Does anyone else find it mildly strange....
on
Drafting GPL3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That included as one of the basic tenets of a 'Free Software License' for international distribution is the requirement that one person be honored / deified / whatever as its creator?
Not to pick a fight, or demean said person, but it just seems a little.... Yeah. Anyone else get what I'm trying to say?
Whenever you want to trade up to someone completely enlightened, I'm around, babe.
:P
Partial reason for picking him was because he thought you were a goddess, possibly? Meaning it's your own fault that you have this standard to live up to? And that possibly you didn't pick someone to look at you and treat you the way you REALLY wanted? And now you're complaining? I apologize for the inconvenience. I'm just wondering if it might be possible that you didn't get the geek you thought you got...?
It would be nice to date an entire generation of younger women into geeks. Unfortunately, the two or three before them didn't feel the same way, and my guess is it's just a fascade.
It's a 'rewarded by success for spending hour after hour tracking bugs' thing. It makes perfect sense that an almost obsessive nature is required for debugging software, and if you look at the best companies, they brag about how ill adjusted some percentage of their employees is when it comes to problem solving. (rackspace's "Fanatical Support" for example)
Why? Because it's quite important in a mechanical sense, and completely ineffective with people. People don't respond well to direct pressure, and computers do.
Heh. Selective breeding taking only what.... Fifty to a hundred generations to really make a real difference? If it still has function at all, considering that the smartest / richest / best educated are breeding LESS now? Uh.... yeah. Not sure I agree with you, but that still has no bearing on the next twenty to fourty years TOPS of my personal breeding cycle.
The good thing about being 29 and having an attitude like yours is that you're bound not to have more than the mild level of dissatisfaction with your interpersonal relationships that you have now. Ever. The bad thing is that that mild level of dissatisfaction and the possible discomfort of your current situation will always be there.
I was content at one point in my personal relationship misery. I keep deserting it and coming back, again and again.
Unfortunately, one of the main problems with girlfriends is that writing yourself a girlfriend is completely different from having yourself a girlfriend. While you've written yourself quite a nice girlfriend there, you still need one that will roll over and smile at you in the morning.
Barring horrendous societal catastrophe, which I wouldn't want children to live through anyways, a male waiting until they're 45 to see their children and taking good care of themselves will survive until their children are approximately 30, be able to take better care of them early in their lives, and be able to spend more time with them when they need it, should they plan well. That gives me, personally, approximately 15 years to play around and find what I'm interested in followed by 4 years finding an acceptable mate.
That is, if I am ever interested in children. They sound expensive, messy, loud, time-consuming, and mildly unappreciative for the first twenty years of life.
I'm not ready to be mature, stable, or commited yet. May never be. I'm glad it's good for you, but I want youth, change, and adventure.
Marriage may allow for this, but not in as large shifts as other options. (note: this is from my experience with 90% of the married people I know. Sorry if that doesn't include you and I'm generalizing.)
Yeah. Friends. Got that one a lot too. Funny thing about the women I'm interested in: I always end up wanting to date girls I could be GREAT friends with if I wasn't so unbelievably attracted to them, and dating girls I'm mildly attracted to who will be friends for a loong time. Some would call this nice. I call this nice. But I'm still disappointed because the women I want around the most are so scared of my sudden intensity.
Yeah. Being a good 'second choice' makes you sexy. Not to be bitter here, but having been a good bet in the end has made me unbelievably unhappy in the past. Still does now, but then, I'm young. At 21 I had a girlfriend who wanted to get married. She was my first real gf. At 24 the same, and at 26 I'm single. I want to try out relationships with many people, to see what works, and the only women interested in me are the ones who want to get married. This pisses me off, and sends me to sites like this to see that, well, things are simple if you can just learn to be more cold, calculating, and manipulative. Which would be betraying myself in a number of ways.
Now. To your comment about 'pick of the litter.' I'm saying that there are probably three geek guys to each girl willing to date them. (money tilts things in the end) Women aren't attracted, naturally, to men who are intense. My favorite theory on this is from Swingers, "I don't want you to be the guy fromm the PG-13 movie who everyone's rooting for. I want you to be the guy from the R rated movie that you're not quite sure about yet." Nerds, generally, are the guys from the PG-13 movie.
For half the geeks I've ever known, getting to 'relationship' would take a miracle unknown to modern engineering. For the other half, well, yeah. They'd be good at a relationship, if they could concentrate on something for a good ten minutes after the interesting part.
The thing about this article is that it's talking about what good providers nerds make. And what nice guys they are. And how much of a 'turn on' that is. People - women and men both - don't like what's good for them. It just doesn't seem to be the way things work. Intelligence, introversion, and individualistic tendencies (standard geek traits) != Sexy. Eval(Good breadwinner + good hair + muscles == sexy) == 1.*
The famous couples in TFA where the male is paid millions to ACT like he's a geek are not good examples.
Geeks are, of course, willing to put a lot more effort into relationships sometimes. And they are sometimes willing to learn, because it's what they like to do. Occasionally they can be interested in learning interpersonal and social skills. That can make them easier to deal with in some ways, and (or so I've been told) intelligence can make them slightly better in certain situations where a bit of knowledge about biology is helpful. Does this make them more attractive? Not really. Does it make it easier for them to get girls to stick around for a while? Kinda. In my experience, the 'geeky' drive to throw intense, unimaginable-to-non-geeks effort into a problem until it is 'solved' has been a great detriment to every relationship I have ever attempted. Add to that the fact that most of the geeks I've known have been idealists, perfectionists, and socially inept for various reasons, and you get a group of people that aren't that sexy. Female geeks generally have their pick of the litter, and that's a sign that it's a very strong seller's market to me.
Sorry. This article isn't accurate. Modern society isn't getting deeper, it's just that its advice columnists want to think they are.
* - I haven't touched a C compiler in years. Correct me all you like.
Err... Interesting. This article is really neat. I'm a fan - the wiki isn't that great, but the information and arguments presented by the original Mac designer are much more cool. The only problem I see is that it's possible that computers have gotten faster enough since the source of that wiki that some of the points are mildly invalid. You never know.
The invention of the computer has changed our world, and one of the big changes is in how easy it has made 'scaling' an organization. Thus while corporations used to get big enough to die under the weight of their own fat, that fat can now circulate blood better, so they'll last longer. Getting fatter, more useless, and less in tune with reality all the time. So yes, you're right. Corporations don't last that long. Unfortunately, you're also wrong and corporations don't just 'come out of nowhere' like Google did that often. M$ had insider help in getting as far as it did, as did most of its competitors. The lines can be drawn better than you might think.
Just 'cause they lack complete continuity doesn't mean that there's continual change.
I don't believe MS will gain that much market share. I don't think they'll get that much control over hardware and software at the same time - there will always be an OEM market that knows how to get Linux running. You think MS is going to get that much control over the server market? Think again.
It's hardware because the 'business' or 'social hindrances' headings this particular article would go under are definitely NOT news for nerds. The news is that even the WSJ suddenly thinks Smart Nerds are Necessary, after one day of doing without 'em. Neat, eh? However, not something a proper heading should exist for.
Sure it isn't that the internet's just gotten cheaper to operate? I mean, used to be a penny a gig, now it's less than half that. And building a web server that can stand slashdotting of the old proportions is easier now than it used to be, that's for sure.
Now who's going to release a security patch for me to download every month? This is not good at all. Deserting VB6 and now Win2k? I'm moving to Linux at home and gaming as long as I can on a seperate partition. Thank God Q4 is coming out for Linux in the next year.
Slashdot Mirror
That included as one of the basic tenets of a 'Free Software License' for international distribution is the requirement that one person be honored / deified / whatever as its creator?
Not to pick a fight, or demean said person, but it just seems a little.... Yeah. Anyone else get what I'm trying to say?
Whenever you want to trade up to someone completely enlightened, I'm around, babe.
:P
Partial reason for picking him was because he thought you were a goddess, possibly? Meaning it's your own fault that you have this standard to live up to? And that possibly you didn't pick someone to look at you and treat you the way you REALLY wanted? And now you're complaining? I apologize for the inconvenience. I'm just wondering if it might be possible that you didn't get the geek you thought you got...?
It would be nice to date an entire generation of younger women into geeks. Unfortunately, the two or three before them didn't feel the same way, and my guess is it's just a fascade.
It's a 'rewarded by success for spending hour after hour tracking bugs' thing. It makes perfect sense that an almost obsessive nature is required for debugging software, and if you look at the best companies, they brag about how ill adjusted some percentage of their employees is when it comes to problem solving. (rackspace's "Fanatical Support" for example)
Why? Because it's quite important in a mechanical sense, and completely ineffective with people. People don't respond well to direct pressure, and computers do.
Heh. Selective breeding taking only what.... Fifty to a hundred generations to really make a real difference? If it still has function at all, considering that the smartest / richest / best educated are breeding LESS now? Uh.... yeah. Not sure I agree with you, but that still has no bearing on the next twenty to fourty years TOPS of my personal breeding cycle.
Amen to the thinking too much.
The good thing about being 29 and having an attitude like yours is that you're bound not to have more than the mild level of dissatisfaction with your interpersonal relationships that you have now. Ever. The bad thing is that that mild level of dissatisfaction and the possible discomfort of your current situation will always be there.
I was content at one point in my personal relationship misery. I keep deserting it and coming back, again and again.
Unfortunately, one of the main problems with girlfriends is that writing yourself a girlfriend is completely different from having yourself a girlfriend. While you've written yourself quite a nice girlfriend there, you still need one that will roll over and smile at you in the morning.
Barring horrendous societal catastrophe, which I wouldn't want children to live through anyways, a male waiting until they're 45 to see their children and taking good care of themselves will survive until their children are approximately 30, be able to take better care of them early in their lives, and be able to spend more time with them when they need it, should they plan well. That gives me, personally, approximately 15 years to play around and find what I'm interested in followed by 4 years finding an acceptable mate.
That is, if I am ever interested in children. They sound expensive, messy, loud, time-consuming, and mildly unappreciative for the first twenty years of life.
I'm not ready to be mature, stable, or commited yet. May never be. I'm glad it's good for you, but I want youth, change, and adventure.
Marriage may allow for this, but not in as large shifts as other options. (note: this is from my experience with 90% of the married people I know. Sorry if that doesn't include you and I'm generalizing.)
It's completely valid Pseudocode!!
Yeah. Friends. Got that one a lot too. Funny thing about the women I'm interested in: I always end up wanting to date girls I could be GREAT friends with if I wasn't so unbelievably attracted to them, and dating girls I'm mildly attracted to who will be friends for a loong time. Some would call this nice. I call this nice. But I'm still disappointed because the women I want around the most are so scared of my sudden intensity.
Yeah. Being a good 'second choice' makes you sexy. Not to be bitter here, but having been a good bet in the end has made me unbelievably unhappy in the past. Still does now, but then, I'm young. At 21 I had a girlfriend who wanted to get married. She was my first real gf. At 24 the same, and at 26 I'm single. I want to try out relationships with many people, to see what works, and the only women interested in me are the ones who want to get married. This pisses me off, and sends me to sites like this to see that, well, things are simple if you can just learn to be more cold, calculating, and manipulative. Which would be betraying myself in a number of ways.
Now. To your comment about 'pick of the litter.' I'm saying that there are probably three geek guys to each girl willing to date them. (money tilts things in the end) Women aren't attracted, naturally, to men who are intense. My favorite theory on this is from Swingers, "I don't want you to be the guy fromm the PG-13 movie who everyone's rooting for. I want you to be the guy from the R rated movie that you're not quite sure about yet." Nerds, generally, are the guys from the PG-13 movie.
For half the geeks I've ever known, getting to 'relationship' would take a miracle unknown to modern engineering. For the other half, well, yeah. They'd be good at a relationship, if they could concentrate on something for a good ten minutes after the interesting part.
Good point. VB has ruined me for coding anything useful / intelligent.
BS.
The thing about this article is that it's talking about what good providers nerds make. And what nice guys they are. And how much of a 'turn on' that is. People - women and men both - don't like what's good for them. It just doesn't seem to be the way things work. Intelligence, introversion, and individualistic tendencies (standard geek traits) != Sexy. Eval(Good breadwinner + good hair + muscles == sexy) == 1.*
The famous couples in TFA where the male is paid millions to ACT like he's a geek are not good examples.
Geeks are, of course, willing to put a lot more effort into relationships sometimes. And they are sometimes willing to learn, because it's what they like to do. Occasionally they can be interested in learning interpersonal and social skills. That can make them easier to deal with in some ways, and (or so I've been told) intelligence can make them slightly better in certain situations where a bit of knowledge about biology is helpful. Does this make them more attractive? Not really. Does it make it easier for them to get girls to stick around for a while? Kinda. In my experience, the 'geeky' drive to throw intense, unimaginable-to-non-geeks effort into a problem until it is 'solved' has been a great detriment to every relationship I have ever attempted. Add to that the fact that most of the geeks I've known have been idealists, perfectionists, and socially inept for various reasons, and you get a group of people that aren't that sexy. Female geeks generally have their pick of the litter, and that's a sign that it's a very strong seller's market to me.
Sorry. This article isn't accurate. Modern society isn't getting deeper, it's just that its advice columnists want to think they are.
* - I haven't touched a C compiler in years. Correct me all you like.
I like to tattoo them upside down on my stomach. That way I don't forget them every ten minutes.
Err... Interesting. This article is really neat. I'm a fan - the wiki isn't that great, but the information and arguments presented by the original Mac designer are much more cool. The only problem I see is that it's possible that computers have gotten faster enough since the source of that wiki that some of the points are mildly invalid. You never know.
"I'm the most popular person on the planet with people who want to enlarge penises and make them work all night long" isn't one of them.
Weird article, someone ASKING to have themselves put under Slashdot's thumb.
The invention of the computer has changed our world, and one of the big changes is in how easy it has made 'scaling' an organization. Thus while corporations used to get big enough to die under the weight of their own fat, that fat can now circulate blood better, so they'll last longer. Getting fatter, more useless, and less in tune with reality all the time. So yes, you're right. Corporations don't last that long. Unfortunately, you're also wrong and corporations don't just 'come out of nowhere' like Google did that often. M$ had insider help in getting as far as it did, as did most of its competitors. The lines can be drawn better than you might think.
Just 'cause they lack complete continuity doesn't mean that there's continual change.
I don't believe MS will gain that much market share. I don't think they'll get that much control over hardware and software at the same time - there will always be an OEM market that knows how to get Linux running. You think MS is going to get that much control over the server market? Think again.
Heh. That's the first time I've ever seen someone post a word from the literary side of the English language I don't know on Slashdot. Kudos, etc.
Smart nerds have redundant Power Supplies and E-mail Servers.
Do they all run Linux?
*duck*
It's hardware because the 'business' or 'social hindrances' headings this particular article would go under are definitely NOT news for nerds. The news is that even the WSJ suddenly thinks Smart Nerds are Necessary, after one day of doing without 'em. Neat, eh? However, not something a proper heading should exist for.
Sure it isn't that the internet's just gotten cheaper to operate? I mean, used to be a penny a gig, now it's less than half that. And building a web server that can stand slashdotting of the old proportions is easier now than it used to be, that's for sure.
Now who's going to release a security patch for me to download every month? This is not good at all. Deserting VB6 and now Win2k? I'm moving to Linux at home and gaming as long as I can on a seperate partition. Thank God Q4 is coming out for Linux in the next year.