You forgot 4) They should obviously believe that you believe that you believe that they should want to believe...
Anyway, have you actually tried this? Your expectation may be that you will blackmail them into learning about their rights. The reaction I would expect is more along the lines of "He's a bit of an odd one, isn't he?"
Personally, I willingly help people with tech support if they need it (and I don't demand money or that they share an ideology). Generally, this is limited to when I was already in their home. But if I get really stuck on something, I don't bang my head against the wall; I simply tell them I don't know how to fix it.
-a
Re:It just seems unlikely to me...
on
Affero's Hack-a-Thon
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yeah right, like your average computer newbie is really going to want to contribute to one of these groups. As if your mother in law is going to read one of RMS's manifestos and think he's a prophet, not to mention sane.
As for the EFF, remember that the majority of Americans think it's okay for the government to read your e-mail, as long as it helps stop terrorism.
Linux advocates argue that Linux offers better security, flexibility and innovation because its underlying code, or blueprint, for programs remains open to evaluation and scrutiny.
Is it just me or is anyone else getting sick of the source code as blueprint metaphor. The media seems to have standardized on it and I find it very cloying. I wonder if it would be possible for them to either vary the metaphor or just omit it assume that the reader will eventually figure it out. I mean, they now use words like "program" and "operating system" without explaining them every single time.
Well, they could have easily just used the score from FotR, but they decided not to for some reason. The editor of the trailer was so enamoured with the music from Requium for a Dream that she actually had it rearranged and re-recorded to better fit the mood of T2T. Apparently it didn't work.:-)
Moore probably got his facts wrong on purpose? He's done it before, but this time I still think he just didn't bother to check them.
Yes, I stayed for the whole movie, in spite of the guy in the seat in front of me who had Turet syndrome or something. Moore may have suggested several different reasons for gun violence (including the all-pervasive fear), but he certainly blamed guns. Otherwise, explain why he went to Chuck Heston's house and why he lobbied the Kmart to stop selling ammo.
BTW, did you know that Switzerland (the Western country with the 2nd highest handgun ownership) has the 2nd highest rate of gun violence?
Bowling for Columbine is an interesting movie, but keep in mind that Michael Moore tends to be very loose with his facts. At one point, he repeats a "fact" that someone mentioned that Canada has 10 million households and 7 million guns and he incorrectly concludes that 70% of Canadians have a gun.
In fact, gun ownership (particularly handgun ownership) is much lower in Canada. Only 22% of Canadian households have a gun, as opposed to 49% of American households. But most of the Canadian guns are hunting rifles and such. When you look specifically at handguns, only 2% of Canadian households have a handgun, as opposed to 25% of Americans. These are 1996 figures. It's ironic that Moore would get these facts wrong, since they would tend to support his belief that guns cause violence.
Well, I was actually only talking about the tech recession, but do I think we're in a recession overall? Yes. (I'm always willing to argue amateur economic theories.) Last I checked, economic growth has basically stalled (by official figures) so the numbers say we're in a recession. In Canada (where I live), unemployment is high; I don't know about the US.
As for the pundits on TV, I think they are as full of shit as you do. The only thing they seem to say is that "I think we're at the bottom of either a V shaped or U shaped recovery, but I can't tell which one." My stock portfolio is actually in pretty good shape, since I declined to invest in the tech bubble. The NASDAQ (in particular) and NYSE are not in the toilet because of corrupt CEOs nor because of the terrorist attacks. Those are lame excuses concocted by the TV pundits to explain why their earlier predictions were shit. The NASDAQ is in the toilet because of the tech bubble, plain and simple. The NYSE undergoes regular fluctuations that correspond with population cycles.
The tech bubble is not unique in history. Once every 20 years or so (i.e. roughly one generation), the population undergoes a kind of mass hysteria in which the laws of common sense are thrown out the window. This time, one of the main causes was OSS. People invested in companies that had no business case. They tried to get revenue from ads, but this created an adspace glut, which was aggravated by the fact that 90% of ads were for other services that were themselves selling ads. This was its own little bubble: the advertising bubble. To make things worse, OSS lowered the barrier to entry, thus creating fierce competition. Even companies that had a decent business case were driven out of business in this way.
The NASDAQ is following a typical boom-bust cycle. The NYSE also fluctuates long-term with population growth. The baby boom generation are nearing retirement so they have a lot of money invested. When they start spending that money, the market growth either goes down or decelerates. As a compounding factor, many baby boomers lost a fair bit of money on the NASDAQ, so they now have less to invest in the NYSE.
Stating that penetration of broadband and cell phones is increasing doesn't prove anything. These are new technologies that are quickly becoming commodities. A recession is a statement about economic growth, not the economy itself. High real estate prices are a sign of inflation more than a hot economy. The long term outlook for the US economy is not great. Assuming the gap between rich and poor countries narrows in the future, we're going to see more inflation soon.
I used my work e-mail to sign up for various sites, post on mailing lists, etc, and I got *TONS* of spam (~100 messages/day). This, despite the fact that I worked for a large company that claimed to have spam filters in place (they didn't even block Nigerian scams for god's sake). One pleasant side effect of losing my job was that all the spam went away. Yay!
I don't think the security people should have acted like pricks (if in fact they really had behaved that way--given that we're only hearing Ms. Oden's side, it's hard to say.)
When in doubt, it's usually a pretty safe assumption that security people acted like pricks.
That has nothing to do with the argument. They can produce just as they always have without buying politians. It's called Capitalism.
That's just naive. Capitalism doesn't work without government interference and support. Just as governments need to break up monopolies and detect collusion, they also need to intervene when excessive competition is destroying an industry. They also need to step in to negotiate trade deals and award government grants. The belief that capitalism can succeed unregulated is just as naive as a belief in communism. Of course this concept is probably beyond the ken of most slashbots, but at least the politicians understand this.
Now I'm not saying that it's okay to buy politicians, but it's silly to deny them a seat at the table. Dialogue between politicians and industry is important for fostering a strong economy. I don't see what the big deal is about MS wanting to sit next to so and so; that's like the groom's father asking not to sit next to his ex-wife at the wedding. On the other hand, a political contribution shouldn't be able to get you promoted to ambassador to Sweden.
Well I'm glad to hear that you have $500 EU to throw away* in this recession economy. I for one have bills to pay. Also, if I am going to donate to charity, I still think feeding the homeless is a more worthy cause.
(*) If you wonder why I say this amounts to throwing money away, think of it from a tragedy of the commons perspective. Your donation is fairly large, but still too small to make or break the project. The benefit to you is the same whether you make the donation or not.
Embarrassed to live in a society where capitalism takes this form. That is, the form which allows whiney 8 year-olds at the helm of massive companies who complain that a little wet spot means someone's pissed in the sandbox.
As opposed to whiny 8 year olds who see free books/etc on the net and say "Gimme gimme gimme!! Mine mine mine!!"?
Roadrunner was particularly displeased with an informal customer satisfaction poll placed on the employee's personal website.
That was a really dumb thing to do. Most companies aren't fond of polls when they can't spin the numbers. An unscientific poll run by a member of their own staff would really tick them off.
When Blender when under, they started a fund to which anyone could contribute (and I did.) Now their 3D modeling product is open source.
I know you haven't read the article, but I'll reply for the benefit of anyone else who is listening. One of the tenets of scientific reasoning (that are so often ignored on/.) is that anecdotal evidence is not proof. The fact that something worked once does not mean that it can work sustainably.
Blender had the advantage of being a test case. Everyone wanted to prove that the concept would work, so they gladly contributed. That flood of support is likely to calm down after the 500th company asks for money.
I don't really follow your argument, as it jumps around a lot. I certainly don't think that children should be sheltered from sex until they are 18. But I also don't think that they need to find out about some of the evils of this world until they are old enough to understand why they happen. And I don't want to expose them to dangerous ideas until they are old enough to think critically.
As for protecting the safety of children, I'd rather tell them simply "don't take candy from strangers" rather than "don't take candy from strangers because they might abduct you, then rape and kill you."
*sighs* Parents censoring their children is the worst form of child abuse I've ever seen.
Oh come on. I don't think this.kids.us domain is aimed at 16 year olds. Little kids aren't just minature, blissfully ignorant adults. There are fundamental differences in their underdeveloped brains, including the inability to think critically. The correct cure for naivity is time.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot 4) They should obviously believe that you believe that you believe that they should want to believe...
Anyway, have you actually tried this? Your expectation may be that you will blackmail them into learning about their rights. The reaction I would expect is more along the lines of "He's a bit of an odd one, isn't he?"
Personally, I willingly help people with tech support if they need it (and I don't demand money or that they share an ideology). Generally, this is limited to when I was already in their home. But if I get really stuck on something, I don't bang my head against the wall; I simply tell them I don't know how to fix it.
-a
Yeah right, like your average computer newbie is really going to want to contribute to one of these groups. As if your mother in law is going to read one of RMS's manifestos and think he's a prophet, not to mention sane.
As for the EFF, remember that the majority of Americans think it's okay for the government to read your e-mail, as long as it helps stop terrorism.
-a
Linux advocates argue that Linux offers better security, flexibility and innovation because its underlying code, or blueprint, for programs remains open to evaluation and scrutiny.
Is it just me or is anyone else getting sick of the source code as blueprint metaphor. The media seems to have standardized on it and I find it very cloying. I wonder if it would be possible for them to either vary the metaphor or just omit it assume that the reader will eventually figure it out. I mean, they now use words like "program" and "operating system" without explaining them every single time.
-a
Well, they could have easily just used the score from FotR, but they decided not to for some reason. The editor of the trailer was so enamoured with the music from Requium for a Dream that she actually had it rearranged and re-recorded to better fit the mood of T2T. Apparently it didn't work. :-)
-a
Despite all the tech sector layoffs, unemployment is still very low.
Actually dude, you're full of shit. I just heard on tv that the US unemployment rate is 6%, which is the highest rate in 9 years.
-a
Moore probably got his facts wrong on purpose? He's done it before, but this time I still think he just didn't bother to check them.
Yes, I stayed for the whole movie, in spite of the guy in the seat in front of me who had Turet syndrome or something. Moore may have suggested several different reasons for gun violence (including the all-pervasive fear), but he certainly blamed guns. Otherwise, explain why he went to Chuck Heston's house and why he lobbied the Kmart to stop selling ammo.
BTW, did you know that Switzerland (the Western country with the 2nd highest handgun ownership) has the 2nd highest rate of gun violence?
-a
Hmmm... maybe he read my e-mail, then. :-)
-a
Bowling for Columbine is an interesting movie, but keep in mind that Michael Moore tends to be very loose with his facts. At one point, he repeats a "fact" that someone mentioned that Canada has 10 million households and 7 million guns and he incorrectly concludes that 70% of Canadians have a gun.
In fact, gun ownership (particularly handgun ownership) is much lower in Canada. Only 22% of Canadian households have a gun, as opposed to 49% of American households. But most of the Canadian guns are hunting rifles and such. When you look specifically at handguns, only 2% of Canadian households have a handgun, as opposed to 25% of Americans. These are 1996 figures. It's ironic that Moore would get these facts wrong, since they would tend to support his belief that guns cause violence.
-a
Well, I was actually only talking about the tech recession, but do I think we're in a recession overall? Yes. (I'm always willing to argue amateur economic theories.) Last I checked, economic growth has basically stalled (by official figures) so the numbers say we're in a recession. In Canada (where I live), unemployment is high; I don't know about the US.
As for the pundits on TV, I think they are as full of shit as you do. The only thing they seem to say is that "I think we're at the bottom of either a V shaped or U shaped recovery, but I can't tell which one." My stock portfolio is actually in pretty good shape, since I declined to invest in the tech bubble. The NASDAQ (in particular) and NYSE are not in the toilet because of corrupt CEOs nor because of the terrorist attacks. Those are lame excuses concocted by the TV pundits to explain why their earlier predictions were shit. The NASDAQ is in the toilet because of the tech bubble, plain and simple. The NYSE undergoes regular fluctuations that correspond with population cycles.
The tech bubble is not unique in history. Once every 20 years or so (i.e. roughly one generation), the population undergoes a kind of mass hysteria in which the laws of common sense are thrown out the window. This time, one of the main causes was OSS. People invested in companies that had no business case. They tried to get revenue from ads, but this created an adspace glut, which was aggravated by the fact that 90% of ads were for other services that were themselves selling ads. This was its own little bubble: the advertising bubble. To make things worse, OSS lowered the barrier to entry, thus creating fierce competition. Even companies that had a decent business case were driven out of business in this way.
The NASDAQ is following a typical boom-bust cycle. The NYSE also fluctuates long-term with population growth. The baby boom generation are nearing retirement so they have a lot of money invested. When they start spending that money, the market growth either goes down or decelerates. As a compounding factor, many baby boomers lost a fair bit of money on the NASDAQ, so they now have less to invest in the NYSE.
Stating that penetration of broadband and cell phones is increasing doesn't prove anything. These are new technologies that are quickly becoming commodities. A recession is a statement about economic growth, not the economy itself. High real estate prices are a sign of inflation more than a hot economy. The long term outlook for the US economy is not great. Assuming the gap between rich and poor countries narrows in the future, we're going to see more inflation soon.
-a
I used my work e-mail to sign up for various sites, post on mailing lists, etc, and I got *TONS* of spam (~100 messages/day). This, despite the fact that I worked for a large company that claimed to have spam filters in place (they didn't even block Nigerian scams for god's sake). One pleasant side effect of losing my job was that all the spam went away. Yay!
-a
I don't think the security people should have acted like pricks (if in fact they really had behaved that way--given that we're only hearing Ms. Oden's side, it's hard to say.)
When in doubt, it's usually a pretty safe assumption that security people acted like pricks.
-a
That has nothing to do with the argument. They can produce just as they always have without buying politians. It's called Capitalism.
That's just naive. Capitalism doesn't work without government interference and support. Just as governments need to break up monopolies and detect collusion, they also need to intervene when excessive competition is destroying an industry. They also need to step in to negotiate trade deals and award government grants. The belief that capitalism can succeed unregulated is just as naive as a belief in communism. Of course this concept is probably beyond the ken of most slashbots, but at least the politicians understand this.
Now I'm not saying that it's okay to buy politicians, but it's silly to deny them a seat at the table. Dialogue between politicians and industry is important for fostering a strong economy. I don't see what the big deal is about MS wanting to sit next to so and so; that's like the groom's father asking not to sit next to his ex-wife at the wedding. On the other hand, a political contribution shouldn't be able to get you promoted to ambassador to Sweden.
-a
Well I'm glad to hear that you have $500 EU to throw away* in this recession economy. I for one have bills to pay. Also, if I am going to donate to charity, I still think feeding the homeless is a more worthy cause.
(*) If you wonder why I say this amounts to throwing money away, think of it from a tragedy of the commons perspective. Your donation is fairly large, but still too small to make or break the project. The benefit to you is the same whether you make the donation or not.
-a
Embarrassed to live in a society where capitalism takes this form. That is, the form which allows whiney 8 year-olds at the helm of massive companies who complain that a little wet spot means someone's pissed in the sandbox.
As opposed to whiny 8 year olds who see free books/etc on the net and say "Gimme gimme gimme!! Mine mine mine!!"?
-a
Of course i'm not perfect but i might as well point out thats its "misspelled".
That's pretty clueless when you correct a guy for deliberately misspelling the word misspelling.
-a
Roadrunner was particularly displeased with an informal customer satisfaction poll placed on the employee's personal website.
That was a really dumb thing to do. Most companies aren't fond of polls when they can't spin the numbers. An unscientific poll run by a member of their own staff would really tick them off.
-a
When Blender when under, they started a fund to which anyone could contribute (and I did.) Now their 3D modeling product is open source.
I know you haven't read the article, but I'll reply for the benefit of anyone else who is listening. One of the tenets of scientific reasoning (that are so often ignored on
Blender had the advantage of being a test case. Everyone wanted to prove that the concept would work, so they gladly contributed. That flood of support is likely to calm down after the 500th company asks for money.
-a
I don't really follow your argument, as it jumps around a lot. I certainly don't think that children should be sheltered from sex until they are 18. But I also don't think that they need to find out about some of the evils of this world until they are old enough to understand why they happen. And I don't want to expose them to dangerous ideas until they are old enough to think critically.
As for protecting the safety of children, I'd rather tell them simply "don't take candy from strangers" rather than "don't take candy from strangers because they might abduct you, then rape and kill you."
-a
*sighs* Parents censoring their children is the worst form of child abuse I've ever seen.
Oh come on. I don't think this
-a