Denial. Recognize it and you have reached the first stage of overcoming addiction.
Otherwise put up a well-reasoned rebuttal.
I've seen the effects of Solaris addiction on a company first hand. The result is little different than a drug addiction. It doesn't cost much at first, then you start having to devote more and more of the budget to support. Some companies resort to breaking the law to feed their addiction (which is what this article is about). The best engineers leave for greener pastures. The company is relegated to only hiring the second-tier developers and admins that are still willing to work on Solaris, knowing full well that the cream of the crop have moved on. The competitive edge is lost and the company is in an inexorable death spiral, with no one on board with the skill to turn it around.
Oracle customers always get what they deserve. Solaris and SPARC have been dead for a long time. Oracle bought Sun for the same reason Compaq bought DEC back in the day: to bleed dry the customers who were stuck on a legacy platform with nowhere else to go. Oracle clearly recognized this when they bought Sun, but this is not something that they can say out loud and have the business model succeed.
Using Solaris is the IT equivalent of a crack addiction. It's just as irrational. And users always find a way to justify the addiction. (Rehab costs too much and takes too much time. It's not that bad. It's not affecting my bottom line. I can quit any time.)
I wonder if RMS realizes yet that by winning the battle (not making the GCC available for other tools to use) he has lost the war for GCC and ultimately GNU. There are great free software projects, such as Eclipse, KDevelop, and others, that could really use a decent C++ parser. But, if the architecture and license of a core component such as GCC is such that it cannot be used because of a philosophy that prevents the creation of good free software tools, then the battle is lost. If RMS, GNU and the GCC steering committee had reacted fast enough when the problem was apparent, then this could have been prevented. But I'm not sure that they see the real problem with their dogma yet.
Sure, when you had scan lines -- electron beams illuminating phosphorous dots -- it was pretty horrible. Now it is just a number that tells you how quickly pixels can change on the display. Lag is a more important measure. And at 30FPS, you have at least a 33ms lag between a change occurring and it appearing on the screen. Gamers care about that. Most coders (game coders excepted) don't care.
You have the reasoning the wrong way around. The only reason that kids get sent to war is that they are stupid enough to go. QED. They really are too stupid to drink.
But really, you are barking up the wrong tree. You do not understand my viewpoint at all. I was responding to the poster who doesn't know or understand history and making fun of that stupidity as a reflection of kids of that age which, for whatever it is worth, has a small kernel of truth to it. And it is that truth that drove the increase in the drinking age in the U.S.
Personally I think that any sort of government limitations on drinking and drugs is wrong. Parents should bear full responsibility for their children's behavior up to the age of majority. And after that, everyone declared an adult should be able to make their own choices about inebriation.
Typical anonymous teenage American idiot. The 21-year drinking limit is a very recent manifestation of nanny state activism brought to you by MADD. I am actually old enough to remember when an 18-year old could buy alcohol in most states. Your idiocy is why we don't let kids your age drink. You're all fools.
Real Geeks are buying Ubiquiti equipment. Very reasonably priced, easy to hack the firmware, and the radios are "Amateur Friendly", meaning you can operate the radio in the Ham bands and limit the channel usage or bandwidth to stay in the ham band.
I used the 2nd table which provides a straight histogram of the number of individuals in a particular income range. Per capita doesn't come into it at all.
The household income table is much more difficult to interpret in this context.
Getting straight facts often takes a little effort. If you are not using per-capita income, you are throwing around numbers with no cited baseline. What is the top 1% for the numbers that you are using (with references)?
You have provided no credible sources for those figures at a global level. You started off with some random $50,000/yr figure and are comparing that to a completely different population group (wage earners). Apples::Oranges.
If 48% of the richest 1% live in the US, we can see that 1% of 7B (global population) is 70M. 70M * 48% = 33.6M. Of the 300M US population, 33.6M are in the global 1%. That matches pretty closely (11.2%) with my earlier figures. And rather far off from 25%.
In the United States 25% of the >15 year old population has a personal income > $50K
You are mixing per-capita income (mine) with the income of wage earners (yours). That is the same misleading comparison the web site I linked to was tempting potential donors with.
The first big table has "household income" as well as "household size". This shows that one needs to be near the top 10% before you get to "$47,500 per capita" rate that is considered "the global 1%".
I am not downplaying the fact that the U.S. has a lot of wealth compared to the rest of the world. But some of the numbers thrown around are used in a misleading manner. For example, the site I linked to above was trying to get wage earners to compare their personal or household income with some "global per capita wage" and not asking for their household wage and number of household members, which would be a more fair comparison.
The top 1% in 2011 earned $47,500 (individual income) according to the web site cited below. That means that a family of 2 adults would need to make $95,000/yr to fall into the global 1%. For a family with 2 kids, a dog and a hamster, that total grows to $190,000/yr. Remember kids, this is individual income distribution across all people, not family income distribution or anything like that.
You may not agree with that perspective, but it is the issue that Google is wrestling with: Should they facilitate the ability to prevent apps from knowing that they are not getting the clean data that they currently take as payment for producing the app?
In my opinion, our current standards for acquiring such data are extremely shady, relying heavily on a consumer base that is deeply misinformed of the extent of the surveillance and the risks the data stores pose. Where the balance of good lies between surveillance and countermeasures is hard to tell; it could be that subverting the datastream is pro-social in the long run -- but that is not the side on which Google's bread is buttered. They have a strong motive to see things from the app developers / watchers / revenue stream point of view. A great deal of money flows to Google from informed, uninformed, and misinformed consent to surveillance.
I completely agree. There is another, related problem that Google needs to address. Users have little recourse when app producers renege on the privacy that was initially sold to the user. For example, I paid for WeatherBug Elite simply because it did not require "phone state and identity" when I purchased it. Guess what? A year later they wanted that information for "Elite" too. I can either accept or not upgrade. I don't upgrade. I have a bunch of apps that are not getting updated because the new perms they ask for are ridiculous. If users cannot maintain the privacy that they paid for, what other options exist for them?
Either privacy has value and must be honored by app producers as part of the sale, or it doesn't and users have the right to block access to private information.
Applications and services that support AllJoyn can communicate "regardless of manufacturer or operating system and without the need for Internet access,"
Wow, what could possibly go wrong with that? Devices which will communicate whether you want them to or not, and with all of that information in the hands of greedy assholes.
In order to use this light bulb, and before it can be turned on, you must first agree to this EULA...
IANAL. Source code is the copyrightable creative expression of a software engineer that may infringe on process patents once compiled and run on a computer.
Why would you not send Marigolds if you had a chance for such an experiment? Besides, we will need bees on the moon; so we're going to need flowers. Plants don't pollinate themselves.
My son is 13 years old and has been training to be a pilot since he was 11. He has taken off and landed a small airplane (with the PIC in the airplane with him, of course) quite a few times.
Really?!? You're kid is flying a plane with a PIC? So, he's essentially being trained to fly by a drone. Is there anything a robot can't do anymore?
Yeah, and if you use the word "stealing" instead of "make infringing copies", that makes the latter sound a lot worse. But here on Slashdot, you're not allowed to do that, yet it's A-OK to redefine other words for our own feel-good* purposes, apparently?
MAFIAA bribery (or "lobbying") resulted in corporations "stealing from the public domain". And they have managed to re-defined "fair use" as "DMCA violations". But you keep using whatever terms makes you feel good about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Denial. Recognize it and you have reached the first stage of overcoming addiction.
Otherwise put up a well-reasoned rebuttal.
I've seen the effects of Solaris addiction on a company first hand. The result is little different than a drug addiction. It doesn't cost much at first, then you start having to devote more and more of the budget to support. Some companies resort to breaking the law to feed their addiction (which is what this article is about). The best engineers leave for greener pastures. The company is relegated to only hiring the second-tier developers and admins that are still willing to work on Solaris, knowing full well that the cream of the crop have moved on. The competitive edge is lost and the company is in an inexorable death spiral, with no one on board with the skill to turn it around.
Oracle customers always get what they deserve. Solaris and SPARC have been dead for a long time. Oracle bought Sun for the same reason Compaq bought DEC back in the day: to bleed dry the customers who were stuck on a legacy platform with nowhere else to go. Oracle clearly recognized this when they bought Sun, but this is not something that they can say out loud and have the business model succeed.
Using Solaris is the IT equivalent of a crack addiction. It's just as irrational. And users always find a way to justify the addiction. (Rehab costs too much and takes too much time. It's not that bad. It's not affecting my bottom line. I can quit any time.)
I think you are mistaken. Eisenhower sent troops into the south to enforce desegregation.
I wonder if RMS realizes yet that by winning the battle (not making the GCC available for other tools to use) he has lost the war for GCC and ultimately GNU. There are great free software projects, such as Eclipse, KDevelop, and others, that could really use a decent C++ parser. But, if the architecture and license of a core component such as GCC is such that it cannot be used because of a philosophy that prevents the creation of good free software tools, then the battle is lost. If RMS, GNU and the GCC steering committee had reacted fast enough when the problem was apparent, then this could have been prevented. But I'm not sure that they see the real problem with their dogma yet.
If you want news and articles, honestly Yahoo's News is not too bad.
And if you need personal or professional advise, there's no better place than Yahoo! Answers."
I don't see anyone executing NSA officials, so I don't see how a gun would provide any guarantees about freedom or liberty, with respect to the NSA.
The "with respect to the NSA" can be left off and you've made my precise point. There is no discernible correlation between gun ownership and liberty.
Because freedom!
The NSA is a good indication that guns do not provide any guarantee of freedom or liberty.
Psychosis is a general term for a loss of reality, and is associated with several psychiatric diseases...
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
Sure, when you had scan lines -- electron beams illuminating phosphorous dots -- it was pretty horrible. Now it is just a number that tells you how quickly pixels can change on the display. Lag is a more important measure. And at 30FPS, you have at least a 33ms lag between a change occurring and it appearing on the screen. Gamers care about that. Most coders (game coders excepted) don't care.
You have the reasoning the wrong way around. The only reason that kids get sent to war is that they are stupid enough to go. QED. They really are too stupid to drink.
But really, you are barking up the wrong tree. You do not understand my viewpoint at all. I was responding to the poster who doesn't know or understand history and making fun of that stupidity as a reflection of kids of that age which, for whatever it is worth, has a small kernel of truth to it. And it is that truth that drove the increase in the drinking age in the U.S.
Personally I think that any sort of government limitations on drinking and drugs is wrong. Parents should bear full responsibility for their children's behavior up to the age of majority. And after that, everyone declared an adult should be able to make their own choices about inebriation.
"laughable remnants of yesteryear puritanism???"
Typical anonymous teenage American idiot. The 21-year drinking limit is a very recent manifestation of nanny state activism brought to you by MADD. I am actually old enough to remember when an 18-year old could buy alcohol in most states. Your idiocy is why we don't let kids your age drink. You're all fools.
Real Geeks are buying Ubiquiti equipment. Very reasonably priced, easy to hack the firmware, and the radios are "Amateur Friendly", meaning you can operate the radio in the Ham bands and limit the channel usage or bandwidth to stay in the ham band.
Fine, then "cancer" has the same broad meaning as "infection". And one treats bacterial, viral and fungal infections very differently.
I used the 2nd table which provides a straight histogram of the number of individuals in a particular income range. Per capita doesn't come into it at all.
The household income table is much more difficult to interpret in this context.
Getting straight facts often takes a little effort. If you are not using per-capita income, you are throwing around numbers with no cited baseline. What is the top 1% for the numbers that you are using (with references)?
You have provided no credible sources for those figures at a global level. You started off with some random $50,000/yr figure and are comparing that to a completely different population group (wage earners). Apples::Oranges.
Here is another reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082385/We-1--You-need-34k-income-global-elite--half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html. Note that they are using "after tax" income ($34,000), which throws even more confusion into the mix. They claim that 48% of the global 1% live in the U.S.
If 48% of the richest 1% live in the US, we can see that 1% of 7B (global population) is 70M. 70M * 48% = 33.6M. Of the 300M US population, 33.6M are in the global 1%. That matches pretty closely (11.2%) with my earlier figures. And rather far off from 25%.
In the United States 25% of the >15 year old population has a personal income > $50K
You are mixing per-capita income (mine) with the income of wage earners (yours). That is the same misleading comparison the web site I linked to was tempting potential donors with.
A clearer picture can be had by looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
The first big table has "household income" as well as "household size". This shows that one needs to be near the top 10% before you get to "$47,500 per capita" rate that is considered "the global 1%".
I am not downplaying the fact that the U.S. has a lot of wealth compared to the rest of the world. But some of the numbers thrown around are used in a misleading manner. For example, the site I linked to above was trying to get wage earners to compare their personal or household income with some "global per capita wage" and not asking for their household wage and number of household members, which would be a more fair comparison.
The top 1% in 2011 earned $47,500 (individual income) according to the web site cited below. That means that a family of 2 adults would need to make $95,000/yr to fall into the global 1%. For a family with 2 kids, a dog and a hamster, that total grows to $190,000/yr. Remember kids, this is individual income distribution across all people, not family income distribution or anything like that.
Here is the source: http://www.globalrichlist.nl/how.asp
Not a too many American families make it into the global 1% any more.
You may not agree with that perspective, but it is the issue that Google is wrestling with: Should they facilitate the ability to prevent apps from knowing that they are not getting the clean data that they currently take as payment for producing the app?
In my opinion, our current standards for acquiring such data are extremely shady, relying heavily on a consumer base that is deeply misinformed of the extent of the surveillance and the risks the data stores pose. Where the balance of good lies between surveillance and countermeasures is hard to tell; it could be that subverting the datastream is pro-social in the long run -- but that is not the side on which Google's bread is buttered. They have a strong motive to see things from the app developers / watchers / revenue stream point of view. A great deal of money flows to Google from informed, uninformed, and misinformed consent to surveillance.
I completely agree. There is another, related problem that Google needs to address. Users have little recourse when app producers renege on the privacy that was initially sold to the user. For example, I paid for WeatherBug Elite simply because it did not require "phone state and identity" when I purchased it. Guess what? A year later they wanted that information for "Elite" too. I can either accept or not upgrade. I don't upgrade. I have a bunch of apps that are not getting updated because the new perms they ask for are ridiculous. If users cannot maintain the privacy that they paid for, what other options exist for them?
Either privacy has value and must be honored by app producers as part of the sale, or it doesn't and users have the right to block access to private information.
Wow, what could possibly go wrong with that? Devices which will communicate whether you want them to or not, and with all of that information in the hands of greedy assholes.
In order to use this light bulb, and before it can be turned on, you must first agree to this EULA...
Candles anyone?
IANAL. Source code is the copyrightable creative expression of a software engineer that may infringe on process patents once compiled and run on a computer.
Well, then this is a feature, not a bug. The patient already set up for another contrast exam.
And can never pass through a metal detector unmolested...
Why would you not send Marigolds if you had a chance for such an experiment? Besides, we will need bees on the moon; so we're going to need flowers. Plants don't pollinate themselves.
Q: How do I convince management to hire more IT staff?
A: Quit.
Fail!
Let me explain how this works in management-land.
"We're not going to back fill."
A good manager will take the raise and accolades for cutting costs. And then leave for greener pastures while the references are still positive.
It's all Win-Win. The company saves money, the manager gets a raise and a better job. Everyone wins.
My son is 13 years old and has been training to be a pilot since he was 11. He has taken off and landed a small airplane (with the PIC in the airplane with him, of course) quite a few times.
Really?!? You're kid is flying a plane with a PIC? So, he's essentially being trained to fly by a drone. Is there anything a robot can't do anymore?
Yeah, and if you use the word "stealing" instead of "make infringing copies", that makes the latter sound a lot worse. But here on Slashdot, you're not allowed to do that, yet it's A-OK to redefine other words for our own feel-good* purposes, apparently?
MAFIAA bribery (or "lobbying") resulted in corporations "stealing from the public domain". And they have managed to re-defined "fair use" as "DMCA violations". But you keep using whatever terms makes you feel good about that.
SCOTUS says that corporations are people??? Why not carry that stupid decision to its logical conclutions. Prosucute them as people under this law!
It may drive some people question their opposition to the death penalty.