Even if you did, sending money in no way puts the author into your debt such that he needs to offer support. You do it as a reward, not a binding contract.
Fundamentally, open source is centered around the design, not support. In the long run, you will need to pay for support from one of many people capable of doing so. If you see a program so many people use, which lacks the support you think you need, I hear business opportunity knocking at your door.
Not true, it's just not news for nerds. I'm not sure I believe that we're all here for no reason either, and I'm not sure I trust anyone who does. No scientist is (or ought to be) talking about why the big bang happened, just how.
I can't prove my hunch, and since it's an irrational belief I hold, it serves no real purpose to espouse it in any public forum. While I am not religious, Matthew 6:5 makes a lot of sense when it comes to living in peace with your fellow man.
Why bicker about things no one can ever prove or disprove? What is the value in it?
It works. It's cheaper by far than offering all your employees cell phones, particularly if you intend on forcing them to wear the leash.
Doctors still use pagers too, they are just more reliable in the sense that you will almost certainly get the page unless you are intentionally trying to hide from civilization.
Cell phones are great if you want to talk to people, but if you just want to know people want to talk to you... pagers are still better.
Agreed, I don't know about MSNBC I don't watch anything with "MS" in it, but CNN had a noticeable liberal bias, as much at least as Fox news was conservative. Like Fox, CNN ran "balanced" articles where the good about McCain was admitted only amidst a sea of bad, etc.
ABC news was reasonably close to fair. It managed to report the facts with only a slight left leaning bias, and tended not to try to blunt the blow with too much story cherry-picking.
I favored Obama, but what I want most from the news is to be able to trust it, and not second guess it all the time. Everything I read is opinion or slant, even supposedly "factual" stories about Iraq, health care, etc.
I'm not sure I care about the opinions of a nobody journalist, or his employer, anymore than I care what Britney Spears thinks. I just want to know the who/what/where/when/how (and leave the why to my imagination). If the journalist is informed and is intelligent, he can demonstrate it by using his inside knowledge to ask better, tougher questions, and reporting the answers. If there's a story there...get it and report on it.
Do we really need people who know how things work 'under the hood' to make smart tech decisions?
No, but they can't be afraid of the details either. In any technical job, any of us get out of our depth. But it's our job to dig in and figure it out. We may not understand the physics, but we need to understand the problem.
It's not enough to understand that the internet is a series of tubes that get clogged. If you are not technical enough to understand the internet, then you at least need to understand the metaphors you are provided, and feed it into the bullshit detector. "Did my email get delayed 4 days due to a clogged tube?" Probably not.
A lot of politicians and leaders are not good detail oriented people. They're really good at critical thinking, but they're not good with details. You need geeks in there somewhere, most of us as we get more senior, learn to focus on the correct details, using our experience in a field to weed things out. So yeah, we probably want someone who has been there, who also has vision.
I'm not sure Bill Joy is he, fearing the future is probably not going to win the day.
If he's a good con man, it's because he's paying attention to what we think is really wrong. That's how he won. He may turn out to be a fuck-up, he may be a self-serving bastard, we never know until he takes over...but he was at least paying attention.
We win, because unless he's a total disaster the republicans are now forced to start running more moderate...clued in...candidates. In the long run this means concessions on big business and their religious wacko-freak types responsible for Palin. I'm happy about that, I'm not a democrat fan, but I'm willing to use them as a tool to shape republicans.
We've already won to some degree, republican politics had become so unrelated to my every day life, and their words alienated them from me so much, that as someone who makes 6 figures, I don't know who they're talking about. I listen to McCain and I think "Are you for real? On what planet?". That's why he lost.
Why do we believe anything people write on the internet to begin with? How many fiction authors write under assumed names?
Why do we assume the bullshit detector only gets turned on from "known false" sources. It should always be on, even when watching the nightly news.
Fact doesn't come from people, fact comes from inanimate objects. There is value in what people write, it's just not about gaining information. Sometimes even a frothy AC has a unique perspective on something. It may be justified with total trash data, but that doesn't make the perspective invalid.
They are beating this dead horse because they want to find "scientific proof" to justify the nanny-state laws the article clearly mentions, laws which would limit sale of these games. Said laws get challenged and often rejected for the anti-freedom bunk that they are.
This is similar to how creationists/IDists keep looking for tenuous scientific proof in order to justify teaching the subject as part of biology.
It's not about science or psychology, it's about agenda, and this one goes across party lines. You can't vote it out so easily.
I disagree at least partially. The problem is that we let the government do something other than make laws or approve budgets. They really only know how to do those two things. We want to prohibit them from being able to micromanage (or be corrupt), we do NOT want the "Department Of National Healthcare".
In a perfect world, doctors make decisions on our health, they know best (and you can at least supervise them to ensure they're paying attention). The problem is that doctors have to be businessmen too, and the only person I trust less than a congressman, is a businessman. We, as patients, are not suitably qualified to understand our treatment options, their costs, risks, complications etc. This is where health insurance is supposed to come in to play. They do, but they unfortunately are not working for me.
Whatever our ultimate solution to the health care problem is (and we have to agree there is a problem), will need to require insurance companies are working for us, not for their shareholders, not for my corporate HR, not for some congressman's home remodel. Those things may be in there somewhere, but they have to feel very real pain for not looking out for my interests first.
I believe capitalism is the answer to this last part, even if socialism is the principle that provides the ultimate funding. But how to do it? I don't think I can come up with it at a slashdot prompt, but there must be a solution.
All I'm saying is I want politicians who acknowledge the problem, and who are making progress on it, and not getting polarized over talking-head tv babble. Maybe when they're done with the best they can do, it will cost too much, but I want that presented to us to decide.
You should research your opinions more. Fat people die younger resulting in a net savings to the healthcare system. There is no incentive to discourage people from being overweight.
This is not my opinion, this is the fact of what my company is doing. It claims many other large corporations have already started doing it, I have some doubts on that. Whether they are financially correct for doing so, I have not personally taken a position on.
It is a sign of things to come, regardless of what happens. If you go private, your health will be assessed when you buy insurance. If you go corporate, someone will (rightly or wrongly) make a decision for you about how to single out high risk people. If you go national, risk factors become polarized public debate.
I've seen it happen twice, to extended family members. Fortunately we're an old fashioned family and we did our best to help foot the bill and use the attorneys whenever possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if you did, sending money in no way puts the author into your debt such that he needs to offer support. You do it as a reward, not a binding contract.
Fundamentally, open source is centered around the design, not support. In the long run, you will need to pay for support from one of many people capable of doing so. If you see a program so many people use, which lacks the support you think you need, I hear business opportunity knocking at your door.
Not true, it's just not news for nerds. I'm not sure I believe that we're all here for no reason either, and I'm not sure I trust anyone who does. No scientist is (or ought to be) talking about why the big bang happened, just how.
I can't prove my hunch, and since it's an irrational belief I hold, it serves no real purpose to espouse it in any public forum. While I am not religious, Matthew 6:5 makes a lot of sense when it comes to living in peace with your fellow man.
Why bicker about things no one can ever prove or disprove? What is the value in it?
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
His estate can.
If that happened, we might actually get the patent system fixed.
Playing TR beta, I never really got the feeling he was involved beyond them using his name left and right.
We use http://www.usamobility.com/
It works. It's cheaper by far than offering all your employees cell phones, particularly if you intend on forcing them to wear the leash.
Doctors still use pagers too, they are just more reliable in the sense that you will almost certainly get the page unless you are intentionally trying to hide from civilization.
Cell phones are great if you want to talk to people, but if you just want to know people want to talk to you ... pagers are still better.
Agreed, I don't know about MSNBC I don't watch anything with "MS" in it, but CNN had a noticeable liberal bias, as much at least as Fox news was conservative. Like Fox, CNN ran "balanced" articles where the good about McCain was admitted only amidst a sea of bad, etc.
ABC news was reasonably close to fair. It managed to report the facts with only a slight left leaning bias, and tended not to try to blunt the blow with too much story cherry-picking.
I favored Obama, but what I want most from the news is to be able to trust it, and not second guess it all the time. Everything I read is opinion or slant, even supposedly "factual" stories about Iraq, health care, etc.
I'm not sure I care about the opinions of a nobody journalist, or his employer, anymore than I care what Britney Spears thinks. I just want to know the who/what/where/when/how (and leave the why to my imagination). If the journalist is informed and is intelligent, he can demonstrate it by using his inside knowledge to ask better, tougher questions, and reporting the answers. If there's a story there...get it and report on it.
Do we really need people who know how things work 'under the hood' to make smart tech decisions?
No, but they can't be afraid of the details either. In any technical job, any of us get out of our depth. But it's our job to dig in and figure it out. We may not understand the physics, but we need to understand the problem.
It's not enough to understand that the internet is a series of tubes that get clogged. If you are not technical enough to understand the internet, then you at least need to understand the metaphors you are provided, and feed it into the bullshit detector. "Did my email get delayed 4 days due to a clogged tube?" Probably not.
A lot of politicians and leaders are not good detail oriented people. They're really good at critical thinking, but they're not good with details. You need geeks in there somewhere, most of us as we get more senior, learn to focus on the correct details, using our experience in a field to weed things out. So yeah, we probably want someone who has been there, who also has vision.
I'm not sure Bill Joy is he, fearing the future is probably not going to win the day.
and to type 'a', he has to hit:
ctrl-meta-shift-pedal-cymbal {thump thump clap} we-will-we-will-rock-you
Because they really don't care that much. This is bullshit distraction politics.
Amen. McCain could have gotten my vote, I'm not a worshipper of Obama, particularly after his telecom immunity waffle.
But McCain continued to alienate himself, and then he chose Palin. I ignored the election after that, my mind was made up.
If he's a good con man, it's because he's paying attention to what we think is really wrong. That's how he won. He may turn out to be a fuck-up, he may be a self-serving bastard, we never know until he takes over...but he was at least paying attention.
We win, because unless he's a total disaster the republicans are now forced to start running more moderate...clued in...candidates. In the long run this means concessions on big business and their religious wacko-freak types responsible for Palin. I'm happy about that, I'm not a democrat fan, but I'm willing to use them as a tool to shape republicans.
We've already won to some degree, republican politics had become so unrelated to my every day life, and their words alienated them from me so much, that as someone who makes 6 figures, I don't know who they're talking about. I listen to McCain and I think "Are you for real? On what planet?". That's why he lost.
I suggest China, while communist in principle, their attitude and politics very heavily favor republican-style capitalists.
You may find doors created where none previously existed. Insurance may not cover it.
Why do we believe anything people write on the internet to begin with? How many fiction authors write under assumed names?
Why do we assume the bullshit detector only gets turned on from "known false" sources. It should always be on, even when watching the nightly news.
Fact doesn't come from people, fact comes from inanimate objects. There is value in what people write, it's just not about gaining information. Sometimes even a frothy AC has a unique perspective on something. It may be justified with total trash data, but that doesn't make the perspective invalid.
They are beating this dead horse because they want to find "scientific proof" to justify the nanny-state laws the article clearly mentions, laws which would limit sale of these games. Said laws get challenged and often rejected for the anti-freedom bunk that they are.
This is similar to how creationists/IDists keep looking for tenuous scientific proof in order to justify teaching the subject as part of biology.
It's not about science or psychology, it's about agenda, and this one goes across party lines. You can't vote it out so easily.
I tried but I couldn't reach him, and we were about to beat the crap out of Illidan. Illidan for god's sake!
This sunday, Sunday, SUNDAY at The Coliseum!
You just killed a dozen pirates, you bastard!
For the good of all of us. Except the ones who are dead.
I disagree at least partially. The problem is that we let the government do something other than make laws or approve budgets. They really only know how to do those two things. We want to prohibit them from being able to micromanage (or be corrupt), we do NOT want the "Department Of National Healthcare".
In a perfect world, doctors make decisions on our health, they know best (and you can at least supervise them to ensure they're paying attention). The problem is that doctors have to be businessmen too, and the only person I trust less than a congressman, is a businessman. We, as patients, are not suitably qualified to understand our treatment options, their costs, risks, complications etc. This is where health insurance is supposed to come in to play. They do, but they unfortunately are not working for me.
Whatever our ultimate solution to the health care problem is (and we have to agree there is a problem), will need to require insurance companies are working for us, not for their shareholders, not for my corporate HR, not for some congressman's home remodel. Those things may be in there somewhere, but they have to feel very real pain for not looking out for my interests first.
I believe capitalism is the answer to this last part, even if socialism is the principle that provides the ultimate funding. But how to do it? I don't think I can come up with it at a slashdot prompt, but there must be a solution.
All I'm saying is I want politicians who acknowledge the problem, and who are making progress on it, and not getting polarized over talking-head tv babble. Maybe when they're done with the best they can do, it will cost too much, but I want that presented to us to decide.
Yes, I should have been more clear. At the corporate level they can be punished. At the national level, I doubt that would go through.
You can't tell your boss what a cold hearted son of a bitch he is, because he pays your salary. But you can tell your president.
You should research your opinions more. Fat people die younger resulting in a net savings to the healthcare system. There is no incentive to discourage people from being overweight.
This is not my opinion, this is the fact of what my company is doing. It claims many other large corporations have already started doing it, I have some doubts on that. Whether they are financially correct for doing so, I have not personally taken a position on.
It is a sign of things to come, regardless of what happens. If you go private, your health will be assessed when you buy insurance. If you go corporate, someone will (rightly or wrongly) make a decision for you about how to single out high risk people. If you go national, risk factors become polarized public debate.
I've seen it happen twice, to extended family members. Fortunately we're an old fashioned family and we did our best to help foot the bill and use the attorneys whenever possible.