So that is your solution to every problem in your homeland? Just leave?
And go where exactly?
Which country will let them in?
And which country is "better"?
There IS another choice -- to lend their support in changing the laws. It requires work and coordination, and make take a few decades but a solution can be reached.
ALL (legal) law is relative. If the citizens don't feel that their government is representing them accurately then they have the right to replace it with another one.
First, well when you invent a new kind of license that thousands of people use in their projects that gives him some validity based on experience. What new paradigm of license have you invented and given away? And how does it help guarantee freedom?
Second, he has been correct about warning how companies can misuse licenses.
> This guy is full of rhetoric and I'm not sure why he would still be considered a leader in this movement. And your personal ideology is any better? Because you haven't posted anything why we should follow yours...
Lastly, are you familiar with this George Bernard Shaw's quote?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
I may not agree with RMS on everything but I admire and respect his dedication to an ideology.
> While I agree that C is a bad language, it has no competition in low-level coding. Mostly agree. Although I prefer turning all the crap in C++ off to get better compiler support.
> Although C++ could take its role and it even fixes many of its shortcomings (e.g. namespaces) Uh, you don't remembered "Embedded C++" back in the late 90's early 00's ?
If you think namespaces are part of the problems you really don't understand the complexity of C++ at _run_time_...
Namely:
* Exception Handling * RTTI * dynamic memory allocation and the crappy way new/delete handle out of memory * dynamic casts * no _standard_ way to specify order of global constructors/destructors
Embedded systems NEED to be deterministic, otherwise you are just gambling with a time-bomb.
>> "When I see a distance of a multiple of 60 one can quickly determine how many hours it will take to get there when driving.:-)" > question: I am driving the speed limit of 100km/h . How many hours will it take me to drive 250km? > Answer: 2.5 hours
IF your distance is a multiple of 25 then yes, but most of the time the distance is not as convenient as your artificial example.
Here is an example:
Sign says 66 km till the next town. Driving at 100 km/hr you will get there in how many minutes?.66 * 60 mins = ~40 min. In imperial the sign would say 42 miles. Therefore ~ 60 mph = 42 mins. Done. No conversion required. THAT is the point.
Good luck doing the km/hr to mins in your head !
> How is 60 simpler than 100? Because time uses base 60.
> I mean look at all that math you had to do in your posts to convert convoluted American measurements! If you think that is convoluted math then I feel sorry for you. Dividing by 10 and by 2 are some of the simplistic divisions around. It is ONLY needed when _converting_ between an organic and scientific system.
Counties that use a base 60 time and a base 10 distance or velocity automatically make it harder.
> people from the UK defend mph You don't really understand base 60 do you?
> and how people from canada defend using letter size paper. [citation required]
I lived in Canada for 30 years. I've never seen Canadians being passionate about anything (except hockey and Tim Hortons!) On the contrary, they are usually apologetic about everything!:-)
> If the speed limit is 100km/hr (62mi/hr), then wouldn't the same convenience apply to distances that are a multiple of 100?
Yes, however the point is that time uses base 60 which allows OTHER numbers (distance) to naturally map onto time when driving 60 mph. km/hr using base 10 is not as convenient. Whatever distance you see on the sign you can quickly convert to time.
e.g. 40 miles, then you know ~ 40 mins. If you drive at 100km/hr and a sign says 40 km, then that is.4 of 60 minutes which is 24 mins. Not as nearly as convenient to calculate in your head compared to mph.
As much I as like the consistency and simplicity of metric there is still one area where the imperial system makes sense:
When I see a distance of a multiple of 60 one can quickly determine how many hours it will take to get there when driving.:-)
Until time is also switched over to base 10 using miles/hr has a very nice 1:1 mapping with time! (assuming one drives 60 mi/hr.) The metric is a nice scientific system; the imperial system is a "nice" organic system. There is no reason BOTH systems couldn't be kept on the signage.
Aside, here are a couple of nice math tricks to convert km to/from miles. Given x km to get a quick estimate in miles:
i.e. miles= trunc(km/2) + trunc(km/10) e.g. Given 100 km; 50mi+10mi = 60 miles which is slightly less then 62.1 miles
or
i.e. km = miles * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 / 10 e.g. Given 60 mi; 60 * 2 = 120, * 2 = 240, * 2 = 480, * 2 = 960, / 10 = 96 km, which is darn close to 96.5 km!
Sorry to hear that you had a crappy physics teacher. If they don't exist then why is there a list of known paradoxes in Logic, Mathematics, Science, etc.?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes
How Light behaved WAS a paradox for a long time in Science. Did it behave like a particle? Like a wave? Both??
A paradox is something where A and ~A are BOTH true, yet this is logically inconsistent. WRT light the paradox was that proponents of one system had to face the reality that opponents could present experimental evidence for the other case.
Your teacher failed you to teach you the fundamentals of logic: "One truth does not negate another truth."
The solution to a paradox is to come to a new understanding. You teacher tried and failed to convey this eloquently. "or understood something wrong" They should of said instead: "or understanding is incomplete."
Which is MOST OF SCIENCE!
Go study Godel's Incompleteness Theorem if you want to understand paradox.
I partially disagree. Part of the problem of why we have so much shitty software is the "It compiles! Ship it!" mentality where no-one gives a damn about writing good, small, beautiful code - which is what happens when you let Finance run the ship. (Conversely letting the Engineers run the company and you will never ship!) This problem is alluding to the holy trinity: Engineering, Finance, Marketing.
Now getting this back on topic: The smart programmer knows when and were to pick his battles. i.e. You could win the battle but still lose the war (i.e. job)
There are a few options the OP has:
* Ignore it * Embrace it * Involve management. i.e. "The rest of the team is having a hard time interfacing with Bill's code due to it not being compliant with our coding standards" * Be very, very, respectful when commenting on criticism so as not to offend / sound like going on a witch hunt. i.e. "Could you help me understand why you wrote your code this way? What advantages/disadvantages does your way have?"
You DO realize languages evolve right? Languages (and spelling) are a dynamic entity not a static one. If your English teacher failed to teach you that they were ignorant of history.
Replacing 'z' with 's' IS unfortunately now a standard - not sure what year that practice became standard (or introduced) but whining about it isn't going to change anything.
> primarily because he couldn't get people interested in it.
Probably because the topic doesn't sound all that interesting with current multi-cores except to the hard-hard-core computer geeks.:-/ While most geeks love Chess & Go I don't see too many interested in how to "solve" it.
I am not saying we should go back to gold. However, if you want to understand money, start with the excellent summary from The Ludwig von Mises Institute:
Money is nothing more then an exchange of energy (be it time, knowledge, services, or items). The token that is used to represent those things are irrelevant.
> as a reply to the people who think Zynga's products aren't games. They are games.
You keep using this word "games" but it doesn't mean what you think it means.
For the last time: A game requires a winning stateotherwise you are playing with a TOY. I am not aware of ANY Zynga's toys that are games. Likewise, World of Warcraft is not a game; it is a toy. While WoW also has a soft-lose state (death), there is no way to lose at Zyng's pseudo "Social Games."
Toys can be more fun then games because there is no pressure "to win". You just play and have fun. That is PRECISELY why they are popular. NOT because they are good games, which they certainly aren't. They all have psuedo game design mechanics; they have nothing of value to give the player. They completely disrespect the players time because that is the only way they can entice players to keep playing with their shitty design!
Let me know when you have actually _shipped_ a few games because it sounds like you don't have a clue about the differences between toys, games, play, and fun.
1. McDonald's sells millions but no one is going there for the gourmet food. Popularity != Quality. (Usually the higher the popularity the lower the quality.)
2. Social Games are neither social nor gamesprecisely because
a) one can't give/trade your resources to other players and b) there is no way to "win" at them.
They are toys at best. (Likewise, World of Warcraft is a toy in that there is no "winning state.") Social Games are the bastard step child between turn-based games and real-time strategy with all the disadvantages of both! Even with their pseudo-game design aside, the biggest problem with Social "Games" is that they disrespect the player's time. Why would I respect any company that can't respect mine?
* Meskimen's Law: There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.
* Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
Slashdot Mirror
So that is your solution to every problem in your homeland? Just leave?
And go where exactly?
Which country will let them in?
And which country is "better"?
There IS another choice -- to lend their support in changing the laws. It requires work and coordination, and make take a few decades but a solution can be reached.
ALL (legal) law is relative. If the citizens don't feel that their government is representing them accurately then they have the right to replace it with another one.
To play Devil's Advocate ...
> What qualifies Stallman as an expert on ethics?
First, well when you invent a new kind of license that thousands of people use in their projects that gives him some validity based on experience. What new paradigm of license have you invented and given away? And how does it help guarantee freedom?
Second, he has been correct about warning how companies can misuse licenses.
i.e. "Right to Read" and how Amazon deleted copies of 1984 on people's Kindles.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
> This guy is full of rhetoric and I'm not sure why he would still be considered a leader in this movement. ...
And your personal ideology is any better? Because you haven't posted anything why we should follow yours
Lastly, are you familiar with this George Bernard Shaw's quote?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
I may not agree with RMS on everything but I admire and respect his dedication to an ideology.
> While I agree that C is a bad language, it has no competition in low-level coding.
Mostly agree. Although I prefer turning all the crap in C++ off to get better compiler support.
> Although C++ could take its role and it even fixes many of its shortcomings (e.g. namespaces)
Uh, you don't remembered "Embedded C++" back in the late 90's early 00's ?
If you think namespaces are part of the problems you really don't understand the complexity of C++ at _run_time_ ...
Namely:
* Exception Handling
* RTTI
* dynamic memory allocation and the crappy way new/delete handle out of memory
* dynamic casts
* no _standard_ way to specify order of global constructors/destructors
Embedded systems NEED to be deterministic, otherwise you are just gambling with a time-bomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_C%2B%2B
--
There are 2 problems with C++. Its design and implementation.
What an ass.
Any husband who makes fun of his wife publicly probably isn't going to be married very long.
>> "When I see a distance of a multiple of 60 one can quickly determine how many hours it will take to get there when driving. :-)"
> question: I am driving the speed limit of 100km/h . How many hours will it take me to drive 250km?
> Answer: 2.5 hours
IF your distance is a multiple of 25 then yes, but most of the time the distance is not as convenient as your artificial example.
Here is an example:
Sign says 66 km till the next town. Driving at 100 km/hr you will get there in how many minutes? .66 * 60 mins = ~40 min.
In imperial the sign would say 42 miles. Therefore ~ 60 mph = 42 mins. Done. No conversion required. THAT is the point.
Good luck doing the km/hr to mins in your head !
> How is 60 simpler than 100?
Because time uses base 60.
> I mean look at all that math you had to do in your posts to convert convoluted American measurements!
If you think that is convoluted math then I feel sorry for you. Dividing by 10 and by 2 are some of the simplistic divisions around. It is ONLY needed when _converting_ between an organic and scientific system.
Counties that use a base 60 time and a base 10 distance or velocity automatically make it harder.
> people from the UK defend mph
You don't really understand base 60 do you?
> and how people from canada defend using letter size paper.
[citation required]
I lived in Canada for 30 years. I've never seen Canadians being passionate about anything (except hockey and Tim Hortons!) On the contrary, they are usually apologetic about everything! :-)
> If the speed limit is 100km/hr (62mi/hr), then wouldn't the same convenience apply to distances that are a multiple of 100?
Yes, however the point is that time uses base 60 which allows OTHER numbers (distance) to naturally map onto time when driving 60 mph. km/hr using base 10 is not as convenient. Whatever distance you see on the sign you can quickly convert to time.
e.g. 40 miles, then you know ~ 40 mins. .4 of 60 minutes which is 24 mins. Not as nearly as convenient to calculate in your head compared to mph.
If you drive at 100km/hr and a sign says 40 km, then that is
As much I as like the consistency and simplicity of metric there is still one area where the imperial system makes sense:
When I see a distance of a multiple of 60 one can quickly determine how many hours it will take to get there when driving. :-)
Until time is also switched over to base 10 using miles/hr has a very nice 1:1 mapping with time! (assuming one drives 60 mi/hr.) The metric is a nice scientific system; the imperial system is a "nice" organic system. There is no reason BOTH systems couldn't be kept on the signage.
Aside, here are a couple of nice math tricks to convert km to/from miles. Given x km to get a quick estimate in miles:
i.e. miles= trunc(km/2) + trunc(km/10)
e.g. Given 100 km; 50mi+10mi = 60 miles which is slightly less then 62.1 miles
or
i.e. km = miles * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 / 10
e.g. Given 60 mi; 60 * 2 = 120, * 2 = 240, * 2 = 480, * 2 = 960, / 10 = 96 km, which is darn close to 96.5 km!
> "There is no such thing as a paradox. ..."
Sorry to hear that you had a crappy physics teacher. If they don't exist then why is there a list of known paradoxes in Logic, Mathematics, Science, etc.??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes
Specifically did you ignore the first half of the 20th century??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
How Light behaved WAS a paradox for a long time in Science. Did it behave like a particle? Like a wave? Both??
A paradox is something where A and ~A are BOTH true, yet this is logically inconsistent. WRT light the paradox was that proponents of one system had to face the reality that opponents could present experimental evidence for the other case.
Your teacher failed you to teach you the fundamentals of logic:
"One truth does not negate another truth."
The solution to a paradox is to come to a new understanding. You teacher tried and failed to convey this eloquently.
"or understood something wrong"
They should of said instead:
"or understanding is incomplete."
Which is MOST OF SCIENCE!
Go study Godel's Incompleteness Theorem if you want to understand paradox.
I partially disagree. Part of the problem of why we have so much shitty software is the "It compiles! Ship it!" mentality where no-one gives a damn about writing good, small, beautiful code - which is what happens when you let Finance run the ship. (Conversely letting the Engineers run the company and you will never ship!) This problem is alluding to the holy trinity: Engineering, Finance, Marketing.
Now getting this back on topic: The smart programmer knows when and were to pick his battles. i.e. You could win the battle but still lose the war (i.e. job)
There are a few options the OP has:
* Ignore it
* Embrace it
* Involve management. i.e. "The rest of the team is having a hard time interfacing with Bill's code due to it not being compliant with our coding standards"
* Be very, very, respectful when commenting on criticism so as not to offend / sound like going on a witch hunt. i.e. "Could you help me understand why you wrote your code this way? What advantages/disadvantages does your way have?"
I was simply pointing out the joke for the less informed.
It is (un)common practice to replace 'z' with 's' for quite some time now. If anyone knows what year this practice was introduced please let us know!
> Standardise is British (wrong).
You DO realize languages evolve right? Languages (and spelling) are a dynamic entity not a static one. If your English teacher failed to teach you that they were ignorant of history.
Replacing 'z' with 's' IS unfortunately now a standard - not sure what year that practice became standard (or introduced) but whining about it isn't going to change anything.
i.e.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimise
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimize
There are many words not in the dictionary until YEARS later when the academics [finally] realize that people have been using them.
Exactly, the GP, doesn't understand these two words:
Free Advertising.
> It's as complicated as defining "life" in abortion vs. pro life cases.
The cells are alive.
You're an idiot.
> primarily because he couldn't get people interested in it.
Probably because the topic doesn't sound all that interesting with current multi-cores except to the hard-hard-core computer geeks. :-/ While most geeks love Chess & Go I don't see too many interested in how to "solve" it.
I image once we have Intel's Knight's Corner ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_MIC ) common place interest might pick up again.
The other possibility would be to move it onto the GPU like the password crackers do now-a-days. (i.e. HashCat http://hashcat.net/oclhashcat-plus/ )
You really don't understand the differences between American and British/Canadian spelling do you?
standardise = British
standardize = American
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standardize
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/standardise
> we're skipping the OP's original, valid, point that these games
Did you skip the part where I said this (emphasis added for your convenience):
>> NOT because they are good games, which they certainly aren't.
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
-- Oscar Wilde
Interesting usage: quote voiced by Leonard Nimoy (Spock) in Civ 4.
> What's so fucking special about gold anyway?
Well, for one, hard currency is a lot less likely to be just created en masse like Soft currency. Let me tell you a little story about Zimbabwe:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576314953091790360.html
I am not saying we should go back to gold. However, if you want to understand money, start with the excellent summary from The Ludwig von Mises Institute:
http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf
Money is nothing more then an exchange of energy (be it time, knowledge, services, or items). The token that is used to represent those things are irrelevant.
--
Classmates.com (MemoryLane) is a SCAM
> Friedman never tried to place blame on any of those things. He blamed the government.
Q. And who makes up the government?
A. We the people The problem is everyone in the mirror.
A solution will _never_ be found until EVERYONE takes _responsibility_.
> as a reply to the people who think Zynga's products aren't games. They are games.
You keep using this word "games" but it doesn't mean what you think it means.
For the last time: A game requires a winning state otherwise you are playing with a TOY. I am not aware of ANY Zynga's toys that are games. Likewise, World of Warcraft is not a game; it is a toy. While WoW also has a soft-lose state (death), there is no way to lose at Zyng's pseudo "Social Games."
Toys can be more fun then games because there is no pressure "to win". You just play and have fun. That is PRECISELY why they are popular. NOT because they are good games, which they certainly aren't. They all have psuedo game design mechanics; they have nothing of value to give the player. They completely disrespect the players time because that is the only way they can entice players to keep playing with their shitty design!
Let me know when you have actually _shipped_ a few games because it sounds like you don't have a clue about the differences between toys, games, play, and fun.
1. McDonald's sells millions but no one is going there for the gourmet food. Popularity != Quality. (Usually the higher the popularity the lower the quality.)
2. Social Games are neither social nor games precisely because
a) one can't give/trade your resources to other players and
b) there is no way to "win" at them.
They are toys at best. (Likewise, World of Warcraft is a toy in that there is no "winning state.") Social Games are the bastard step child between turn-based games and real-time strategy with all the disadvantages of both! Even with their pseudo-game design aside, the biggest problem with Social "Games" is that they disrespect the player's time. Why would I respect any company that can't respect mine?
> History tells us that every nation falls given enough time.
Sadly, people still don't learn the lessons.
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat it" (or forget the lessons)
From which the popular geek version is based upon:
"Those who do not understand Unix are doomed to reimplement it, poorly."
What you have described can be summarized as:
"The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." :-/
Not sure what the problem is.
I've written a 100+ page book with OpenOffice 2.x without any problems.
* Meskimen's Law: There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.
* Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
http://www.panopticoncentral.net/2010/08/01/murphys-computer-law/