Re:pathetic
on
Chicken Run
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I haven't made any comparisons with words like less/more. Humans respond similarily when exposed to the same stimulus that animals are put through.
When I said renewable resource, I meant renewable at the expense of life. I am familiar with "breeding". And I'm even more familiar with "breeding farms" when animals are raised just to fulfill you're appetite when then are definetely alternatives that don't require senseless killing.
PETA is starting to lose it's integrity. They're supposed to be protecting animals from unnecessary death in the first place, but instead they're supporting this new technology simply because it's more "humane"? What different is it for the chickens that are going to die? They get spared from a few seconds of torture? I know ever second counts, but this questions the very existance of Peta.
And that's not all. Peta is sending it's message to protect and save animals via strippers, pr0nstars and supermodels. What surprises me is that there's no feminists who oppose this.
It seems Peta is in a very desperate situation trying to save the lives of animals. I, myself have always been vegetarian simply because it is morally wrong to take the life of one being only to benefit yourself.
The recent SARS outbreak is just one implication of factory farming. Then there's foot and mouth disease, mad cow and what not.
Peta should be advocating the fact that animals are sentient beings, not a renewable resource. And for those pathetic scientists who even created such a device should deserve death at the least, using their own stupid machines. Go ahead, FLAME ME. But it's the truth.
Success? You call enslaving millions of people from third world countries to do the same job or better than American programmers do and yet paying them a fraction of what they should be earning...
Youâ(TM)re arguments are full of so much doggerel that Iâ(TM)ll have to tackle them bit-by-bit.
I REALLY hate this argument. You know what--if the thousands in India and elsewhere didn't have programming jobs, or call center jobs, they probably WOULDN'T have jobs. What this "enslaving" as you melodramatically put it has done is create a middle class in India that's HUGE.
Firstly, I myself am from India (Indo-Canadian, but liked to be called a human, I donâ(TM)t like associating my existence with political barriers) and I have a better and clearer understanding of whatâ(TM)s REALLY going on there, not the stuff that you hear in CNN and take for granted. Youâ(TM)re a fool to begin with if you think thereâ(TM)s such a thing as a âoemiddle classâ. There is no such thing what you refer to a âoemiddle classâ. There are only two classes: master and slave. The rules are simple: if youâ(TM)re not a master, then youâ(TM)re a slave and vice-versa. You claim that this âoemiddle classâ is âoeHUGEâ. If thatâ(TM)s what you think, then youâ(TM)ve seen nothing in India at all. More than 85% of the people live below the poverty line and the rest are enslaved to do work simply because they have no other choice.
Believe me, I've been to India, and I can't think of any reason why you would begrudge these people their educations and employment. I'm sorry, but imho, if you think he's enslaving these people, you really should travel around the world and see how things are.
Youâ(TM)re very definition of enslavement is flawed. If you donâ(TM)t own your own company, then youâ(TM)re enslaved. Yep, itâ(TM)s true. That may be a mouthful for you to swallow, but let me try to shed some light. After every political campaign, does your quality of life change drastically? Probably not, and Iâ(TM)m not talking about a tax break or two. Do you follow youâ(TM)re superiorâ(TM)s orders at work? Probably so, otherwise, you know where youâ(TM)ll end up. This definition may seem a bit extreme, but itâ(TM)s a fact. Enslavement is not necessarily undesirable work that one is forced to do; it also encompasses an element of âoeno other choiceâ. Every working class person (like you and I) end up working for big businesses with a stupid salary that cannot fulfill our desires of life simply because there is no other choice (other than to find yourself work that pays more; easier said than done). Hence, when a person ends up working for a corporation, youâ(TM)ve basically sold yourself out to them so you can earn yourself a living, but at the same time, youâ(TM)ve given up youâ(TM)re lifetime dreams of owning âoethis and thatâ.
Tell me, would you like to own a high-end sports car? Maybe a mansion or a ranch? Or maybe something else that costs a lot. Perhaps you own these things and more, congratulations if you do. But most of us will never be able to own any of these. Because why? Because unless youâ(TM)re a master, i.e. owner of a company, youâ(TM)ll never earn enough to own any of this stuff or anything else youâ(TM)ve always wanted.
I guess this argument just bothers me a lot more than most, because having travelled a lot I've seen what many people have to deal with. The view that hiring international programmers is enslaving them is just terribly insular.
Really? Perhaps youâ(TM)ll like to know that these programmers work many more hours than American programmers and STILL only get paid a fraction of the salary they deserve. I guess thatâ(TM)s justified by thoughts like âoebetter that than nothingâ. Of course, they are at least getting some
"When the researchers tested 10 Fast TCP systems together it boosted the speed to more than 6,000 times the capacity of the ordinary broadband links.
6,000 times? The tests done in labs are usually stripped-down and the results overstated just for statistical pleasure. In the real world, however, such figures are rarely achieved.
"And it sounds to me that you're one of those people who resent success."
Success? You call enslaving millions of people from third world countries to do the same job or better than American programmers do and yet paying them a fraction of what they should be earning a "successful" way to make money? And then to further justify that you're telling me that by taking all the money he saved from that gig (and many others) and spreading it around the US like manure a "successful" way to "donate" money around the world and a way to " save more lives in a second than most can do in a lifetime"? I think he could save even more lives by being fair and giving them the pay and benefits they deserve instead of manipulating already suffering people.
When he gives away a "billion" dollars worth of software, you actually think that it's coming from his heart? You're telling me that none of that is a business scheme and that it's charity? RMS would agree with you even less. And another point, if a person makes a lot of money by selling questionable software and using monopolistic marketing tactics and then donates some of it back, that doesn't make them a saint. These assertions are not limited to just Bill Gates; they go for anyone who tries to exploit others and then try to use the media to their (spelled right this time) advantage.
"I never would have needed to see that link to have a full understanding your political views--the second you called a succesful (spelling mistake) and undeniably intelligent businessman a 10 cent idiot, your beliefs were totally clear."
You couldn't even begin to understand my political and social beliefs, which are based on the equal distribution of wealth, not the selfish, egoistic ways of capitalism and those that support it, which seem like yours. You may think that Bill Gates (and others like him) is "undeniably intelligent" after all he's "contributed" to our world, but that in itself shows your narrow perception of what this world is right now and what it could be. You think bigger donations and bigger schmooze cruises around the world are the way of the future? You should really read a few books on theology and humanism. It certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something is really screwed up with corporate America and Bill Gates with others like him are the ones to blame for it.
Your overuse of "wealth" and "success" confirm that you've learned nothing out of Death of a Salesman and are a true follower of the fake "American Dream" which will end up getting us all killed one day, good for you. By constantly pertaining to Bill Gates using "intelligence" and "success" (for which I have complete defiance), it also suggests that you were hurt by my remarks about Mr. Gates' supposed "net brain value", for which, by being a fact, I have no sympathy. Thank you and have a nice day.
It is such a shame that AOL is just letting Justin's programming talents slip away. Even though winamp isn't as popular as it used to be, none-of-the-less, it is still a fine piece of coding and I still use it once in a while. I believe that WASTE is definitely the reason why he was pressured to make (or consider) such a decision.
I agree with most of your points. But you may also want to take into consideration that Microsoft is losing trust daily and OSS is gaining trust daily. I agree with you when you say "have someone to sue" has something to do with it.
Many businesses don't (although many others also do) simply use Microsoft producuts simply because they trust them. In fact, I think that's the biggest reason why people are moving away from their software (if not, then it's probably the cost). The fact that customers are basically stuck in their web since Windows 95 and go though the ceremony of upgrading both their software AND hardware every so years which is why their software sells so much doesn't really suggest that people "trust" their software.
Most big companies are just too damn lazy to make the switch from MS to OSS. For example, I had my co-op term at Bombardier Aerospace, one of the largest manufacturers of civil aircraft in the world. I had made the suggestion several times to dump Windows 2k and start off fresh with something like RedHat or SuSE. It would have saved them millions of dollars yearly from licenses and other software like MS Office. The only reason why they didn't want to do it was because they were too lazy. They even told me. I was sitting in front of a large committee of executives and they agreed with everything I said. But the end result: just too lazy to do it.
I don't really think that Microsoft has perfected the dimension of trust with their customers. That's why I daily see television advertisements saying "Trustworthy computing", only to find out the next day that hotmail just got busted or something.
My buddies and I may not be the majority right now, but we'll see in the long run.
Out of curiosity, if you're so much smarter than Mr. Gates, why haven't you started your own billion dollar company?
Sounds like to me you're a person who defines "intelligence" solely financially. I guess Einstein wasn't intelligent either by your definition, since I don't remember him being a billionaire. Nor Stephen Hawking. Nor Carl Sagan. Nor..... [ad infinitum].
Don't give me crap about how I feel jealous over one man's incredible success, because I certainly don't. 99.9% of the time, when someone criticizes Bill Gates, the first thing that sparks into the person's brain is "you're just jealous" without even trying to think about what the other person is trying to say. The Bill Gates of today is NOT the same Bill Gates that used to be an avid hacker and created traffic-control software at the age of 14. The Bill Gates of today is NOT the same Bill Gates that scored a perfect 800 in his math ASA. The Bill Gates of today IS nothing more than a monopolistic dictator. He is a person that sells overpriced, crappy software that gets half the job done that it's designed to. He is also a person that exploits 3rd world resources (not just him, many others) and gives away "donations" for the sake of wide spreading his software. The fact that I criticize all this AND by mere coincidence, Gates happens to be a billionaire appalls me how you jump to the conclusion that I am jealous of his "success".
Why haven't I started my own billion-dollar company? The same reason why you haven't: I want to actually enjoy a quality of life that far extends the barriers of financial success. This is not the place to be talking about the personal life of anyone, but for your sake, I question the social success of Mr. Gates.
There were no spelling mistakes in my previous post. So quit the schmoozing and try to think about what someone is writing before you start making false accusations about them. You may also want to read some articles at www.worldsocialism.org to see the world through my eyes.
Microsoft never fails to surprise me with their futile attempts to try to gain the trust of the IT world. Here we have another story of a billion dollar company, run by a 10 cent brain, i.e. Bill Gates, et al.
I don't think this patch problem is all about number play, i.e. reducing from 8 to 2. They should be more focused at producing a good product in the first place, not just creating a quick podge-job and then bombarding their customers with patches (which are usually also full of bugs).
They claim to be "Secure by Design" and yet they probably one of the worst track records when it comes to security related issues. This is just Microsoft spreading propaganda just to make it look like they're doing they're job.
I believe we have here another classic case of "integrating a shit-load of features into something small and utterly useless".
I guess they'll make a portable all-in-one X-BOX, DVD Player, cell phone, laptop with Windows XPee, tape recorder, CD burner, microwave, refrigerator, dishwasher, ass-wiper and "port-a-potty" device next.
This is completely useless and shows no innovation or creativity. I guess they're trying to take bloated software to the next level: bloated hardware.
more bullshit from SCO
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1, Funny
A book on something like "Programming PIC's" or "The Intel 80x86 Architecture" will be useless in 50 years when we're all (hopefully) using quantum computers. I think that 50 years is far too long and I agree with the folks who bring up the point about automated the whole process. What we need are shorter times and higher fees.
One of the points of OSS is to mould the cut-throat software industry into a breeding ground of intellect and thought. One thing we should not forget that OSS is not necessarily free cost software. It is free in the sense of programmer "freedom", i.e. source code is avaiable and the program is freely allowed to be modified.
No one is jealous of M$'s "donation", infact, we are quite used-to it. The point most of us are trying to make is that all is not what it seems, i.e. the $1 billion != $1 billion.
A market for something "free" is not a market for money; it is a market for creativity and thought, two things that most people at M$ don't have time (or money) for. People would compete not for profits, but for new ideas and approaches that challenge the future of software.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't made any comparisons with words like less/more. Humans respond similarily when exposed to the same stimulus that animals are put through.
When I said renewable resource, I meant renewable at the expense of life. I am familiar with "breeding". And I'm even more familiar with "breeding farms" when animals are raised just to fulfill you're appetite when then are definetely alternatives that don't require senseless killing.
PETA is starting to lose it's integrity. They're supposed to be protecting animals from unnecessary death in the first place, but instead they're supporting this new technology simply because it's more "humane"? What different is it for the chickens that are going to die? They get spared from a few seconds of torture? I know ever second counts, but this questions the very existance of Peta.
And that's not all. Peta is sending it's message to protect and save animals via strippers, pr0nstars and supermodels. What surprises me is that there's no feminists who oppose this.
It seems Peta is in a very desperate situation trying to save the lives of animals. I, myself have always been vegetarian simply because it is morally wrong to take the life of one being only to benefit yourself.
The recent SARS outbreak is just one implication of factory farming. Then there's foot and mouth disease, mad cow and what not.
Peta should be advocating the fact that animals are sentient beings, not a renewable resource. And for those pathetic scientists who even created such a device should deserve death at the least, using their own stupid machines. Go ahead, FLAME ME. But it's the truth.
Success? You call enslaving millions of people from third world countries to do the same job or better than American programmers do and yet paying them a fraction of what they should be earning ...
Youâ(TM)re arguments are full of so much doggerel that Iâ(TM)ll have to tackle them bit-by-bit.
I REALLY hate this argument. You know what--if the thousands in India and elsewhere didn't have programming jobs, or call center jobs, they probably WOULDN'T have jobs. What this "enslaving" as you melodramatically put it has done is create a middle class in India that's HUGE.
Firstly, I myself am from India (Indo-Canadian, but liked to be called a human, I donâ(TM)t like associating my existence with political barriers) and I have a better and clearer understanding of whatâ(TM)s REALLY going on there, not the stuff that you hear in CNN and take for granted. Youâ(TM)re a fool to begin with if you think thereâ(TM)s such a thing as a âoemiddle classâ. There is no such thing what you refer to a âoemiddle classâ. There are only two classes: master and slave. The rules are simple: if youâ(TM)re not a master, then youâ(TM)re a slave and vice-versa. You claim that this âoemiddle classâ is âoeHUGEâ. If thatâ(TM)s what you think, then youâ(TM)ve seen nothing in India at all. More than 85% of the people live below the poverty line and the rest are enslaved to do work simply because they have no other choice.
Believe me, I've been to India, and I can't think of any reason why you would begrudge these people their educations and employment. I'm sorry, but imho, if you think he's enslaving these people, you really should travel around the world and see how things are.
Youâ(TM)re very definition of enslavement is flawed. If you donâ(TM)t own your own company, then youâ(TM)re enslaved. Yep, itâ(TM)s true. That may be a mouthful for you to swallow, but let me try to shed some light. After every political campaign, does your quality of life change drastically? Probably not, and Iâ(TM)m not talking about a tax break or two. Do you follow youâ(TM)re superiorâ(TM)s orders at work? Probably so, otherwise, you know where youâ(TM)ll end up. This definition may seem a bit extreme, but itâ(TM)s a fact. Enslavement is not necessarily undesirable work that one is forced to do; it also encompasses an element of âoeno other choiceâ. Every working class person (like you and I) end up working for big businesses with a stupid salary that cannot fulfill our desires of life simply because there is no other choice (other than to find yourself work that pays more; easier said than done). Hence, when a person ends up working for a corporation, youâ(TM)ve basically sold yourself out to them so you can earn yourself a living, but at the same time, youâ(TM)ve given up youâ(TM)re lifetime dreams of owning âoethis and thatâ.
Tell me, would you like to own a high-end sports car? Maybe a mansion or a ranch? Or maybe something else that costs a lot. Perhaps you own these things and more, congratulations if you do. But most of us will never be able to own any of these. Because why? Because unless youâ(TM)re a master, i.e. owner of a company, youâ(TM)ll never earn enough to own any of this stuff or anything else youâ(TM)ve always wanted.
I guess this argument just bothers me a lot more than most, because having travelled a lot I've seen what many people have to deal with. The view that hiring international programmers is enslaving them is just terribly insular.
Really? Perhaps youâ(TM)ll like to know that these programmers work many more hours than American programmers and STILL only get paid a fraction of the salary they deserve. I guess thatâ(TM)s justified by thoughts like âoebetter that than nothingâ. Of course, they are at least getting some
you bet, pal!
"When the researchers tested 10 Fast TCP systems together it boosted the speed to more than 6,000 times the capacity of the ordinary broadband links.
6,000 times? The tests done in labs are usually stripped-down and the results overstated just for statistical pleasure. In the real world, however, such figures are rarely achieved.
"And it sounds to me that you're one of those people who resent success."
Success? You call enslaving millions of people from third world countries to do the same job or better than American programmers do and yet paying them a fraction of what they should be earning a "successful" way to make money? And then to further justify that you're telling me that by taking all the money he saved from that gig (and many others) and spreading it around the US like manure a "successful" way to "donate" money around the world and a way to " save more lives in a second than most can do in a lifetime"? I think he could save even more lives by being fair and giving them the pay and benefits they deserve instead of manipulating already suffering people.
When he gives away a "billion" dollars worth of software, you actually think that it's coming from his heart? You're telling me that none of that is a business scheme and that it's charity? RMS would agree with you even less. And another point, if a person makes a lot of money by selling questionable software and using monopolistic marketing tactics and then donates some of it back, that doesn't make them a saint. These assertions are not limited to just Bill Gates; they go for anyone who tries to exploit others and then try to use the media to their (spelled right this time) advantage.
"I never would have needed to see that link to have a full understanding your political views--the second you called a succesful (spelling mistake) and undeniably intelligent businessman a 10 cent idiot, your beliefs were totally clear."
You couldn't even begin to understand my political and social beliefs, which are based on the equal distribution of wealth, not the selfish, egoistic ways of capitalism and those that support it, which seem like yours. You may think that Bill Gates (and others like him) is "undeniably intelligent" after all he's "contributed" to our world, but that in itself shows your narrow perception of what this world is right now and what it could be. You think bigger donations and bigger schmooze cruises around the world are the way of the future? You should really read a few books on theology and humanism. It certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something is really screwed up with corporate America and Bill Gates with others like him are the ones to blame for it.
Your overuse of "wealth" and "success" confirm that you've learned nothing out of Death of a Salesman and are a true follower of the fake "American Dream" which will end up getting us all killed one day, good for you. By constantly pertaining to Bill Gates using "intelligence" and "success" (for which I have complete defiance), it also suggests that you were hurt by my remarks about Mr. Gates' supposed "net brain value", for which, by being a fact, I have no sympathy. Thank you and have a nice day.
It is such a shame that AOL is just letting Justin's programming talents slip away. Even though winamp isn't as popular as it used to be, none-of-the-less, it is still a fine piece of coding and I still use it once in a while. I believe that WASTE is definitely the reason why he was pressured to make (or consider) such a decision.
Read my reply to the first thread.
I agree with most of your points. But you may also want to take into consideration that Microsoft is losing trust daily and OSS is gaining trust daily. I agree with you when you say "have someone to sue" has something to do with it.
Many businesses don't (although many others also do) simply use Microsoft producuts simply because they trust them. In fact, I think that's the biggest reason why people are moving away from their software (if not, then it's probably the cost). The fact that customers are basically stuck in their web since Windows 95 and go though the ceremony of upgrading both their software AND hardware every so years which is why their software sells so much doesn't really suggest that people "trust" their software.
Most big companies are just too damn lazy to make the switch from MS to OSS. For example, I had my co-op term at Bombardier Aerospace, one of the largest manufacturers of civil aircraft in the world. I had made the suggestion several times to dump Windows 2k and start off fresh with something like RedHat or SuSE. It would have saved them millions of dollars yearly from licenses and other software like MS Office. The only reason why they didn't want to do it was because they were too lazy. They even told me. I was sitting in front of a large committee of executives and they agreed with everything I said. But the end result: just too lazy to do it.
I don't really think that Microsoft has perfected the dimension of trust with their customers. That's why I daily see television advertisements saying "Trustworthy computing", only to find out the next day that hotmail just got busted or something.
My buddies and I may not be the majority right now, but we'll see in the long run.
Out of curiosity, if you're so much smarter than Mr. Gates, why haven't you started your own billion dollar company?
..... [ad infinitum].
Sounds like to me you're a person who defines "intelligence" solely financially. I guess Einstein wasn't intelligent either by your definition, since I don't remember him being a billionaire. Nor Stephen Hawking. Nor Carl Sagan. Nor
Don't give me crap about how I feel jealous over one man's incredible success, because I certainly don't. 99.9% of the time, when someone criticizes Bill Gates, the first thing that sparks into the person's brain is "you're just jealous" without even trying to think about what the other person is trying to say. The Bill Gates of today is NOT the same Bill Gates that used to be an avid hacker and created traffic-control software at the age of 14. The Bill Gates of today is NOT the same Bill Gates that scored a perfect 800 in his math ASA. The Bill Gates of today IS nothing more than a monopolistic dictator. He is a person that sells overpriced, crappy software that gets half the job done that it's designed to. He is also a person that exploits 3rd world resources (not just him, many others) and gives away "donations" for the sake of wide spreading his software. The fact that I criticize all this AND by mere coincidence, Gates happens to be a billionaire appalls me how you jump to the conclusion that I am jealous of his "success".
Why haven't I started my own billion-dollar company? The same reason why you haven't: I want to actually enjoy a quality of life that far extends the barriers of financial success. This is not the place to be talking about the personal life of anyone, but for your sake, I question the social success of Mr. Gates.
There were no spelling mistakes in my previous post. So quit the schmoozing and try to think about what someone is writing before you start making false accusations about them. You may also want to read some articles at www.worldsocialism.org to see the world through my eyes.
Microsoft never fails to surprise me with their futile attempts to try to gain the trust of the IT world. Here we have another story of a billion dollar company, run by a 10 cent brain, i.e. Bill Gates, et al.
I don't think this patch problem is all about number play, i.e. reducing from 8 to 2. They should be more focused at producing a good product in the first place, not just creating a quick podge-job and then bombarding their customers with patches (which are usually also full of bugs).
They claim to be "Secure by Design" and yet they probably one of the worst track records when it comes to security related issues. This is just Microsoft spreading propaganda just to make it look like they're doing they're job.
I believe we have here another classic case of "integrating a shit-load of features into something small and utterly useless".
I guess they'll make a portable all-in-one X-BOX, DVD Player, cell phone, laptop with Windows XPee, tape recorder, CD burner, microwave, refrigerator, dishwasher, ass-wiper and "port-a-potty" device next.
This is completely useless and shows no innovation or creativity. I guess they're trying to take bloated software to the next level: bloated hardware.
blah blah blah blah blah!!!
*i_am_not_lis-ten-ing*!!!
A book on something like "Programming PIC's" or "The Intel 80x86 Architecture" will be useless in 50 years when we're all (hopefully) using quantum computers. I think that 50 years is far too long and I agree with the folks who bring up the point about automated the whole process. What we need are shorter times and higher fees.
One of the points of OSS is to mould the cut-throat software industry into a breeding ground of intellect and thought. One thing we should not forget that OSS is not necessarily free cost software. It is free in the sense of programmer "freedom", i.e. source code is avaiable and the program is freely allowed to be modified.
No one is jealous of M$'s "donation", infact, we are quite used-to it. The point most of us are trying to make is that all is not what it seems, i.e. the $1 billion != $1 billion.
A market for something "free" is not a market for money; it is a market for creativity and thought, two things that most people at M$ don't have time (or money) for. People would compete not for profits, but for new ideas and approaches that challenge the future of software.
Inspired by www.worldsocialism.org