1) Michaelangelo is commissioned to paint a wealthy person's bedroom.
2) Michaelangelo paints the Sistine Chapel. (Am I spelling that right?)
Which Michaelangelo would you rather be?
At first glance, #1 seems like the better idea. You make more money, because every wealthy person wants your paintings in their bedroom, so they each have to pay you for the same painting. But even if it's just about money, don't you think Michaelangelo #2 is better off? Even if he isn't paid for the Sistene Chapel, a hell of a lot more wealthy people know about him. Even if they can all visit the Chapel and see his painting for free, they might commission him to paint some things of theirs anyway.
Bad analogy. Open source is like painting the Sistine Chapel and, with the click of a button, others can duplicate this painting on their own chapels without involving you at all. Wealthy people who want their own painting like that don't need to pay you since you've given away the means to have this painted at no cost to them. Sure you can sell painting support services, but 99.9% of people just want the standard painting. [How may pay to customize the Apache web server?]
Closed source is like painting the Sistine Chapel but putting up a sign saying "If you want yours painted like this, please contact Michelangelo's Painting Blueprints at 1-800-ARTWORK". Since you haven't given away the means to have it painted at no cost to them, you can make more money. You can still sell painting support services, but your main income comes from simply duplicating the blueprints at little cost to you and profiting huge.
BTW - has anyone seen Mr. Torvalds begging for change lately? How 'bout Tim Berners-Lee?
That's like saying that acting is a highly profitable business because I can point to Jim Carrey, George Clooney, etc. and hold them up as examples of making money in acting. The average open sourcer isn't so fortunate as the big stars to have stock options thrown their way just to lend their name to a project.
Maybe he would be so kind as to provide links where Netcraft confirms that IBM, Sun and Google are dead or dying?
Netcraft confirms: IBM, Sun, and Google make boatloads of money off of the countless unnamed and unpaid developers who write the code that they use. Does the amount they contribute back exceed the amount they gain by benefiting from the work of others?
Poorly handled data theft? If they did it so poorly, perhaps you could contact them and provide them with all of your personal information so they're not missing any vital parts. Make sure to chastise them so that next time, they steal data with more care.
Had his vote, and the votes he assumes had been cast for him (because his friends said they did), he still wouldn't have received enough votes to win the election. Further, it's not clear he would have received even enough votes to change the *outcome* of the election (there will be a runoff due to two other candidates having won the same vote count).
As others have pointed out, who cares that he wouldn't have won? The votes should be accurate purely out of principle. Even if the leading candidate is winning with 99% of the votes and the losing candidate is 1 vote off, we must know what happened to that one vote so that the system can be improved.
However, in this case I think those missing votes certainly did change the outcome. The other two candidates got 18 votes each. If there are several votes missing for Wooten, which candidate got the benefit of those misplaced votes? This results in a runoff election on November 28th instead of declaring a clear winner already.
"First, Novell isn't making deals on behalf of others."
well, yes, they did. the deal was done on behalf of Novell's customers.
Keep in mind that the 'others' under discussion is not a company's own customers. Your statement is a tautology -- every company makes deals on behalf of its customers.
The best automated form I have ever had to fill out went: Q: where were you born A: ohio error, must be 5 characters So I'm probably the only person born in multiple states at the same time, "ohios"
You're probably the only person who puts in overly broad information too. If it asked "In which state were you born?" then your complaint is legitimate. I guess you didn't consider that "Earth" would have satisfied the 5 character requirement.
I think my issue is that if they spent 18 months working on a bunch of sounds, someone (or a group of someones) had to have been paid during that time. How much of that cost relates to the sticker price of Vista ? Do the sounds make me more productive ? Do they justify the added cost ? One person's labor of love does not translate into a business need.
Uh... so you're saying you consider both the cost and the benefits when purchasing a product, just like everybody else does?
And I hardly think your consideration will be that since the sounds added $0.38 to the price of Vista, it's no longer a worthy business purchase. Do you also study how much Microsoft-funded developer parties contribute to the sticker price and buy only if it falls within a certain threshold? Most people just determine whether the purchase price, regardless of the breakdown of its components, will add value to their business/personal needs.
It is from screwing the endless little customers over that MS gets fat and rich, then gives back a tiny percentage to charity to get all the glory for having "social responsibility".
And how much of a discount does the little customer get for Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Oh, wait... they get screwed over too. Your nice anti-Microsoft rant, while probably deserving of a +5 Kool-aid mod, misses the point that most for-profit businesses operate the same way, whether their software is open source or not. If Red Hat wants to win business over Novell (or vice-versa) they're going to offer steep discounts too. You're either against volume discounts, against profit, or just against Microsoft.
Let us pray for these open-minded people whose software we are rue to use, that they may avoid eternal damnation for the path to hell is wide and 'open'. Let us be thankful we avoid damnation by avoiding their damn software.
And someone, somewhere laments the use of the Goatse man as the logo for their Linux distribution. It just goes to show you there *is* such a thing as too open.
Face it, it's not foolproof. "Security through difficulty" is just as bad as "security through obscurity".
Bull. Encryption is based on security through difficulty. 56 bit encryption can be hacked with thousands of networked computers churning away for some number of months. 128 bit encryption can be hacked too, as can 1024 bit and 2048 bit and 4096 bit... it just becomes more difficult.
Security through obscurity is saying that we won't tell anybody that by hitting Alt+TAB on the voting machine and going into the admin application, that they can adjust the total votes manually. Security through difficulty is saying that in order to affect votes manually, you'd need to cart off 20 boxes of paper votes which are kept under the eyes of watchful volunteers, destroy them surreptitiously, and replace them with new paper votes of your choosing. And this is just as bad?
So I vote and go home. The next day I want to check that my paper ballot vote was properly included in the final tally. I do this how?
There's a reason why votes are anonymous. With an anonymous ballot you should not be able to determine whether or not your particular vote was counted properly regardless of whether it was via paper, computer screen, telepathy, whatever. The proper counting of votes is done through redundancy, secure procedures, and the like -- in the end, if you can trust that the system is extremely difficult to game, you should have high confidence in the results. I'm sure there's various public/private key, hash algorithms, etc. that could allow for post-vote verifiability, but doesn't that go against the whole anonymous voting principle? Throw out the anonymous requirement and all sorts of cool security implementations can solve these problems.
However, I think in the context here, it serves the same purpose as a smiley; it's just letting you know that they do not actually think you should just shoot AIDS victims.
Pretty much. The only times I use something like that is when my humor runs to the dark side and, absent of any auditory or visual clues, such a comment could be misconstrued as not funny at all. Even with that disclaimer, there's still someone who replied and said I'm "against fags" even though my post mentioned nothing of the sort.
In my book, dead American soldiers are dead Americans, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands of US casualties including thousands dead.
And dead North Korean soldiers are dead North Koreans. So if North Korea decides to invade America and they send tens of thousands of people, they then get to claim that the United States has killed thousands of North Koreans, further justifying a continued invasion?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, consider two possibilities:
1) Michaelangelo is commissioned to paint a wealthy person's bedroom.
2) Michaelangelo paints the Sistine Chapel. (Am I spelling that right?)
Which Michaelangelo would you rather be?
At first glance, #1 seems like the better idea. You make more money, because every wealthy person wants your paintings in their bedroom, so they each have to pay you for the same painting. But even if it's just about money, don't you think Michaelangelo #2 is better off? Even if he isn't paid for the Sistene Chapel, a hell of a lot more wealthy people know about him. Even if they can all visit the Chapel and see his painting for free, they might commission him to paint some things of theirs anyway.
Bad analogy. Open source is like painting the Sistine Chapel and, with the click of a button, others can duplicate this painting on their own chapels without involving you at all. Wealthy people who want their own painting like that don't need to pay you since you've given away the means to have this painted at no cost to them. Sure you can sell painting support services, but 99.9% of people just want the standard painting. [How may pay to customize the Apache web server?]
Closed source is like painting the Sistine Chapel but putting up a sign saying "If you want yours painted like this, please contact Michelangelo's Painting Blueprints at 1-800-ARTWORK". Since you haven't given away the means to have it painted at no cost to them, you can make more money. You can still sell painting support services, but your main income comes from simply duplicating the blueprints at little cost to you and profiting huge.
BTW - has anyone seen Mr. Torvalds begging for change lately? How 'bout Tim Berners-Lee?
That's like saying that acting is a highly profitable business because I can point to Jim Carrey, George Clooney, etc. and hold them up as examples of making money in acting. The average open sourcer isn't so fortunate as the big stars to have stock options thrown their way just to lend their name to a project.
Maybe he would be so kind as to provide links where Netcraft confirms that IBM, Sun and Google are dead or dying?
Netcraft confirms: IBM, Sun, and Google make boatloads of money off of the countless unnamed and unpaid developers who write the code that they use. Does the amount they contribute back exceed the amount they gain by benefiting from the work of others?
Poorly handled data theft? If they did it so poorly, perhaps you could contact them and provide them with all of your personal information so they're not missing any vital parts. Make sure to chastise them so that next time, they steal data with more care.
... pointing South.
There's a bug in your lame joke: the ED-209 actually counted down rather than just saying "you have twenty seconds" all of the time.
Not only that, but after watching the video it seems to suffer from the same collision detection lag as Counter Strike: Source.
Had his vote, and the votes he assumes had been cast for him (because his friends said they did), he still wouldn't have received enough votes to win the election. Further, it's not clear he would have received even enough votes to change the *outcome* of the election (there will be a runoff due to two other candidates having won the same vote count).
As others have pointed out, who cares that he wouldn't have won? The votes should be accurate purely out of principle. Even if the leading candidate is winning with 99% of the votes and the losing candidate is 1 vote off, we must know what happened to that one vote so that the system can be improved.
However, in this case I think those missing votes certainly did change the outcome. The other two candidates got 18 votes each. If there are several votes missing for Wooten, which candidate got the benefit of those misplaced votes? This results in a runoff election on November 28th instead of declaring a clear winner already.
"If the whole world were communist, free standard issued Mao Ze Dong PS3 for each family! No such issues!"
And, under communism, there would be no PS3. What part of a state-run economy do you think values game consoles?
If we were able to tag individual posts, I think the "whoosh" tag would dominate this one.
"First, Novell isn't making deals on behalf of others."
well, yes, they did. the deal was done on behalf of Novell's customers.
Keep in mind that the 'others' under discussion is not a company's own customers. Your statement is a tautology -- every company makes deals on behalf of its customers.
The best automated form I have ever had to fill out went:
Q: where were you born
A: ohio
error, must be 5 characters
So I'm probably the only person born in multiple states at the same time, "ohios"
You're probably the only person who puts in overly broad information too. If it asked "In which state were you born?" then your complaint is legitimate. I guess you didn't consider that "Earth" would have satisfied the 5 character requirement.
I think my issue is that if they spent 18 months working on a bunch of sounds, someone (or a group of someones) had to have been paid during that time. How much of that cost relates to the sticker price of Vista ? Do the sounds make me more productive ? Do they justify the added cost ? One person's labor of love does not translate into a business need.
Uh... so you're saying you consider both the cost and the benefits when purchasing a product, just like everybody else does?
And I hardly think your consideration will be that since the sounds added $0.38 to the price of Vista, it's no longer a worthy business purchase. Do you also study how much Microsoft-funded developer parties contribute to the sticker price and buy only if it falls within a certain threshold? Most people just determine whether the purchase price, regardless of the breakdown of its components, will add value to their business/personal needs.
And better yet, why does slashdot always post articles with acronyms without explaining what they mean once before turning them into an acronym?
For an explanation, I refer you to one of my prior posts which explains this quite adequately.
It is from screwing the endless little customers over that MS gets fat and rich, then gives back a tiny percentage to charity to get all the glory for having "social responsibility".
And how much of a discount does the little customer get for Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Oh, wait... they get screwed over too. Your nice anti-Microsoft rant, while probably deserving of a +5 Kool-aid mod, misses the point that most for-profit businesses operate the same way, whether their software is open source or not. If Red Hat wants to win business over Novell (or vice-versa) they're going to offer steep discounts too. You're either against volume discounts, against profit, or just against Microsoft.
Let us pray for these open-minded people whose software we are rue to use, that they may avoid eternal damnation for the path to hell is wide and 'open'. Let us be thankful we avoid damnation by avoiding their damn software.
And someone, somewhere laments the use of the Goatse man as the logo for their Linux distribution. It just goes to show you there *is* such a thing as too open.
I take it NTP isn't an acronym for "No To Patents"?
Face it, it's not foolproof. "Security through difficulty" is just as bad as "security through obscurity".
Bull. Encryption is based on security through difficulty. 56 bit encryption can be hacked with thousands of networked computers churning away for some number of months. 128 bit encryption can be hacked too, as can 1024 bit and 2048 bit and 4096 bit... it just becomes more difficult.
Security through obscurity is saying that we won't tell anybody that by hitting Alt+TAB on the voting machine and going into the admin application, that they can adjust the total votes manually. Security through difficulty is saying that in order to affect votes manually, you'd need to cart off 20 boxes of paper votes which are kept under the eyes of watchful volunteers, destroy them surreptitiously, and replace them with new paper votes of your choosing. And this is just as bad?
So I vote and go home. The next day I want to check that my paper ballot vote was properly included in the final tally. I do this how?
There's a reason why votes are anonymous. With an anonymous ballot you should not be able to determine whether or not your particular vote was counted properly regardless of whether it was via paper, computer screen, telepathy, whatever. The proper counting of votes is done through redundancy, secure procedures, and the like -- in the end, if you can trust that the system is extremely difficult to game, you should have high confidence in the results. I'm sure there's various public/private key, hash algorithms, etc. that could allow for post-vote verifiability, but doesn't that go against the whole anonymous voting principle? Throw out the anonymous requirement and all sorts of cool security implementations can solve these problems.
However, I think in the context here, it serves the same purpose as a smiley; it's just letting you know that they do not actually think you should just shoot AIDS victims.
Pretty much. The only times I use something like that is when my humor runs to the dark side and, absent of any auditory or visual clues, such a comment could be misconstrued as not funny at all. Even with that disclaimer, there's still someone who replied and said I'm "against fags" even though my post mentioned nothing of the sort.
Could a bullet be a cure for cancer or diabetes as well?
No, because there isn't a setup of particular words which leads to such a punchline. Ergo, it would not be funny at all.
Or is this only for the fags with AIDS?
And here we see your true colors... and it doesn't look like a rainbow.
Aids doesn't exist in the first place:
Though the hoax has made quite a few people phenomenally rich.
Unfortunately, whatever the cause of AIDS, it's made many phenomenally dead.
It needs to be inexpensive, easy to administer, and something that only needs to be administered once.
A bullet?
[Yes, I'm joking. And yes, I know I'm going straight to hell for that one.]
In my book, dead American soldiers are dead Americans, and the decision to invade Iraq has resulted in tens of thousands of US casualties including thousands dead.
And dead North Korean soldiers are dead North Koreans. So if North Korea decides to invade America and they send tens of thousands of people, they then get to claim that the United States has killed thousands of North Koreans, further justifying a continued invasion?
My BIRTH CERTIFICATE .... guess some things have no credibility anymore.
Perhaps the fact that you were standing in front of the customs person was certification enough that you were born.
I didn't need a passport to go on a cruise, and I didn't need a passport to fly to Cozumel, Mexico.
And even if you did, isn't it the *destination* country that looks at your passport when you leave?