Creating new TLDs is not difficult (it's exactly what the AlterNIC has been doing for the last few years). It's getting people to change their DNS configurations to use servers which serve the new TLDs that's difficult.
As it is now, every DNS looks to a pre-defined set of servers - the root servers - to find out where to look for information about a particular domain name. Those root servers are currently set up to handle information about only the.com,.net, etc TLDs. That's why creating new TLDs is such a big deal - you have to either change the root servers, or everybody has to change their DNSs to look at new/different root servers.
Again, not a matter of difficulty, but a matter of an old, entrenched mechanism that's not so easy to replace.
> You should have felt that things were not right after the first semester,
Why is that? Is my opinion that college was a waste invalid because it took me three years to form that opinion? I bought into the whole 'gotta have a degree' philosophy for the first two years, and realized how wrong I was the third. Doesn't mean I'm wrong now because I've changed my mind in the past
> Don't ever admit it to an employer, they'll see > you as a quitter and as someone who doesn't have > the guts to follow through with a committment.
I hear that argument again and again, and it's still a load of crap. I didn't leave school because I'm "a quitter" or because I just "couldn't cut it" but because it made no sense to stay. Waste more time and money on something that I get nothing out of (except your precious piece of paper) or get a good paying job and stop wasting money on tuition. That's a simple cost-benefit analysis, not quitting.
> If daddy had given me $60k for school
My daddy never gave me shit. If I wasn't the one paying the $60k I wouldn't have cared who was paying the bill. College was, after all, more fun than working full time.
> it shows a desire to learn, and more importantly it shows fidelity to commitment.
Having a degree doesn't prove anything about your desire to learn, it simply shows a commitment to getting a degree. And neither that commitment or that degree makes you worth _anything_ until you've proven that you can learn on your own, without a professor, and that you can actually _do_ something with that knowledge.
> It turns out that it's a unary argument. One can > not make an informed decision about it, since > you either do or do not have the experience
Not necessarily. I spent three years in college, and left before I got my degree. I therefore know what a college education can do, and the bottom line is it doesn't do anything - that's why I left before I finished my degree. In 3 years in college I never learned anything that I needed at work - everything I ever needed I either learned on the job or taught myself at home. To this day I regret wasting 3 years and $60k+ to find that out the hard way.
As for the "it's hard to get a job without a degree" argument - if an employer is judgemental and shortsighted enough to be more interested in a piece of paper than he is in my knowledge, experience and abilities, I don't want to work for him anyway.
If Studmonkey were truly interested in RMS's intentions, he would notice that in order for large free software projects to be self-sustaining, they need users, developers, and the guarantee that the code will stay free.
And promoting Linux as a free, open source project would serve exactly that purpose. Insisting that it be named GNU/Linux simply because it makes use of GNU software (even heavy use of GNU software) makes GNU look like a collection of egomaniacs who want credit for writing software, not a community of revolutionaries who truly believe in free software.
If RMS were truly interested in free software and not in shameless self-promotion, he'd be less interested in what it's called, who wrote it and who gets credit for it than whether or not it's free software.
April Fool's or not, this stupid GNU vs. Linux argument is really getting on my nerves.
Slashdot Mirror
Who does your hair? :)
Creating new TLDs is not difficult (it's exactly what the AlterNIC has been doing for the last few years). It's getting people to change their DNS configurations to use servers which serve the new TLDs that's difficult.
.com, .net, etc TLDs. That's why creating new TLDs is such a big deal - you have to either change the root servers, or everybody has to change their DNSs to look at new/different root servers.
As it is now, every DNS looks to a pre-defined set of servers - the root servers - to find out where to look for information about a particular domain name. Those root servers are currently set up to handle information about only the
Again, not a matter of difficulty, but a matter of an old, entrenched mechanism that's not so easy to replace.
> You should have felt that things were not right after the first semester,
Why is that? Is my opinion that college was a waste invalid because it took me three years to form that opinion? I bought into the whole 'gotta have a degree' philosophy for the first two years, and realized how wrong I was the third. Doesn't mean I'm wrong now because I've changed my mind in the past
> Don't ever admit it to an employer, they'll see
> you as a quitter and as someone who doesn't have
> the guts to follow through with a committment.
I hear that argument again and again, and it's still a load of crap. I didn't leave school because I'm "a quitter" or because I just "couldn't cut it" but because it made no sense to stay. Waste more time and money on something that I get nothing out of (except your precious piece of paper) or get a good paying job and stop wasting money on tuition. That's a simple cost-benefit analysis, not quitting.
> If daddy had given me $60k for school
My daddy never gave me shit. If I wasn't the one paying the $60k I wouldn't have cared who was paying the bill. College was, after all, more fun than working full time.
> it shows a desire to learn, and more importantly it shows fidelity to commitment.
Having a degree doesn't prove anything about your desire to learn, it simply shows a commitment to getting a degree. And neither that commitment or that degree makes you worth _anything_ until you've proven that you can learn on your own, without a professor, and that you can actually _do_ something with that knowledge.
> It turns out that it's a unary argument. One can
> not make an informed decision about it, since
> you either do or do not have the experience
Not necessarily. I spent three years in college, and left before I got my degree. I therefore know what a college education can do, and the bottom line is it doesn't do anything - that's why I left before I finished my degree. In 3 years in college I never learned anything that I needed at work - everything I ever needed I either learned on the job or taught myself at home. To this day I regret wasting 3 years and $60k+ to find that out the hard way.
As for the "it's hard to get a job without a degree" argument - if an employer is judgemental and shortsighted enough to be more interested in a piece of paper than he is in my knowledge, experience and abilities, I don't want to work for him anyway.
And promoting Linux as a free, open source project would serve exactly that purpose. Insisting that it be named GNU/Linux simply because it makes use of GNU software (even heavy use of GNU software) makes GNU look like a collection of egomaniacs who want credit for writing software, not a community of revolutionaries who truly believe in free software.
If RMS were truly interested in free software and not in shameless self-promotion, he'd be less interested in what it's called, who wrote it and who gets credit for it than whether or not it's free software.
April Fool's or not, this stupid GNU vs. Linux argument is really getting on my nerves.