They also *gasp* make personal phone calls sometime. Sometimes to the babysitter or their spouse! We must implement a whitelist for the phone immediatly.
Now that cell phones are ubiquitous, why should people be making personal calls from work phones? In my present work, I have *never* made a personal call from a work phone. Yes, not even one. I also don't give out my work number to friends. Why should I when they have my cell number? Now that internet access is becoming more and more available, maybe it's going to be the case that employees should do their personal surfing on their own devices with their own connection and leave work systems for work.
Well done. Most attempts at parodying a song use half-baked rhythm and far too many syllables. With the exception of "The night of the LAN party..." line, it all flowed well. A suggested alternative:
"At the LAN party we'll take Geritol, Sunday morning we'll pwn 'em all!"
Genius vs. Expert
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Mozart wrote his first symphony (and not some half-assed attempt) before he was ten years old. So unless he received training while still a sperm, I think it's safe to chalk that case up to something other than ten years of hard work. Of course we're talking about people operating at the genius level, not just the expert level. Anyone of sufficient intelligence can become an expert at whatever they work at. I like the quote that I read in a Feynman book a while back as I think it sums it up fairly well:
"There are two kinds of geniuses: the 'ordinary' and the 'magicians'. An ordinary genius is a fellow whom you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they've done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. Even after we understand what they have done it is completely dark. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest calibre." - Mark Kac
... how thoroughly flawed the video game rating system is, as the ESRB is actually paid for and operated, in effect, by the video game industry itself. This is a classic case of the fox guarding the chickens. Congressman Stearns has now introduced to Congress a Bill called the "Truth in Video Game Ratings Act" largely because of the illicit collaboration between the ESRB and Take-Two.
I guess Jack had better go after the Better Business Bureau next. After all, they're funded by the businesses who make up its membership. I think we need a "Truth in Business Ratings Act" to help counter this illicit collaboration between the BBB and its members.
The argument that Thurrott advanced was that Microsoft had some of these features first. He doesn't claim that Microsoft was the inventor of those features. So along comes Thompson and outlines how various things in Unix did it first. Well, that's nice. But the debate here is between Windows and OS X, not Unix.
This has nothing to do with GPL compliance. Are you suggesting that Freespire has some non-compliance issues and is violating the GPL? This is no different than Red Hat Enterprise Linux -- you can't freely copy that either because it contains Red Hat trademarks (eg: the Red Hat logos).
The source code != the CDROM on which it is distributed.
Stop paying your web hosting provider? No more web page. This is not that diferent.
Think of it this way: it's one thing for the local school board to not pay the electricity bill and have the school shut down. It's another thing if all the doors are electric and you now have hundreds of children trapped inside.
(And with that statement, I have violated Lovejoy's Law in being the first person to raise the "Won't someone please think of the children?" line of reasoning.)
Regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict, CBC is famous for reporting briefly both sides of the story, then doing a deeper story about the family of the palestinan suicide bomber, and the terrible poverty that drove him to do what he did. I have _never_ seen, on CBC, a deeper story about the family of the Israelites that were riding the bus to work, shopping at the mall, or partying at the disco. That's not biased?!?
To play devil's advocate, a deeper story about the families of the victims wouldn't be all that interesting. After all, they're just ordinary people going about their daily lives. That their families are saddened and that they led interesting lives is expected. The really interesting thing is the story behind someone who'd go to such a length to commit an atrocious act... to show that not everything is completely black & white. If you want balance, it would make a great contrast if they showed how the innocents aren't entirely innocent just as how the evil person isn't entirely evil.
Adding garbage collecting to this language is just a continuation of the "throw more resources at it and it'll all work just fine" mentality that exists in modern application design. Yes, the ease of use of garbage collecting has it's uses for the quick fire and forget projects and one time use apps. But other than that, bah I say!
No kidding. What's next... automatic IP packet collision avoidance? No thanks, I roll my own.
Yes, there are a lot of secondary or network effects which result from allowing others to download your source at no cost. Someone might dabble with the code and contribute something back. And of course, it's also possible under various licenses to charge a modest sum for the act of downloading the code. However, as a primary means an open source licenses aren't chosen in order to profit from the download of the code in and of itself. The profit comes as a by-product. As you say, Open Source just exposes the logic, nothing more -- it doesn't produce nor does it guarantee profit.
There is no license entitled "Open Source", but there is a movement/belief...
Various movements/beliefs use Open Source, but not all Open Source implies a movement/belief. In the late 1980s, I released some code for a software package I created into the public domain. I certainly didn't do that as part of a movement, nor did I do so because of any particular beliefs. I did so for various *reasons*, but to call those reasons beliefs would be too much of a stretch.
Open Source just exposes the logic. Nothing more. There's inherent value in large collections of OS code outside of the logic. I can't understand why you would believe that releasing code OS prevents you from making money off of it.
I think we may be arguing two different points. My point is actually quite simple: I'm saying that choosing to release their code for free (as in beer) means that they choose not to make money from the code distribution. That -- and only that -- is my point. It's a bit of a tautology, but recall the original quote (not yours) to which I replied:
"I am sure it works well for you, but how well does it work for the people whose code you are using? How do they make money?"
Obviously those who release their code for free (as in beer) don't expect to make money from the act of others downloading the code. They make their money in other ways, or not at all, and realize that others can use their work to make money too. The reason I replied to the post I did was to address the implied statement that it's somehow wrong to make money off of others' code.
Since you simply call my reasoning (why one might choose an OS license) fallacious, with no real logic or evidence to the contrary...
I didn't think much was needed. You stated that "Open Source code is... a belief in a philosophy of community strength" and if you review your post you'll see this was the entire point of your comment. You didn't state "why one might choose an OS license", you stated "Open Source code = a belief in a philosophy of community strength".
I stated that the choice of license is a completely separate issue from any beliefs and you're right to call me on that -- sometimes, the two are highly related. But to state that choose open source is one particular belief is inaccurate.
There's lots of reasons, they amalgamate into a belief in a higher or LOWER cause, even if it's as terrestrial as the company's bottom line.
This is different from your original statement I quoted above. You can see why I called your reasoning fallacious as you are now contradicting it yourself. But you're right... a company might release their code because they think it'll bring them millions in venture capital funding and those in the company are only out to make a buck, not giving a rat's ass about any kind of community that may or may not even look at the code.
I think you are stating falsehoods as arguments why GPL3 is sane.
You're attributing beliefs to me which I don't hold. I never mentioned GPL3 in any of my posts (save this one) yet you state I'm arguing in favor of the sanity of GPL3? How did you reach this conclusion?
Your view is typical of the Open Source fanboys. Open Source code is not a vow of poverty, it's a belief in a philosophy of community strength. This is not at odds with capitalism.
Where did I ever say that it's a vow of poverty or that it's at odds wth capitalism? In your rush to put words into my mouth, it appears you missed the most important part of my post. I stated "If their goal were to make money from the code...".
And as far as "Open Source code is... a belief in a philosophy of community strength", I'd recommend you examine your own fanboyism there. Releasing your code under an Open Source compatible license is a license choice, nothing more. Whether or not this license choice resulted from your subscription to some higher cause is a completely different issue.
I am sure it works well for you, but how well does it work for the people whose code you are using? How do they make money?
They've chosen to not make money from the code by releasing it under the license they have. If their goal were to make money from the code, odds are they wouldn't have open sourced it.
Slashdot Mirror
They also *gasp* make personal phone calls sometime. Sometimes to the babysitter or their spouse! We must implement a whitelist for the phone immediatly.
Now that cell phones are ubiquitous, why should people be making personal calls from work phones? In my present work, I have *never* made a personal call from a work phone. Yes, not even one. I also don't give out my work number to friends. Why should I when they have my cell number? Now that internet access is becoming more and more available, maybe it's going to be the case that employees should do their personal surfing on their own devices with their own connection and leave work systems for work.
I didn't know they were hiring! So where do I email my ISS construction résumé?
Well done. Most attempts at parodying a song use half-baked rhythm and far too many syllables. With the exception of "The night of the LAN party..." line, it all flowed well. A suggested alternative:
"At the LAN party we'll take Geritol, Sunday morning we'll pwn 'em all!"
Mister? It's person, you insensitive clod!
Mozart wrote his first symphony (and not some half-assed attempt) before he was ten years old. So unless he received training while still a sperm, I think it's safe to chalk that case up to something other than ten years of hard work. Of course we're talking about people operating at the genius level, not just the expert level. Anyone of sufficient intelligence can become an expert at whatever they work at. I like the quote that I read in a Feynman book a while back as I think it sums it up fairly well:
"There are two kinds of geniuses: the 'ordinary' and the 'magicians'. An ordinary genius is a fellow whom you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they've done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. Even after we understand what they have done it is completely dark. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest calibre." - Mark Kac
... how thoroughly flawed the video game rating system is, as the ESRB is actually paid for and operated, in effect, by the video game industry itself. This is a classic case of the fox guarding the chickens. Congressman Stearns has now introduced to Congress a Bill called the "Truth in Video Game Ratings Act" largely because of the illicit collaboration between the ESRB and Take-Two.
I guess Jack had better go after the Better Business Bureau next. After all, they're funded by the businesses who make up its membership. I think we need a "Truth in Business Ratings Act" to help counter this illicit collaboration between the BBB and its members.
Be sure to tip the chef, otherwise you might be borked.
... but it's progeny will never be able to leave the lab.
"it is progeny"? Damn, I thought we'd fixed that bug. Back to the lab with you!
You want some proportional fonts to go with that?
The argument that Thurrott advanced was that Microsoft had some of these features first. He doesn't claim that Microsoft was the inventor of those features. So along comes Thompson and outlines how various things in Unix did it first. Well, that's nice. But the debate here is between Windows and OS X, not Unix.
This has nothing to do with GPL compliance. Are you suggesting that Freespire has some non-compliance issues and is violating the GPL? This is no different than Red Hat Enterprise Linux -- you can't freely copy that either because it contains Red Hat trademarks (eg: the Red Hat logos).
The source code != the CDROM on which it is distributed.
Either you'd be wide awake or unconscious on the floor next to your ejection bed.
And instead of flinging you straight up, what if it slowly elevated one end? Would it then be an erection bed?
I thought for a moment that the sleeping person himself would be magnetically suspended.
Make sure your multivitamin supplement has lots of iron.
Unless of course, the item placed in line to remove the jitters is compromised.
In that case, you're kinda screwed already.
Stop paying your web hosting provider? No more web page. This is not that diferent.
Think of it this way: it's one thing for the local school board to not pay the electricity bill and have the school shut down. It's another thing if all the doors are electric and you now have hundreds of children trapped inside.
(And with that statement, I have violated Lovejoy's Law in being the first person to raise the "Won't someone please think of the children?" line of reasoning.)
13:00 Arrested for descent of the government
I guess that's one way to say "down with the government"!
SCOTUS? Is that a sexually transmitted disease or something?
If that sounds bad, then you really don't want its evil cousin: POTUS.
By the corones? They have Apple by the beer?
Regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict, CBC is famous for reporting briefly both sides of the story, then doing a deeper story about the family of the palestinan suicide bomber, and the terrible poverty that drove him to do what he did. I have _never_ seen, on CBC, a deeper story about the family of the Israelites that were riding the bus to work, shopping at the mall, or partying at the disco. That's not biased?!?
To play devil's advocate, a deeper story about the families of the victims wouldn't be all that interesting. After all, they're just ordinary people going about their daily lives. That their families are saddened and that they led interesting lives is expected. The really interesting thing is the story behind someone who'd go to such a length to commit an atrocious act... to show that not everything is completely black & white. If you want balance, it would make a great contrast if they showed how the innocents aren't entirely innocent just as how the evil person isn't entirely evil.
Adding garbage collecting to this language is just a continuation of the "throw more resources at it and it'll all work just fine" mentality that exists in modern application design. Yes, the ease of use of garbage collecting has it's uses for the quick fire and forget projects and one time use apps. But other than that, bah I say!
No kidding. What's next... automatic IP packet collision avoidance? No thanks, I roll my own.
Distribution for free allows greater adoption...
Yes, there are a lot of secondary or network effects which result from allowing others to download your source at no cost. Someone might dabble with the code and contribute something back. And of course, it's also possible under various licenses to charge a modest sum for the act of downloading the code. However, as a primary means an open source licenses aren't chosen in order to profit from the download of the code in and of itself. The profit comes as a by-product. As you say, Open Source just exposes the logic, nothing more -- it doesn't produce nor does it guarantee profit.
There is no license entitled "Open Source", but there is a movement/belief...
Various movements/beliefs use Open Source, but not all Open Source implies a movement/belief. In the late 1980s, I released some code for a software package I created into the public domain. I certainly didn't do that as part of a movement, nor did I do so because of any particular beliefs. I did so for various *reasons*, but to call those reasons beliefs would be too much of a stretch.
Open Source just exposes the logic. Nothing more. There's inherent value in large collections of OS code outside of the logic. I can't understand why you would believe that releasing code OS prevents you from making money off of it.
I think we may be arguing two different points. My point is actually quite simple: I'm saying that choosing to release their code for free (as in beer) means that they choose not to make money from the code distribution. That -- and only that -- is my point. It's a bit of a tautology, but recall the original quote (not yours) to which I replied:
"I am sure it works well for you, but how well does it work for the people whose code you are using? How do they make money?"
Obviously those who release their code for free (as in beer) don't expect to make money from the act of others downloading the code. They make their money in other ways, or not at all, and realize that others can use their work to make money too. The reason I replied to the post I did was to address the implied statement that it's somehow wrong to make money off of others' code.
Since you simply call my reasoning (why one might choose an OS license) fallacious, with no real logic or evidence to the contrary...
I didn't think much was needed. You stated that "Open Source code is... a belief in a philosophy of community strength" and if you review your post you'll see this was the entire point of your comment. You didn't state "why one might choose an OS license", you stated "Open Source code = a belief in a philosophy of community strength".
I stated that the choice of license is a completely separate issue from any beliefs and you're right to call me on that -- sometimes, the two are highly related. But to state that choose open source is one particular belief is inaccurate.
There's lots of reasons, they amalgamate into a belief in a higher or LOWER cause, even if it's as terrestrial as the company's bottom line.
This is different from your original statement I quoted above. You can see why I called your reasoning fallacious as you are now contradicting it yourself. But you're right... a company might release their code because they think it'll bring them millions in venture capital funding and those in the company are only out to make a buck, not giving a rat's ass about any kind of community that may or may not even look at the code.
I think you are stating falsehoods as arguments why GPL3 is sane.
You're attributing beliefs to me which I don't hold. I never mentioned GPL3 in any of my posts (save this one) yet you state I'm arguing in favor of the sanity of GPL3? How did you reach this conclusion?
Your view is typical of the Open Source fanboys. Open Source code is not a vow of poverty, it's a belief in a philosophy of community strength. This is not at odds with capitalism.
Where did I ever say that it's a vow of poverty or that it's at odds wth capitalism? In your rush to put words into my mouth, it appears you missed the most important part of my post. I stated "If their goal were to make money from the code...".
And as far as "Open Source code is... a belief in a philosophy of community strength", I'd recommend you examine your own fanboyism there. Releasing your code under an Open Source compatible license is a license choice, nothing more. Whether or not this license choice resulted from your subscription to some higher cause is a completely different issue.
If you combine the two, don't you get Whoricanes?
I am sure it works well for you, but how well does it work for the people whose code you are using? How do they make money?
They've chosen to not make money from the code by releasing it under the license they have. If their goal were to make money from the code, odds are they wouldn't have open sourced it.