No relationship what so ever, forced health insurance is a way to make it hard to prefer short term benefit (I keep my cash in my pocket when I'm young and in good health, or more to the point, I keep my cash in my pocket when you my employee is young and in good health or clueless or withouth any way out) vs long term security, and then let the collectivity carry the bucket when you are old and sick and poor and insurance less but still able to convince your community that letting you die of preventable deseases is not a good idea...
The fact that health care is forced or not has no bearing on the ethics of letting anybody access health care records, for something you didn't want to.
You try to push two unrelated agendas, in the same vein I could write something like "oh you want a strong army to make the US secure, so of course you'd welcome a military dictatorship, since that would make the army real strong...", you'd find this stupid and insulting, and it would be a waste of time since the second part (dictatorship bad !) will suppress any chance of seriously discussing the first part (military spending)...
Like to post about privacy but what you really say is something like : Obamacare really bad !! boohoo !! bad bad bad !!!, anybody for Obamacare no right on privacy because Obamacare really bad... Well polite trolling is still trolling....
The problem with you're "choice three" is it would really become choice one. The Arabs have been pretty consistant over the past 65 years or so about their goals for Israel, and those goals do not include allowing Jews to live a free members of secular democracy. In fact, their goals pretty much consist of "drive the Jews into the sea"
By the way, why is Israel the only nation in the middle east which is expected to become a diverse democracy without reference to any specific religion, ethnic origin or nation?
Oh, that's right, because the world has a double standard for Jews.
You are probably right, after all, all the surrounding countries do have some religious and/or nationalistic setup in their "constitution", but in the very unlickely case that the majority of the people living in this geographical position would decide that this is a good idea it might even work, it would piss off the neighbours since it would mean the loss of the "enemy" and end the justification for many militar gravy programs...
And I didn't wrote that Israel should be the only nation, it is just the nation with the biggest problem, the situation is similar in Iran (Kurds vs Persian vs Arabs vs Balouche & Shia vs Sunni vs Armenian etc...) Barheim and Saudi (Suni vs Shia) Jordan (Jordanian citizens vs Palestinian refugees) Irak, Afghanistan etc... none of these countries have something even remotely like an "uniform setup"...
So it has nothing to do with a "double standard" and you might want to avoid equating Jews and Israel, nor all Jews are or want to be Israely, and not all Israel are or want to be Jews...
And yes the world or at least a rather large part of it has a double standard for Jews, and it's very very wrong, and sometimes bafling when it happens in places where there are almost no Jews, the fact that this is wrong does not make any policy created by the government of Israel correct (or incorrect for that matter of fact)
the near future two main issues are : " Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Arab-Israeli conflict ".
So that's cool, both problems have their roots in the 1920th and not looking close to any sort of solution, Iran can transform their nuclear industry into a chocolate factory as long as they do not give their petrol for "real cheap" absence of proof not being proof of absence it can still serve as a bogey man (and they do enough creepy stuff inside to make it hard for them to be really "liked"), and the end of the Arab Israeli conflict can only be solved in three ways, - decide that palestine is all arab (and muslim) - decide that israel is all isrealy (and jewish) - decide that this vaguely federal country to be named is a democratic country with people of various ethnic and religious back ground who need to live together and the only way this can happen is to totally extirpate any reference to any specific religion, ethnic origin or "nation".
Choice one and two would mean lots of dead people, choice three would be seen as a "bad example" for the neighbours and protectors...
So Obama ignored the issue, and is just doing a "domestic" pitch for "more money to the war mongers..."
And of course a "think of the children" in syria is a brillant way to distract attention, the "chemical weapon" issue is a total red hering, it is just something that can justify doing nothing while vaguely pretending to do something. What the F*ck does it matter if you are pounded by mustard gaz or large amounts of bombs (except that chemical weapons are somewhat lower tech than "conventional" weapons, so the risk of doing them "at home" is higher and it makes the was less profitable for the foreign weapon makers, how positively tragic...)
Of course we are completely clueless about what we could possible do, the intervention in Libya for instance has just replaced one mean and cruel dictator with a dozen mean little would be dictators...
In reality the US lost all wars in the middle east when they agreed to let Irak introduce religion in their constitution, at that very point it demonstrated that democracy was dead in Irak and not even remotely the goal of the US occupation. (And no it is not the specific type of religion that is at the issue, but the simple fact that something written/revealed/produced/inspired (take your pick) a long time ago would now be a base that cannot be deviated from for all future elected people's representatives....)
Any idea how big the "capital investment" budget of the NSA is ? The IT part alone is probably enought to run half a dozen third world governments.
So "smart" people build their contact list while negociating very large contract to the benefit of external contractants. While "brillant" people loose their time trying to find a way to do the same for much less, or even worse questionning the value of doing whatever they are supposed to.
'This is why you don't hire brilliant people for jobs like this. You hire smart people. Brilliant people get you in trouble.'
Are brilliant people with integrity not available or do they simply cost to much.
That is not the problem, brilliant people with integrity might believe that doing things that benefit certain companies at the detriment of the general public is something that a public organization should not do, and they might try to fix this... very bad...
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man directs traffic.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man gets beaten up by the mob who thinks he talks funy and pretends "see" things that are farther that you can touch so is obviously a dangerous mad man.
I guess that for the unnamed official, anybody with minimal competencies in what they do are "brilliant", he probably is probably the "amicable jock" kind who instinctively distrust anybody who applies some analytical skills to a situation, instead of just waiting to be told what to do.
About the info that Snowden leaked in practice there was strictly nothing new, but it removed a thin layer of "plausible deniability". Unfortunately it also moved the conversation from "is this acceptable" to "is Snowden a bad or good guy".
It also revealed that people do not care at all; Snowden probably hoped for a "schockwave rider" moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider) but most of the people forgot all about the core issues after the next twerking video, and the legal theater around snowder (or assange) only serves to send a message to other would be whistleblower. In reality the "whistle has been blown", but without a set of organization that really want to take away to power from those who have it and do something better with it, it does not matter...
All it takes is for bad or missing answers to cost points. Then you need to be very lucky to randomly select the "good answers" and only them,and then you need to be lucky in all the mandatory fields... prob is much lower then 1/24K
You might be using the open source driver and not the nvidia driver. We use Two GTX220 or GT650 and plug three or four terminals withouth any hassle, but we do use the proprietary nvidia driver.
And the result is quite fast (we typically test our games on two full HD monitors while running our development tools in one or two others.
I suspect the NVS450 is also more expensive than our setup:-)
BTW we use either debian or ubuntu depending of the whim of each developper.
The Fascist did not outlaw Trade Unions, they just outlawed the ones they did not control. The Nazi is short for National Socialist and started as a "left wing" nationalist party.
And both the Russian Bolsheviks, and the various type of European Fascists worked mostly for the ruling party. The main structural difference is that Authoritarian Communists take control of all the production infrastructure and transfer the effective ownership to a bureaucracy that is stemming from the party, whereas the Fascists organize a deal with a small number of very rich people/corporations and in exchange of state sponsored monopolies get a big slice of the profits from these enterprises.
For the people bellow it does not change anything their only issue is to find out if they are part of the selected minority that is used to get the rest of the population scared and in line.
The model is that the state is powerful enough to oppress about 4 to 6% of the population (the selection criteria do not matter, you can always find a narrative that fits and justify the oppression) this is small enough to be doable, and large enough that the minority in the rest of the population prefers to do nothing for fear of becoming part of the oppressed. And it gives enough opportunities of redistributions to butter a little bit the daily fare of the masses and enrich the top party members.
UnCheck, massive disparition of species is not something that should be "nerd" specific.
"stuff that matters" [ ] Not so much.
DoCheck, it matters way more than the launch of the latest iSomething whose only "interesting" feature is the way it perfects a little bit more the trapping of the sheeps. If we do not succeed in limitting the loss of biodiversity, at some not too far point the "quick fix" will be to get rid of us.
No there is not "easy" way, you have to learn stuff, and since you "need" to be on Windows, you demonstrated that you are not the kind of person who is interested in understanding how things work, so you'll probably fail. Meanwhile you should use CUDA, since you are allready bowing to one overlord, why not go on and dig yourself deeper into vendor lock-in.
People who actually want to do some thing either are using openCL if they need some results in a reasonable time and do not plan to be trapped into a specific HW technology.
If I'd just want to try out ideas I'd probably use Rust or Harlan, Rust is more Cish Harlan is Schemish.. And the real issue is to think of the application as a conjunct of the GPU and the CPU, and remember Amdhal's law...
Originally when the concept of "degree of separation was invented" the idea was that everybody was connected to everybody through 6 degree of separation. At the same time people think that are "the good guy" who does not keep "bad company".
With social media the length of the separation chain has considerably shrunk.
Add to this that most people who "do something interesting" (like making really nice flower arrangement for instance) will tend to travel and meet a "much smaller" crowd of people who "move around".
In this "smaller world" you can make "very short chains" to quite shady people. Actually it is trivial to create a chain from any US politician to "big list of officially evil guy" that at most 4 level deep. (For instance Ex HP Head Carly Fiorina went to KSA and met large HP clients including the heads of SBL managed by the brother of that really bad guy who did get some support from the ex President(s) Bush when he was against the Soviets... And now comes the "suspicion creep" if you know Fiorina and one or tow of the Bushes, then you know 2 suspicious characters that are 3 or less level away from Really Suspicious guy. So "one" could be ok, but 2 humm very bad...
So unless you take great pain to avoid anybody that might "be out of the ordinary", you imediatelly are 100% sure to become somehow "in contact" with somebody "suspicious".
Or seen another way, being not completely boring gets you something like 200 contacts, among which you can expect at least 3 "super connectors" who do not really overlap, particularly if you are travelling, so taking in account diminishing returns it is hard to avoid having less the 3M "level 3 contacts" or 1/1000 of all adults in the world
the probability that less than 2 are "bad guys" is quite low.
I disagree and although I cannot be sure I do not believe it would be the full position of Linus, for example the "custom" of the group was to use BitKeeper and he decided to write git and get everybody to move to it, and I would credit him with the thought that if at that exact time the issues of BitKeeper became clear, a "new member" would have presented a program with more or less the featureset of git he would have adopted it and not suffered from NIH syndrome
I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to say here. Linus wrote git. And we all are better of for having git. That's the aiming for the best results part. You seem to be claiming that this is irrelevant, because you can make up some hypothetical situation in which you can imagine Linus to fall for NIH syndrome. Is that really your argument?
I mean that when changing gets good results it is worth while to change, and if you would read what I write instead of trying to "protect linus" when I'm not attacking him, I wrote exactly the contrary, I said I believe that he would not refuse to change "just because it's not him".
well the "middle ground" is to architect the filesystem so that it can reasonably cleanly support a variety of file systems without too much cost to the "common base", and part of the negociation is to yell at people if they want to add stuff that would break something in the core in order to make it easier to support something that it not really indispensable.
"Fixing" something by breaking something else has already been tried multiple times in the kernel. It has always been a fiasco. If you aim for the best results you have to stop this practice.
so you are saying the same thing that I'm saying...
From what I read about Linus's position, it is not that he is not about negotiating [...] and defining what yields the best result is a "negotiation"
Then you should reread what he actually wrote. His position is that breaking user land is not acceptable. His position is that this is not negotiable.
So you mean because something very bad is not negotiable, negociating is bad in itself, of course breaking user land is bad, it does not mean that there is only one single way to do anything in the kernel for everything...
"sexist aggression", but "sexist strong language"
Where are his sexist comments? Citation needed.
Gee again I didn't comment on Linus initial point but answered a specific posting about "how to enter a club", and I did not imply that Linus or anybody else specific was making sexist comments, but saying very specifically that "strong language" is not necessary "sexist aggression".
To give an example I believe that you "want" to read into my message things that are not there, and instead of trying to make an opinion for yourself on what I write you try to read into my text something that fit the opinion you allready had. So at this specific moment I have the feeling that you are thick as a brick, this is "strong language", if I would try to lookup your profile and taking in account whatever gender/ethnic/politic/etc... caracteristics I would find about you and say that you are a and that is the reason why of course you are thick as a brick... that would be "aggressive" and insulting to people who share the chosen caracteristic but are not thick as a brick...
And refusing to change because "we've always been doing things that way" is a good way to become stagnant and irrelevant.
That's a straw man. No one is arguing that "we've always been doing things that way". You just made that up. Linus' argument is: "The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle", and I mean it.
It would be if I would be commenting Linus's position, and not the message I was replying to, the message I was replying to said "if you join a group you should abide by their rules and custom or leave", I disagree and although I cannot be sure I do not believe it would be the full position of Linus, for example the "custom" of the group was to use BitKeeper and he decided to write git and get everybody to move to it, and I would credit him with the thought that if at that exact time the issues of BitKeeper became clear, a "new member" would have presented a program with more or less the featureset of git he would have adopted it and not suffered from NIH syndrome
And the whole idea of "our way or no way" stinks, there is something called negociation and the middleground
That's the point Linus is trying to make. Linux development is not about negotiations and middle ground; he argues that both of them are just lame pc bullshit and that he only cares about choosing the development process that yields the best results.
From what I read about Linus's position, it is not that he is not about negotiating, he just request the right to negociate by hitting the table with the fist (virtually, in pratice write "strong" letters
and defining what yields the best result is a "negotiation", for example linux does not the all the "crap" that enables it to interface proprietary file systems formats compatible with windows and macosx, "they are wrong anyway", well the "middle ground" is to architect the filesystem so that it can reasonably cleanly support a variety of file systems without too much cost to the "common base", and part of the negociation is to yell at people if they want to add stuff that would break something in the core in order to make it easier to support something that it not really indispensable.
so negotiations and mittle ground are not "pc bullshit", and "strong language" is not "sexist aggression", but "sexist strong language" is a sexist aggression, and using "pc" weasel word to pretend negotiate when in practice you are not is just as bad
There is not always somewhere else to go, or at least the cost of not being there might be too high. And refusing to change because "we've always been doing things that way" is a good way to become stagnant and irrelevant.
And the whole idea of "our way or no way" stinks, there is something called negociation and the middleground...
Is is not "Political incorrectness" but stupid, and not funny...
If she cannot stand the heat she should grow some, although still probably sexist does not imply that she would have a "natural place" that would be the kitchen.
The smart comment would be: if Sarah cannot stand the heat she should think of the alternative, and for example compare:
We very much regret to announce you that we will have to let you go, and would like to use this opportunity to thank you for all your contributions to the project with Your code stinks you should read it before even thinking of submitting your trash to the trunk, I'm seriously thinking of linking your git to rm
You can survive the second, and it convey a message that makes it easier to avoid the first...
Slashdot Mirror
No relationship what so ever, forced health insurance is a way to make it hard to prefer short term benefit (I keep my cash in my pocket when I'm young and in good health, or more to the point, I keep my cash in my pocket when you my employee is young and in good health or clueless or withouth any way out) vs long term security, and then let the collectivity carry the bucket when you are old and sick and poor and insurance less but still able to convince your community that letting you die of preventable deseases is not a good idea ...
The fact that health care is forced or not has no bearing on the ethics of letting anybody access health care records, for something you didn't want to.
You try to push two unrelated agendas, in the same vein I could write something like "oh you want a strong army to make the US secure, so of course you'd welcome a military dictatorship, since that would make the army real strong ...", you'd find this stupid and insulting, and it would be a waste of time since the second part (dictatorship bad !) will suppress any chance of seriously discussing the first part (military spending)...
Like to post about privacy but what you really say is something like : Obamacare really bad !! boohoo !! bad bad bad !!!, anybody for Obamacare no right on privacy because Obamacare really bad ... ....
Well polite trolling is still trolling
If you tell anything to somebody else it stops being private ?
well I guess we are back to "die gedanken sint frei" and nothing else ...
The problem with you're "choice three" is it would really become choice one. The Arabs have been pretty consistant over the past 65 years or so about their goals for Israel, and those goals do not include allowing Jews to live a free members of secular democracy. In fact, their goals pretty much consist of "drive the Jews into the sea"
By the way, why is Israel the only nation in the middle east which is expected to become a diverse democracy without reference to any specific religion, ethnic origin or nation?
Oh, that's right, because the world has a double standard for Jews.
You are probably right, after all, all the surrounding countries do have some religious and/or nationalistic setup in their "constitution", but in the very unlickely case that the majority of the people living in this geographical position would decide that this is a good idea it might even work, it would piss off the neighbours since it would mean the loss of the "enemy" and end the justification for many militar gravy programs...
And I didn't wrote that Israel should be the only nation, it is just the nation with the biggest problem, the situation is similar in Iran (Kurds vs Persian vs Arabs vs Balouche & Shia vs Sunni vs Armenian etc ...) Barheim and Saudi (Suni vs Shia) Jordan (Jordanian citizens vs Palestinian refugees) Irak, Afghanistan etc ... none of these countries have something even remotely like an "uniform setup"...
So it has nothing to do with a "double standard" and you might want to avoid equating Jews and Israel, nor all Jews are or want to be Israely, and not all Israel are or want to be Jews...
And yes the world or at least a rather large part of it has a double standard for Jews, and it's very very wrong, and sometimes bafling when it happens in places where there are almost no Jews, the fact that this is wrong does not make any policy created by the government of Israel correct (or incorrect for that matter of fact)
the near future two main issues are : " Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Arab-Israeli conflict ".
So that's cool, both problems have their roots in the 1920th and not looking close to any sort of solution, Iran can transform their nuclear industry into a chocolate factory as long as they do not give their petrol for "real cheap" absence of proof not being proof of absence it can still serve as a bogey man (and they do enough creepy stuff inside to make it hard for them to be really "liked"), and the end of the Arab Israeli conflict can only be solved in three ways,
- decide that palestine is all arab (and muslim)
- decide that israel is all isrealy (and jewish)
- decide that this vaguely federal country to be named is a democratic country with people of various ethnic and religious back ground who need to live together and the only way this can happen is to totally extirpate any reference to any specific religion, ethnic origin or "nation".
Choice one and two would mean lots of dead people, choice three would be seen as a "bad example" for the neighbours and protectors...
So Obama ignored the issue, and is just doing a "domestic" pitch for "more money to the war mongers ..."
And of course a "think of the children" in syria is a brillant way to distract attention, the "chemical weapon" issue is a total red hering, it is just something that can justify doing nothing while vaguely pretending to do something. ...)
What the F*ck does it matter if you are pounded by mustard gaz or large amounts of bombs (except that chemical weapons are somewhat lower tech than "conventional" weapons, so the risk of doing them "at home" is higher and it makes the was less profitable for the foreign weapon makers, how positively tragic
Of course we are completely clueless about what we could possible do, the intervention in Libya for instance has just replaced one mean and cruel dictator with a dozen mean little would be dictators...
In reality the US lost all wars in the middle east when they agreed to let Irak introduce religion in their constitution, at that very point it demonstrated that democracy was dead in Irak and not even remotely the goal of the US occupation.
(And no it is not the specific type of religion that is at the issue, but the simple fact that something written/revealed/produced/inspired (take your pick) a long time ago would now be a base that cannot be deviated from for all future elected people's representatives....)
That is what would make me feel really safe (preferably as an internationally enforced soldier uniform world wide)
It would also be much cheaper!
They wrote about this in Sanctuary, so now we need to be afraid, very afraid :-)
Any idea how big the "capital investment" budget of the NSA is ?
The IT part alone is probably enought to run half a dozen third world governments.
So "smart" people build their contact list while negociating very large contract to the benefit of external contractants.
While "brillant" people loose their time trying to find a way to do the same for much less, or even worse questionning the
value of doing whatever they are supposed to.
Yeah, hire that incompetent idiot who will design the security precautions wrong in the first place. That'll work a lot better.
Can't do that, he left three years ago and is now working for something like northrop grumman or bechtel .... selling platforms to the NSA...
'This is why you don't hire brilliant people for jobs like this. You hire smart people. Brilliant people get you in trouble.'
Are brilliant people with integrity not available or do they simply cost to much.
That is not the problem, brilliant people with integrity might believe that doing things that benefit certain companies at the detriment of the general public is something that a public organization should not do, and they might try to fix this... very bad...
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man directs traffic.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man gets beaten up by the mob who thinks he talks funy and pretends "see" things that are farther that you can touch so is obviously a dangerous mad man.
So, having a way to change your identity to another users is brilliant?
All System Admins must be brilliant!
That is certainly the opinion of most sysadmins :-)
I guess that for the unnamed official, anybody with minimal competencies in what they do are "brilliant", he probably is probably the "amicable jock" kind who instinctively distrust anybody who applies some analytical skills to a situation, instead of just waiting to be told what to do.
About the info that Snowden leaked in practice there was strictly nothing new, but it removed a thin layer of "plausible deniability".
Unfortunately it also moved the conversation from "is this acceptable" to "is Snowden a bad or good guy".
It also revealed that people do not care at all; Snowden probably hoped for a "schockwave rider" moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider)
but most of the people forgot all about the core issues after the next twerking video, and the legal theater around snowder (or assange) only serves to send a message to other would be whistleblower.
In reality the "whistle has been blown", but without a set of organization that really want to take away to power from those who have it and do something better with it, it does not matter...
unfortunately
All it takes is for bad or missing answers to cost points.
Then you need to be very lucky to randomly select the "good answers" and only them,and then you need to be lucky in all the mandatory fields...
prob is much lower then 1/24K
Insert Obligatory Carly Fiorina Joke...
That is totaly false, there are a huge amount of High Level Graphics Cards on Linux Servers, only they do not do graphics but number crunching...
It would be quite hard for Nvidia to support the Tesla on Linux for scientic computing, and not support the Titan on Linux...
And I suspect that there are enough bsd based number crunchers to explain the support of bsd by Nvidia for ahemm graphics
You might be using the open source driver and not the nvidia driver.
We use Two GTX220 or GT650 and plug three or four terminals withouth any hassle, but we do use the proprietary nvidia driver.
And the result is quite fast (we typically test our games on two full HD monitors while running our development tools in one or two others.
I suspect the NVS450 is also more expensive than our setup :-)
BTW we use either debian or ubuntu depending of the whim of each developper.
The Fascist did not outlaw Trade Unions, they just outlawed the ones they did not control.
The Nazi is short for National Socialist and started as a "left wing" nationalist party.
And both the Russian Bolsheviks, and the various type of European Fascists worked mostly for the ruling party.
The main structural difference is that Authoritarian Communists take control of all the production infrastructure and transfer the effective ownership to a bureaucracy that is stemming from the party, whereas the Fascists organize a deal with a small number of very rich people/corporations and in exchange of state sponsored monopolies get a big slice of the profits from these enterprises.
For the people bellow it does not change anything their only issue is to find out if they are part of the selected minority that is used to get the rest of the population scared and in line.
The model is that the state is powerful enough to oppress about 4 to 6% of the population (the selection criteria do not matter, you can always find a narrative that fits and justify the oppression) this is small enough to be doable, and large enough that the minority in the rest of the population prefers to do nothing for fear of becoming part of the oppressed.
And it gives enough opportunities of redistributions to butter a little bit the daily fare of the masses and enrich the top party members.
"news for nerds" [x] Check.
UnCheck, massive disparition of species is not something that should be "nerd" specific.
"stuff that matters" [ ] Not so much.
DoCheck, it matters way more than the launch of the latest iSomething whose only "interesting" feature is the way it perfects a little bit more the trapping of the sheeps.
If we do not succeed in limitting the loss of biodiversity, at some not too far point the "quick fix" will be to get rid of us.
No there is not "easy" way, you have to learn stuff, and since you "need" to be on Windows, you demonstrated that you are not the kind of person who is interested in understanding how things work, so you'll probably fail.
Meanwhile you should use CUDA, since you are allready bowing to one overlord, why not go on and dig yourself deeper into vendor lock-in.
People who actually want to do some thing either are using openCL if they need some results in a reasonable time and do not plan to be trapped into a specific HW technology.
If I'd just want to try out ideas I'd probably use Rust or Harlan, Rust is more Cish Harlan is Schemish..
And the real issue is to think of the application as a conjunct of the GPU and the CPU, and remember Amdhal's law...
Except you would not need to do anything, nobody lives in a vacuum, so just the "natural" connectors as sufficient to "poison" the network.
Originally when the concept of "degree of separation was invented" the idea was that everybody was connected to everybody through 6 degree of separation.
At the same time people think that are "the good guy" who does not keep "bad company".
With social media the length of the separation chain has considerably shrunk.
Add to this that most people who "do something interesting" (like making really nice flower arrangement for instance) will tend to travel and meet a "much smaller" crowd of people who "move around".
In this "smaller world" you can make "very short chains" to quite shady people. Actually it is trivial to create a chain from any US politician to "big list of officially evil guy" that at most 4 level deep. (For instance Ex HP Head Carly Fiorina went to KSA and met large HP clients including the heads of SBL managed by the brother of that really bad guy who did get some support from the ex President(s) Bush when he was against the Soviets...
And now comes the "suspicion creep" if you know Fiorina and one or tow of the Bushes, then you know 2 suspicious characters that are 3 or less level away from Really Suspicious guy.
So "one" could be ok, but 2 humm very bad...
So unless you take great pain to avoid anybody that might "be out of the ordinary", you imediatelly are 100% sure to become somehow "in contact" with somebody "suspicious".
Or seen another way, being not completely boring gets you something like 200 contacts, among which you can expect at least 3 "super connectors" who do not really overlap, particularly if you are travelling, so taking in account diminishing returns it is hard to avoid having less the 3M "level 3 contacts"
or 1/1000 of all adults in the world
the probability that less than 2 are "bad guys" is quite low.
so be boring or be afraid, very afraid...
I disagree and although I cannot be sure I do not believe it would be the full position of Linus, for example the "custom" of the group was to use BitKeeper and he decided to write git and get everybody to move to it, and I would credit him with the thought that if at that exact time the issues of BitKeeper became clear, a "new member" would have presented a program with more or less the featureset of git he would have adopted it and not suffered from NIH syndrome
I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to say here. Linus wrote git. And we all are better of for having git. That's the aiming for the best results part. You seem to be claiming that this is irrelevant, because you can make up some hypothetical situation in which you can imagine Linus to fall for NIH syndrome. Is that really your argument?
I mean that when changing gets good results it is worth while to change, and if you would read what I write instead of trying to "protect linus" when I'm not attacking him, I wrote exactly the contrary, I said I believe that he would not refuse to change "just because it's not him".
well the "middle ground" is to architect the filesystem so that it can reasonably cleanly support a variety of file systems without too much cost to the "common base", and part of the negociation is to yell at people if they want to add stuff that would break something in the core in order to make it easier to support something that it not really indispensable.
"Fixing" something by breaking something else has already been tried multiple times in the kernel. It has always been a fiasco. If you aim for the best results you have to stop this practice.
so you are saying the same thing that I'm saying ...
From what I read about Linus's position, it is not that he is not about negotiating [...] and defining what yields the best result is a "negotiation"
Then you should reread what he actually wrote. His position is that breaking user land is not acceptable. His position is that this is not negotiable.
So you mean because something very bad is not negotiable, negociating is bad in itself, of course breaking user land is bad, it does not mean that there is only one single way to do anything in the kernel for everything ...
"sexist aggression", but "sexist strong language"
Where are his sexist comments? Citation needed.
Gee again I didn't comment on Linus initial point but answered a specific posting about "how to enter a club", and I did not imply that Linus or anybody else specific was making sexist comments, but saying very specifically that "strong language" is not necessary "sexist aggression".
To give an example I believe that you "want" to read into my message things that are not there, and instead of trying to make an opinion for yourself on what I write you try to read into my text something that fit the opinion you allready had.
So at this specific moment I have the feeling that you are thick as a brick, this is "strong language", if I would try to lookup your profile and taking in account whatever gender/ethnic/politic/etc... caracteristics I would find about you and say that you are a and that is the reason why of course you are thick as a brick... that would be "aggressive" and insulting to people who share the chosen caracteristic but are not thick as a brick...
with this I bid you adieu...
And refusing to change because "we've always been doing things that way" is a good way to become stagnant and irrelevant.
That's a straw man. No one is arguing that "we've always been doing things that way". You just made that up. Linus' argument is: "The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle", and I mean it.
It would be if I would be commenting Linus's position, and not the message I was replying to, the message I was replying to said "if you join a group you should abide by their rules and custom or leave", I disagree and although I cannot be sure I do not believe it would be the full position of Linus, for example the "custom" of the group was to use BitKeeper and he decided to write git and get everybody to move to it, and I would credit him with the thought that if at that exact time the issues of BitKeeper became clear, a "new member" would have presented a program with more or less the featureset of git he would have adopted it and not suffered from NIH syndrome
And the whole idea of "our way or no way" stinks, there is something called negociation and the middleground
That's the point Linus is trying to make. Linux development is not about negotiations and middle ground; he argues that both of them are just lame pc bullshit and that he only cares about choosing the development process that yields the best results.
From what I read about Linus's position, it is not that he is not about negotiating, he just request the right to negociate by hitting the table with the fist (virtually, in pratice write "strong" letters
and defining what yields the best result is a "negotiation", for example linux does not the all the "crap" that enables it to interface proprietary file systems formats compatible with windows and macosx, "they are wrong anyway", well the "middle ground" is to architect the filesystem so that it can reasonably cleanly support a variety of file systems without too much cost to the "common base", and part of the negociation is to yell at people if they want to add stuff that would break something in the core in order to make it easier to support something that it not really indispensable.
so negotiations and mittle ground are not "pc bullshit", and "strong language" is not "sexist aggression", but "sexist strong language" is a sexist aggression, and using "pc" weasel word to pretend negotiate when in practice you are not is just as bad
There is not always somewhere else to go, or at least the cost of not being there might be too high.
And refusing to change because "we've always been doing things that way" is a good way to become stagnant and irrelevant.
And the whole idea of "our way or no way" stinks, there is something called negociation and the middleground...
Is is not "Political incorrectness" but stupid, and not funny...
If she cannot stand the heat she should grow some, although still probably sexist does not imply that she would have a "natural place" that would be the kitchen.
The smart comment would be: if Sarah cannot stand the heat she should think of the alternative, and for example compare:
We very much regret to announce you that we will have to let you go, and would like to use this opportunity to thank you for all your contributions to the project
with
Your code stinks you should read it before even thinking of submitting your trash to the trunk, I'm seriously thinking of linking your git to rm
You can survive the second, and it convey a message that makes it easier to avoid the first...