".
Ethanol is a renewable energy resource, but that does not make it environmentally friendly. Moreso than petroleum, perhaps, but combustion of ethanol still produces carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide is still one of the major alleged culprits of global warming.
No. To argue like you: We would drown in all the water produced by our hydrogen-powered vehicles.
Of course, this is pure BS. Hydrogen is only an energy carrier, and so are hydrocarbons and ethanol.
The hydrogen used for your imaginary car is only temporarily taken from the oceans and will return into the cycle as soon as you burn it in your car.
But this would be also the case with the CO2 in the ethanol produced by nuclear power. It is taken from the environment and it will return to it.
But there are already efficient, working and affordable cars which run on ethanol. What is the point of hydrogen??
The mining, milling, and enrichment of uranium all produce significant greenhouse gases. In fact every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle produces green house gases. Let's not even consider CO2 produced in the building and decomissioning of the plant and facilities. Well we can't. No significant nuclear power plant has ever been attempted to be decomissioned.
Huh???!
Simply use nuclear energy to extract and refine your uranium and run your car. [In a converted form, of course!]
No greenhouse gases, no emissions. Recycle the waste as much as possible (breeders) and put the rest into a subduction zone. That's it!
I RTFA, but I couldn't find information whether one of the new standards allows to push content to the user in UDP datagrams.
Apparently, much bandwidth is wasted just because people can't get themselves out of the only-OSI-level-7+HTTP corset.
To take your bad analogy further - and to really say what this is about:
This is like closing the front door of your company's amoeba house that extends and flows into every livingroom. This 'security mechanism' creeps into every corner of other houses.
And you like that?
The functional style simply does not fit every problem. If you want to print text onto the screen, the most obvious way is to do a
t ext-printed-onto-it'
print 'device' 'text'
and not a
print 'world' 'text' : returns 'new-world-where-the-screen-has-the-next-line-of-
After all, computers are executing code and somewhere you do have to start, your haskell
session starts by imperatively invoking your haskell interpreter/compiler/program!
Brilliant! Thank you.
No, neither is access to paper to print on, or printing presses, but we still take for granted that the government should not seize printing presses based on what ideas they were used to disseminate, and that that is a natural continuation of a basic human right, the freedom of expression (UN Declaration of the Human Rights, article 19, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [un.org]).
So, if you regulate the Internet to weed out uncomfortable ideas, you are indeed violating the UN declaration of the Human Rights, to which I believe China is a party.
I wonder how this relates to software patents. Really.
If there is any chance for those of us who are EU citizens to go to the European Court of Human Rights. (Against potential future swpat laws)
I am really pissed off with the "amateur" quote. Ant was built by its end users, but they were software developers, each solving their own little problem. As most software dev problems are common, the tool shares out. but amateur? Software professional in their spare time is more accurate.
I agree completely. Scientists, software professionals and others write software in their spare time, as well as self-taught tinkerers and similar folk. Many people who were once in the latter group are later in the first group - and vice versa. PEOPLE write software!
Nothing, really NOTHING says that a company that places distinct labels onto 'products' and talks about 'business', makes pretty foldouts etc. somehow produces 'better', 'more mature' or 'more professional' products.
[Rant: IMHO, this POV is closely related to the general obedience of many people and the far-reaching influence over them by fine rhetoric, glossy brochures and similar stuff.]
I'd say that if I write my software for myself (and maybe a couple of other people), I run a 100% customer-oriented business
Rather unrelated and off-topic, but isn't usage of scripting languages and similar devices for development a waste of resources, too?
I always wonder about this. Writing something e.g. in python instead of C may get you 10% developer time, but then you have the additional cycles wasted (leading to more CO2, more fission products whatever..) in the PCs of hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of users.
No, I do use python regularly and consider it a wonderful language - this is no flamebait.