Re:I am afraid, there is lack of direction for Rub
on
Ruby 1.9.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
How do you know its going to take tons of manhours to get efficiency gains? I'd imagine that if you hired jr. programmers to do the initial round of programming it would only take a few hours of an experienced sr. programmer to identify potential bottlenecks, and either come up with a solution or just fix the problem.
Besides, inefficient code will add up almost exponentially as your load increases. So you could throw hardware as a stopgap, but eventually (if you get large enough) you would have saved a lot more on physical resources if you had taken the time to analyze and solve the problem from the beginning.
They actually might be antagonistic against it somewhat thinking it too impersonal a method of communication.
Was the question whether or not people want internet at all or just upgrading to broadband? If it is people not wanting internet at all, then I don't think they should be "forced" to have it. However, if price can be made a non-issue then I can't think of a compelling reason not to get broadband over dialup.
Some of the funny/snarky comments written here make me wonder if they were ripped (copied/pasted) from some other location. This, however I don't think applies...I mean where else would this come from?
If he was just posting the videos for download and then letting people post them on YouTube
Thought about this for a while, and maybe that "solves" everything. Post the video in a wide variety of formats AND a link to youtube with a disclaimer.
Personally, I don't see any issue with the situation, but the above "solution" seems to cover all bases.
I mean come on if you use the internet, you'll get cooties, um cookies.
For my cookie sessions I have firefox Keep until "Ask every time" and 90%+ of the time I choose to allow for session. So, sites that "require cookes" but don't really require them will work just fine. When I close my browser, then cookies that I don't really care about are gone.
Sure, its a pain at first but once you've got your main sites setup then its not that big of an issue.
Yeah, I checked it out. But I still have to agree that Fox had the best quality stream. Not to mention the fact that it was the easiest to get running under linux.
Couple of legal questions about this. First, how far away was he from the source of the original milk when he cast his spell? Could it ever happen that said "magical milk" crossed state lines? If so, did he properly comply with all federal, state and local laws for intrastate shipment of dairy products? Did he consult with the milk producer concerning the duplication of their logo? Was the magic gallon an exact duplicate of the original? If so, did he also duplicate the RFID tag that would have set off the alarm as he walked out of the store?
Bottom line is that I see several holes in your story here.
Debian users care most about using open source software, where Ubuntu users care most about what "just works."
Well...I care more about stability than anything, and THAT is why I use Debian (on my servers). I do agree with the sentiment about Ubuntu as the "just works" factor is why I use it as my desktop/workstation.
Just want to add in that I've never used Debian outside of a headless server (and I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of people like that), so the whole graphics driver issue is more or less irrelevant for those cases. I mean, I don't need 3d graphics for vi(m), do I?!?
or you have a nice place in a nice neighborhood and have to abide by some little totalitarian HOA
Its interesting that you use the word nice twice. Part of the reason that "nice" neighborhoods are "nice" is that all of the neighbors have some expectation (and definition) of what "nice" is. If you happen to disagree with their definition of "nice" then why would you move into it in the first place?
Part of the reason that HOAs and "explicit laws/rules" exist is because of how litigations and nit-picky we as a country are. If the HOA just said, "keep your yard appearance up" and eventually for whatever reason (laziness, spite, etc) someone stops mowing and then find a lawyer to say that they are justified because no definitions were given. Therefore in response, the HOA defines that grass can only be of a specific variety and must be kept under 2" in height, and the long winding road begins. In general, I think people try to be nice and lenient until they are screwed over. People doing things out of spite "because they can" just make for draconian laws to be put into place.
You red shirt argument is now taking it to the extreme. Most of the time HOAs are comprised of either the entire community of a fairly large subset. Also, generally they must vote in order to change any laws, so one person hating red isn't going to get the entire community to ban it. However, 60" inflatable lawn decorations is something that I think most of the "nice" neighborhoods you speak of would pretty much agree on.
It sounds like you've been burned/frustrated with either a HOA or a neighbor finding (and reporting) every violation that you've made. In that case, yeah it sucks that some people have nothing better to do with their time, but that is hardly a justification to completely abolish or make general assumptions that all HOAs are totalitarian bullies.
As far as the basketball scenario. I definitely see your point. However, devil's advocate time. If you had elderly neighbors that went to bed at 6PM and when you and your kid play night basketball, and it wakes them up. They confront you and your response is "screw you old people. its my house I can do what I want" then they can lobby the HOA to get basketball goals banned, or spend all day finding every single violation you make. Who is right in this case? They would like to sleep peacefully in their home, and you want to play basketball. Unless you can come to some middle ground, then only one person is going to "win" this argument.
I know. I like to play devil's advocate. MGBMorder was taking one extreme and I was giving the counter point. I'm not saying that I agree with either side, but they are both valid arguments.
Me personally, I've had ok experiences with my HOA's. They are one of those things that you don't notice until something goes wrong and they can either be accommodating or power hungry jerks like you mentioned. However, for all but the broom on the balcony example, you were most likely aware of the "rules" before you violated them. The dish and the basketball goal are two good examples. You'd probably know they weren't allowed but figured you take your chances that nobody would care, and most people wouldn't. Trouble is, that most of the time things are allowed to slide up to a tipping point, then that old lady breaks a hip on a basketball (or some other random incident) and then takes a personal vengeance to get things back to spec. You might have had the basketball goal for a few years, but you were actually in violation the whole time...if something had been said as soon as you put it up and never had the chance to get attached to it, then it probably would have been less of an issue. So really, it comes back to the fact that you signed an agreement with your HOA, and for better or worse you have to put up with their rules. Some people will like it, others won't...thats life.
Honestly, at what point does it become OK for an arbitrary group to start dictating what it's members can and can't do with their own property merely out of fear that the rest of the group's rep might get tarnished?
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT STATING THAT YOU WILL ABIDE BY SAID TERMS! That is the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that as a developer, before you are allowed to purchase the home from me, you will enter into a legally binding agreement stating what you will AGREE to do or not do, plain and simple. The terms will be explicit stating what both the "rules" and the "punishments" that you will AGREE to.
So I guess I can't argue with you that since it is your property, you can do whatever you want. I can however hold you to the contract that you SIGNED and AGREED to. It doesn't matter the industry or the circumstances in this case. I'm saying that before I allow you to buy my product I'm going to make you sign a legally binding contract that I will enforce, otherwise you don't buy my product at all.
To bring it back to a more/. style argument this is a very similar situation with DRM. They are dictating the terms that you can use for the media that you purchased. Is it right? Yes and no. It is right/correct in that you purchased the media knowing the limitations and if you violate the terms then you are BREAKING THE LAW. That is an entirely different discussion from whether or not DRM is useful. In most all cases it is not which is why there is now so much resistance against it and you are starting to see DRM-free music available for purchase. But that is the beauty of the whole situation...user choice. I can choose to live in the neighborhood that has restrictions. I don't HAVE to abide by them, but I will be subject to the contract that I signed and the potential impact of it being enforced. You do not have to choose to live in the neighborhood and can go to a different place that has no restrictions and do whatever it is that you would like on the property that you own. But there is a difference and I hope that you can understand that.
Bottom line is that you are going to vote with your dollars. If you and enough people find the restrictions too burdensome to purchase my property, then I will have to consider lifting the restrictions. However, you not liking the restrictions is not a reason for me to not be able to create/enforce them.
I don't think we are going to see eye-to-eye on this one. You have your point about your ownership of the property and your right to do WHATEVER you want to with it. However, I'm going to defend my position in the scenario that when you enter into a purchase agreement you must also sign and agree to additional terms of use that I can dictate. If you are unwilling to sign those terms then I (as a developer) would be unwilling to allow you to purchase my property. Again from the developers standpoint, I can make my stipulations as arcane as I'd like. Its a free market. If they are too restrictive then nobody will purchase the properties and I'll either have to re-evaluate and change them or not sell the properties. However, if the terms are provided equally to all willing buyers and you are unwilling to agree to them (and others are) then frankly you can get bent...somewhere else.
Why stop there...first thing in the morning you should get a coffee seed and plant it. Make sure to water it... ... ...roast your beans... ...
Then grind the beans and wala, the "perfect cup of coffee" in just a hair over 4 years.
You may have a point about someone having say over an existing house that doesn't belong to a neighborhood, but I'm talking about when a new neighborhood is developed, the developer can and should be able to put in restrictions on what is/isn't allowed. When you agree to purchase a home in that neighborhood then you are agreeing (with an explicit agreement you personally signed) to those terms. If you don't agree with the terms, then you can ether a) appeal to someone/something or b) find a different neighborhood.
I have a feeling that if people push too hard against laws that allow these types of restrictions, then you'll begin to see neighborhoods where you don't actually "own" the home (or at least the outside, like with many townhomes) so that they will have more of a say on the regulations concerning "their property". I'm completely for these types of restrictions as it helps to prevent someone having the ability to cause all of their surrounding neighbors property value from falling because someone wanted to "be green" and put a 50ft wind turbine on their roof (yes, I know we were originally talking about solar panels, but this is a more appropriate example).
That's almost akin to saying that the Chinese don't really have any problems with their freedom because they can simply leave if they want to.
No, its more like you are looking to move to a different county and choose China (all the while knowing their laws) and then complaining about them once you get there.
I chose to live in a neighborhood that has restrictions, and I enjoy the fact that when I'll never see something like this in it. My decision has (obviously) not affected that home owners ability to create/decorate a ridiculous/tacky home (by my standards) but I do have some control on whether or not I'll have to live by it.
Your experiences may be correct, but don't let "home schooled" be a label you just put on people. I was home schooled from third grade until high school. During that time I was involved with many extracurricular activities from athletics to various clubs (both social and academic).
When I did come back to high school, I don't think I was any more awkward or disoriented than any of the other kids moving up from middle school. The biggest difference I really noticed was how far ahead I was above most of the students curriculum-wise (even compared to the "advanced" courses I took). Additionally, I earned a starting position for two varsity sports my freshman year (soccer and wrestling), began playing football my sophomore year eventually earning a starting position my junior year. I graduated with a 3.86, was named "most outgoing" and got into a top 25 university (Vanderbilt).
That said, I know exactly the type of people you are talking about. They were some of the most socially awkward people I have ever met. This was mainly due to their parents super controlling nature, and I honestly feel bad for the years it will take them to adapt to the "real world."
Still, my point is that this group in general is sensitive to stereotypes (ie. "Nerd") and the associated negative social connotations that they hold. Home schoolers are no different. Many may have social issues, but that probably has more to do with the atmosphere they grew up in.
To throw a little extra into the debate. I think that home schooling is a fantastic method for teaching when an appropriate environment is available. From the more focused curriculum , to the individual attention, to the flexibility of schedule it has many advantages. However, I think it is all to commonly used by parents who want to control all aspects of their children's lives. It is most often these people who give the overall system a bad reputation. Still even though we may or may not choose to home school our own kids I will adamantly defend it as a choice for parents.
Wait, they are planning a simulation using "perhaps even user-generated content". Doesn't that sound a lot like a really expensive version of...reality?
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know its going to take tons of manhours to get efficiency gains? I'd imagine that if you hired jr. programmers to do the initial round of programming it would only take a few hours of an experienced sr. programmer to identify potential bottlenecks, and either come up with a solution or just fix the problem.
Besides, inefficient code will add up almost exponentially as your load increases. So you could throw hardware as a stopgap, but eventually (if you get large enough) you would have saved a lot more on physical resources if you had taken the time to analyze and solve the problem from the beginning.
They actually might be antagonistic against it somewhat thinking it too impersonal a method of communication.
Was the question whether or not people want internet at all or just upgrading to broadband? If it is people not wanting internet at all, then I don't think they should be "forced" to have it. However, if price can be made a non-issue then I can't think of a compelling reason not to get broadband over dialup.
Bravo.
Some of the funny/snarky comments written here make me wonder if they were ripped (copied/pasted) from some other location. This, however I don't think applies...I mean where else would this come from?
If he was just posting the videos for download and then letting people post them on YouTube
Thought about this for a while, and maybe that "solves" everything. Post the video in a wide variety of formats AND a link to youtube with a disclaimer.
Personally, I don't see any issue with the situation, but the above "solution" seems to cover all bases.
I mean come on if you use the internet, you'll get cooties, um cookies.
For my cookie sessions I have firefox Keep until "Ask every time" and 90%+ of the time I choose to allow for session. So, sites that "require cookes" but don't really require them will work just fine. When I close my browser, then cookies that I don't really care about are gone.
Sure, its a pain at first but once you've got your main sites setup then its not that big of an issue.
It woul
Yeah, I checked it out. But I still have to agree that Fox had the best quality stream. Not to mention the fact that it was the easiest to get running under linux.
Couple of legal questions about this. First, how far away was he from the source of the original milk when he cast his spell? Could it ever happen that said "magical milk" crossed state lines? If so, did he properly comply with all federal, state and local laws for intrastate shipment of dairy products? Did he consult with the milk producer concerning the duplication of their logo? Was the magic gallon an exact duplicate of the original? If so, did he also duplicate the RFID tag that would have set off the alarm as he walked out of the store?
Bottom line is that I see several holes in your story here.
Debian users care most about using open source software, where Ubuntu users care most about what "just works."
Well...I care more about stability than anything, and THAT is why I use Debian (on my servers). I do agree with the sentiment about Ubuntu as the "just works" factor is why I use it as my desktop/workstation.
Just want to add in that I've never used Debian outside of a headless server (and I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of people like that), so the whole graphics driver issue is more or less irrelevant for those cases. I mean, I don't need 3d graphics for vi(m), do I?!?
or you have a nice place in a nice neighborhood and have to abide by some little totalitarian HOA
Its interesting that you use the word nice twice. Part of the reason that "nice" neighborhoods are "nice" is that all of the neighbors have some expectation (and definition) of what "nice" is. If you happen to disagree with their definition of "nice" then why would you move into it in the first place?
Part of the reason that HOAs and "explicit laws/rules" exist is because of how litigations and nit-picky we as a country are. If the HOA just said, "keep your yard appearance up" and eventually for whatever reason (laziness, spite, etc) someone stops mowing and then find a lawyer to say that they are justified because no definitions were given. Therefore in response, the HOA defines that grass can only be of a specific variety and must be kept under 2" in height, and the long winding road begins. In general, I think people try to be nice and lenient until they are screwed over. People doing things out of spite "because they can" just make for draconian laws to be put into place.
You red shirt argument is now taking it to the extreme. Most of the time HOAs are comprised of either the entire community of a fairly large subset. Also, generally they must vote in order to change any laws, so one person hating red isn't going to get the entire community to ban it. However, 60" inflatable lawn decorations is something that I think most of the "nice" neighborhoods you speak of would pretty much agree on.
It sounds like you've been burned/frustrated with either a HOA or a neighbor finding (and reporting) every violation that you've made. In that case, yeah it sucks that some people have nothing better to do with their time, but that is hardly a justification to completely abolish or make general assumptions that all HOAs are totalitarian bullies.
As far as the basketball scenario. I definitely see your point. However, devil's advocate time. If you had elderly neighbors that went to bed at 6PM and when you and your kid play night basketball, and it wakes them up. They confront you and your response is "screw you old people. its my house I can do what I want" then they can lobby the HOA to get basketball goals banned, or spend all day finding every single violation you make. Who is right in this case? They would like to sleep peacefully in their home, and you want to play basketball. Unless you can come to some middle ground, then only one person is going to "win" this argument.
But realistically your example is an extreme.
I know. I like to play devil's advocate. MGBMorder was taking one extreme and I was giving the counter point. I'm not saying that I agree with either side, but they are both valid arguments.
Me personally, I've had ok experiences with my HOA's. They are one of those things that you don't notice until something goes wrong and they can either be accommodating or power hungry jerks like you mentioned. However, for all but the broom on the balcony example, you were most likely aware of the "rules" before you violated them. The dish and the basketball goal are two good examples. You'd probably know they weren't allowed but figured you take your chances that nobody would care, and most people wouldn't. Trouble is, that most of the time things are allowed to slide up to a tipping point, then that old lady breaks a hip on a basketball (or some other random incident) and then takes a personal vengeance to get things back to spec. You might have had the basketball goal for a few years, but you were actually in violation the whole time...if something had been said as soon as you put it up and never had the chance to get attached to it, then it probably would have been less of an issue. So really, it comes back to the fact that you signed an agreement with your HOA, and for better or worse you have to put up with their rules. Some people will like it, others won't...thats life.
It would be interesting to see what type of hallucination KDE would cause then.
Honestly, at what point does it become OK for an arbitrary group to start dictating what it's members can and can't do with their own property merely out of fear that the rest of the group's rep might get tarnished?
WHEN YOU SIGN A CONTRACT STATING THAT YOU WILL ABIDE BY SAID TERMS! That is the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that as a developer, before you are allowed to purchase the home from me, you will enter into a legally binding agreement stating what you will AGREE to do or not do, plain and simple. The terms will be explicit stating what both the "rules" and the "punishments" that you will AGREE to.
/. style argument this is a very similar situation with DRM. They are dictating the terms that you can use for the media that you purchased. Is it right? Yes and no. It is right/correct in that you purchased the media knowing the limitations and if you violate the terms then you are BREAKING THE LAW. That is an entirely different discussion from whether or not DRM is useful. In most all cases it is not which is why there is now so much resistance against it and you are starting to see DRM-free music available for purchase. But that is the beauty of the whole situation...user choice. I can choose to live in the neighborhood that has restrictions. I don't HAVE to abide by them, but I will be subject to the contract that I signed and the potential impact of it being enforced. You do not have to choose to live in the neighborhood and can go to a different place that has no restrictions and do whatever it is that you would like on the property that you own. But there is a difference and I hope that you can understand that.
So I guess I can't argue with you that since it is your property, you can do whatever you want. I can however hold you to the contract that you SIGNED and AGREED to. It doesn't matter the industry or the circumstances in this case. I'm saying that before I allow you to buy my product I'm going to make you sign a legally binding contract that I will enforce, otherwise you don't buy my product at all.
To bring it back to a more
Bottom line is that you are going to vote with your dollars. If you and enough people find the restrictions too burdensome to purchase my property, then I will have to consider lifting the restrictions. However, you not liking the restrictions is not a reason for me to not be able to create/enforce them.
I don't think we are going to see eye-to-eye on this one. You have your point about your ownership of the property and your right to do WHATEVER you want to with it. However, I'm going to defend my position in the scenario that when you enter into a purchase agreement you must also sign and agree to additional terms of use that I can dictate. If you are unwilling to sign those terms then I (as a developer) would be unwilling to allow you to purchase my property. Again from the developers standpoint, I can make my stipulations as arcane as I'd like. Its a free market. If they are too restrictive then nobody will purchase the properties and I'll either have to re-evaluate and change them or not sell the properties. However, if the terms are provided equally to all willing buyers and you are unwilling to agree to them (and others are) then frankly you can get bent...somewhere else.
Why stop there...first thing in the morning you should get a coffee seed and plant it. Make sure to water it...
...
...roast your beans...
...
Then grind the beans and wala, the "perfect cup of coffee" in just a hair over 4 years.
You may have a point about someone having say over an existing house that doesn't belong to a neighborhood, but I'm talking about when a new neighborhood is developed, the developer can and should be able to put in restrictions on what is/isn't allowed. When you agree to purchase a home in that neighborhood then you are agreeing (with an explicit agreement you personally signed) to those terms. If you don't agree with the terms, then you can ether a) appeal to someone/something or b) find a different neighborhood.
I have a feeling that if people push too hard against laws that allow these types of restrictions, then you'll begin to see neighborhoods where you don't actually "own" the home (or at least the outside, like with many townhomes) so that they will have more of a say on the regulations concerning "their property". I'm completely for these types of restrictions as it helps to prevent someone having the ability to cause all of their surrounding neighbors property value from falling because someone wanted to "be green" and put a 50ft wind turbine on their roof (yes, I know we were originally talking about solar panels, but this is a more appropriate example).
Not true. I put worms in my tequila...helps with the flavor.
That's almost akin to saying that the Chinese don't really have any problems with their freedom because they can simply leave if they want to.
No, its more like you are looking to move to a different county and choose China (all the while knowing their laws) and then complaining about them once you get there.
I chose to live in a neighborhood that has restrictions, and I enjoy the fact that when I'll never see something like this in it. My decision has (obviously) not affected that home owners ability to create/decorate a ridiculous/tacky home (by my standards) but I do have some control on whether or not I'll have to live by it.
Alone time in house (away from kids, wife) to work on porn.
There, fixed that for you.
Your experiences may be correct, but don't let "home schooled" be a label you just put on people. I was home schooled from third grade until high school. During that time I was involved with many extracurricular activities from athletics to various clubs (both social and academic).
When I did come back to high school, I don't think I was any more awkward or disoriented than any of the other kids moving up from middle school. The biggest difference I really noticed was how far ahead I was above most of the students curriculum-wise (even compared to the "advanced" courses I took). Additionally, I earned a starting position for two varsity sports my freshman year (soccer and wrestling), began playing football my sophomore year eventually earning a starting position my junior year. I graduated with a 3.86, was named "most outgoing" and got into a top 25 university (Vanderbilt).
That said, I know exactly the type of people you are talking about. They were some of the most socially awkward people I have ever met. This was mainly due to their parents super controlling nature, and I honestly feel bad for the years it will take them to adapt to the "real world."
Still, my point is that this group in general is sensitive to stereotypes (ie. "Nerd") and the associated negative social connotations that they hold. Home schoolers are no different. Many may have social issues, but that probably has more to do with the atmosphere they grew up in.
To throw a little extra into the debate. I think that home schooling is a fantastic method for teaching when an appropriate environment is available. From the more focused curriculum , to the individual attention, to the flexibility of schedule it has many advantages. However, I think it is all to commonly used by parents who want to control all aspects of their children's lives. It is most often these people who give the overall system a bad reputation. Still even though we may or may not choose to home school our own kids I will adamantly defend it as a choice for parents.
Lets hope not windows as I'd hate to get the BBOD (Blue Balls of Death).
ISBN: 1-56592-257-3
Obligatory xkcd post
Wait, what was I doing here?!?
I had a couple of mod points, but I honestly couldn't decide between funny and insightful. Either way, I'm going to start using this one: =[:~;X(---[
I'm not exactly sure what it is, but I think there is a top hat and a bowtie in there somehow.
Wait, they are planning a simulation using "perhaps even user-generated content". Doesn't that sound a lot like a really expensive version of...reality?