The app store follows the Linux philosophy. Here's your toolkit: 0, 1. Now go make your own apps!
You are aware, of course, that the success and convenience of Linux package repositories was both the inspiration and proof of concept that caused app stores to exist, right? On an OS built by developers for developers, "go make your own apps" actually works.
Please leave, we don't want your racist kind here.
I'm seriously struggling to figure out if that was sarcasm or if society has degraded to the point where people can no longer sense hypocrisy in their own voices. Let's all review the levels of argument, shall we?
Currently, editors usually solicit 3 (or so) reviews. If one of them finds serious flaws and the other two say it's a great paper, the editor thinks mean things about those two posers and avoids inviting them to review again. How does your block-chain idea handle this? The most ingenious ideas are rarely popular at first. About the last thing we ever want to do is make publication into a popularity contest. Only fools compute average ratings when evaluating scientific papers.
Yeah, and that "attacks upon honour and reputation" clause sounds like a trap for suppressing the criticism of leaders and any other speech that they do not like. Let's not break out the party hats just yet.
...it's not just because of their totalitarian government
All of these problems are side-effects of their totalitarian government. It is far too difficult for a totalitarian government to be simultaneously aware of all the problems that need to be addressed, and no individual under the rule of a totalitarian government wants to take responsibility for anything besides their own well-being because that would be doing work for which someone else (the totalitarian government) is responsible. Thus, any attempt to fix these problems while respecting the totalitarian government is like working harder to carry water in a leaky basket.
...legislators get busy solving technical problems they don't understand. We all know they will direct us toward more superfluous complexity that we need to work around, but at least that produces more job security for me. So, in a way, those popular people are the experts at creating security!
For those who can see past the component of ad hominem, this is among the most insightful comments in this entire discussion. Alas, people are so generally sensitive to ad hominem that their minds become incapable of listening as soon as they detect a wisp of it. Therefore, if you want to expand your influence, I recommend playing the silly game of speaking more politely than people actually deserve. It works much better than people usually expect. I'm just saying this because your message really needs to be heard, and I fear that it may just end up being relegated to obscurity by all the "thin-skinned pussy faggots".
When we rebuild this "company", can we please do it without recreating a two-party system propped up by a requirement for plurality voting? That alone would make it worth all the effort to rebuild it from scratch. I think you might be on to something!
They're investing in nothing backed by nothing on the promise that it might one day be something
They are investing in having an entry added to the majority of the many copies of the block-chain that uniquely identifies them as owning a quantity of nothing tangible. It is backed by cryptography and the greed of all the people who are trying furiously to mine more of them. There are currently many people willing to trade these "nothings" for a lot of money, especially since they offer many unique properties and some guarantees that are not available in traditional bank notes. Which component of all this do you anticipate vaporizing first?
Of course we'll choose a meaningful promise over a completely meaningless one. Instead of meaningless words like "Speeds up to", how about if they sell something truthful like, "Each 100Mbs line guaranteed to be shared among no more than X customers", then let them all compete for how low they can get X. There is no way I am going to reward a company with money for using a big fat lie involving the words "up to".
So, we're supposed to have a meaningful relationship with an imaginary person in the heavens, and meaningless relationships with real people in the cloud. If people who live in Pakistan try to sort out this silliness by engaging in meaningful discussion with the real people in the cloud, they gets sentenced to death for blasphemy and the fault lies in the West for creating the cloud. Yet the imaginary person who supposedly created the West, and indirectly the cloud, bears no blame for remaining silent while this guy dies as a scapegoat to those who go all extreme in trying to compensate for his lack of ability to stand up for himself. Wow, this world is messed up.
Also, let's keep inventing new ways to take down airplanes and making YouTube how-to's about them until the TSA bans phones and clothes, and people finally start to get annoyed.
I would guess that they intend to enforce it the same way every country enforces laws that reach outside of their jurisdiction. They levy unreasonable penalties against the portion of the company within their jurisdiction until they get what they want from the company as a whole. The companies almost always comply in the long run out of fear of losing business in that country to some other company that will comply. Very few large companies have the chutzpah to sacrifice a portion of their market just to take a moral stand. Governments everywhere know that, and that knowledge is what gives them "authority".
It is unconstitutional to pass laws after the crime occurs. U.S. Constitution, Section 9:3, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Are you proposing to "deal with the issue" by punishing people who have broken no law?
This shows the boss you are responsive, but also sends a subtle message (to both your boss and the co-worker) that you are above that game. As a boss, my opinion of any subordinate would go down if they resort to such demoralizing behavior. I don't want people like that destroying the morale on my team.
At work your job is to put ideology aside and to make your bosses happy
Bosses often don't know tech. Programmers often don't know business. Programmers who just wait for their bosses to tell them how and what to do are crappy employees who make the company lopsided toward the business side. The best employees push for their ideals, but also know when to back down.
Let's throw out our current privacy protection because we might get a better one later. I think I'll quit my job now so I'll have plenty of time on my hands in case I find a better one. And would anyone like my car? I need to free up some space in my garage in case someone comes along and gives me a better one.
Does "streaming" imply the use of some protocol that attempts to prevent the recipient from saving? What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability? What if we develop a new streaming protocol and deliberately include a vulnerability? What if it is based on encryption with a password that is hard-coded to be "password" and cannot be changed? What if it merely requires the use to check a box that says, "I solemnly swear that I obey the law, mostly"?
Sure, smart people can easily solve the universal ID problem, but those same people mostly know that we are better of not solving that problem. I would personally like to thank all the other smart people for continuing to keep this problem complicated, messy, and unresolved.
Java: Getting old. OSS friendly. Most popular language. Will probably still be kicking in 20 years.
C#: Better designed. Better IDE. Chained to M$. Claims to be OSS friendly, but we all know it's a trap. Will be dead in 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
consciousness is INDEPENDENT of his physical body
[Citation needed]
The app store follows the Linux philosophy. Here's your toolkit: 0, 1. Now go make your own apps!
You are aware, of course, that the success and convenience of Linux package repositories was both the inspiration and proof of concept that caused app stores to exist, right? On an OS built by developers for developers, "go make your own apps" actually works.
Please leave, we don't want your racist kind here.
I'm seriously struggling to figure out if that was sarcasm or if society has degraded to the point where people can no longer sense hypocrisy in their own voices. Let's all review the levels of argument, shall we?
Currently, editors usually solicit 3 (or so) reviews. If one of them finds serious flaws and the other two say it's a great paper, the editor thinks mean things about those two posers and avoids inviting them to review again. How does your block-chain idea handle this? The most ingenious ideas are rarely popular at first. About the last thing we ever want to do is make publication into a popularity contest. Only fools compute average ratings when evaluating scientific papers.
Yeah, and that "attacks upon honour and reputation" clause sounds like a trap for suppressing the criticism of leaders and any other speech that they do not like. Let's not break out the party hats just yet.
...it's not just because of their totalitarian government
All of these problems are side-effects of their totalitarian government. It is far too difficult for a totalitarian government to be simultaneously aware of all the problems that need to be addressed, and no individual under the rule of a totalitarian government wants to take responsibility for anything besides their own well-being because that would be doing work for which someone else (the totalitarian government) is responsible. Thus, any attempt to fix these problems while respecting the totalitarian government is like working harder to carry water in a leaky basket.
don't need to inspect private communications in order to preserve freedom.
...legislators get busy solving technical problems they don't understand. We all know they will direct us toward more superfluous complexity that we need to work around, but at least that produces more job security for me. So, in a way, those popular people are the experts at creating security!
For those who can see past the component of ad hominem, this is among the most insightful comments in this entire discussion. Alas, people are so generally sensitive to ad hominem that their minds become incapable of listening as soon as they detect a wisp of it. Therefore, if you want to expand your influence, I recommend playing the silly game of speaking more politely than people actually deserve. It works much better than people usually expect. I'm just saying this because your message really needs to be heard, and I fear that it may just end up being relegated to obscurity by all the "thin-skinned pussy faggots".
Good point. We should avoid preparing for the future so we can minimize the total number of experiments with potential to go wrong!
When we rebuild this "company", can we please do it without recreating a two-party system propped up by a requirement for plurality voting? That alone would make it worth all the effort to rebuild it from scratch. I think you might be on to something!
They're investing in nothing backed by nothing on the promise that it might one day be something
They are investing in having an entry added to the majority of the many copies of the block-chain that uniquely identifies them as owning a quantity of nothing tangible. It is backed by cryptography and the greed of all the people who are trying furiously to mine more of them. There are currently many people willing to trade these "nothings" for a lot of money, especially since they offer many unique properties and some guarantees that are not available in traditional bank notes. Which component of all this do you anticipate vaporizing first?
Of course we'll choose a meaningful promise over a completely meaningless one. Instead of meaningless words like "Speeds up to", how about if they sell something truthful like, "Each 100Mbs line guaranteed to be shared among no more than X customers", then let them all compete for how low they can get X. There is no way I am going to reward a company with money for using a big fat lie involving the words "up to".
So, we're supposed to have a meaningful relationship with an imaginary person in the heavens, and meaningless relationships with real people in the cloud. If people who live in Pakistan try to sort out this silliness by engaging in meaningful discussion with the real people in the cloud, they gets sentenced to death for blasphemy and the fault lies in the West for creating the cloud. Yet the imaginary person who supposedly created the West, and indirectly the cloud, bears no blame for remaining silent while this guy dies as a scapegoat to those who go all extreme in trying to compensate for his lack of ability to stand up for himself. Wow, this world is messed up.
"TSA Go away" while we wait in their lines.
Also, let's keep inventing new ways to take down airplanes and making YouTube how-to's about them until the TSA bans phones and clothes, and people finally start to get annoyed.
I would guess that they intend to enforce it the same way every country enforces laws that reach outside of their jurisdiction. They levy unreasonable penalties against the portion of the company within their jurisdiction until they get what they want from the company as a whole. The companies almost always comply in the long run out of fear of losing business in that country to some other company that will comply. Very few large companies have the chutzpah to sacrifice a portion of their market just to take a moral stand. Governments everywhere know that, and that knowledge is what gives them "authority".
Stupid people! Whoa, 2040 is going to be amazing! Too bad I wasn't invited =(.
It is unconstitutional to pass laws after the crime occurs. U.S. Constitution, Section 9:3, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Are you proposing to "deal with the issue" by punishing people who have broken no law?
This shows the boss you are responsive, but also sends a subtle message (to both your boss and the co-worker) that you are above that game. As a boss, my opinion of any subordinate would go down if they resort to such demoralizing behavior. I don't want people like that destroying the morale on my team.
At work your job is to put ideology aside and to make your bosses happy
Bosses often don't know tech. Programmers often don't know business. Programmers who just wait for their bosses to tell them how and what to do are crappy employees who make the company lopsided toward the business side. The best employees push for their ideals, but also know when to back down.
Let's throw out our current privacy protection because we might get a better one later. I think I'll quit my job now so I'll have plenty of time on my hands in case I find a better one. And would anyone like my car? I need to free up some space in my garage in case someone comes along and gives me a better one.
Why should we have to have a "model" in order to share?
Does "streaming" imply the use of some protocol that attempts to prevent the recipient from saving? What if we stream using a protocol with a known vulnerability? What if we develop a new streaming protocol and deliberately include a vulnerability? What if it is based on encryption with a password that is hard-coded to be "password" and cannot be changed? What if it merely requires the use to check a box that says, "I solemnly swear that I obey the law, mostly"?
Sure, smart people can easily solve the universal ID problem, but those same people mostly know that we are better of not solving that problem. I would personally like to thank all the other smart people for continuing to keep this problem complicated, messy, and unresolved.
Java: Getting old. OSS friendly. Most popular language. Will probably still be kicking in 20 years.
C#: Better designed. Better IDE. Chained to M$. Claims to be OSS friendly, but we all know it's a trap. Will be dead in 10 years.