Because Shrek is generally accepted as a funny, quality movie packed into a tight 90 minute package. If you don't like the movie, it's a matter of poor taste, not poor production.
Let me get this straight. If someone says something that contradicts the general consensus, then they must be a troll?
I know it is hard to imagine, but there are actually people out there who think for themselves instead of just repeating the party line.
He could be a troll, but the only way to tell would be to actually know what he thinks of Shrek, something which is basically impossible.
I normally wouldn't bother replying so late to a post, but it is worth pointing out that you are a complete moron. The grandparent poster was not using generalities, and he didn't construct a strawman - you must have just pulled those out of an intro to logical reasoning textbook. The grandparent offered one specific example, his own college. His point was that smart women went into math, not CS, becuase of the discrimination they faced in the CS department.
You suggestion that we just let people "do what they want to do" ignores the fact that if nothing is done, 50% of the population (women), will not get to do what they want to do. Sometimes corrective action is required to correct for structural biases. I agree that men and women are different. No matter how different they are, though, women should not have to face discrimination.
I hate to be the Gentoo zealot, but here goes: The popularity of Gentoo is due to it's simplicity.
I don't use Gentoo because compiling from source is faster. I don't use Gentoo because it allows me to configure everything. I don't use Gentoo because USE flags give me more power over what is installed. I use Gentoo becuase It Just Works.
Let me make an analogy out of it:
Gentoo:OtherLinuxDistros::OSX:Windows
Until Gentoo, I mostly used RedHat, but I had tried others too (Suse, Slackware). None of them provide the simplicity and ease of use as Gentoo.
Apparently, RedHat, Suse and Mandrake are finally providing the ease of installing and upgrading that Gentoo (and Debian) have been providing. Perhaps I will give them a try sometime again in the future, but for now, I am feel like a new OSX user - I can't imagine ever going back to the old way of doing things.
Assuming the last comment was supposed to be attributed to the crowd, and hadn't actually gone to the crows, you have successfully pointed out that there is more than 1 opinion on the use of eye candy amongst the slashdot crowd. Considering that I am #731805, I am not that shocked. Here is the OSS world, we are allowed (dare I say, even encouraged) to have individual thoughts and opinions.
Judging by the Ctrl+Alt+Del animations, the smooth color fades in Explorer, the few existing vector graphics, the other random programmer art in the technical previews, Avalon is going to be IMPRESSIVE.
Wow, that does sound IMPRESSIVE. I can't begin to imagine how much more work I will get done with Ctrl-Alt-Del animations and color fades in explorer.
that preferences system they use.. it's also know as xml, not some binary registry file.
Wow? XML preferences? Forget GNU/Linux, I am gonna switch to Apple. I thought that open source code and the right to modify and redistribute software made it open, but I had totally forgotten about the preferences format.
i'm sorry, but apple's only form of lock-in is that no other major manufacturers make ppc mobos and ppc chips besides apple and ibm on a wide enough scale to get high enough performance for os x.
Apple's only form of lock-in is that THEIR operating system will only work on THEIR hardware. Once you have that locked-in, there is not much need to lock-in anything else. What incentive is there for others to make PPC mobos and chips if Apple will not allow OSX to run on them?
Sorry to go offtopic, but I have to ask about your sig. Why is the GPL a long term threat? Do you mean a long term threat to programming jobs? Or to usable software? Just curious what you are talking about.
I take issue with your statement that there's no explanation as to why the sith are the way they are.... that reason is simply that they are the dark side
That is not a reason, it is a load of BS. It simply leads to a restatement of the question: Why have the sith embraced the dark side? What do they get out of it? What are their goals? What do they stand for? Perhaps more imporantly, what exactly is the Dark Side? Why does it exist? What is the goal of the dark side?
Excuse me for going off topic, but this leads to an interesting parallel: George Bush and his simple breakdown of terrorism: "the terrorists (pronounced terrace) hate us because of our freedoms" and the black and white distinction that you are either with us (the good guys) or you are with them (the bad guys). If you are with them, you are an evildoer. If you are with us, you are good (even if you are a autocratic dictator who represses your people (Mubarak or Musharraf)).
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and here to stay, and there is NO WAY that we should give up our nuclear systems while certain elements of the third world continue to work on theirs
How does having a nuclear arsenal help protect us from third world dictators? If Kim Jong Il nuked us, do you think we would use nuclear weapons to destroy North Korea? Of course not. We would go to war and demolish the country, but it would happen with conventional weapons. (It would probably look like Iraq II, where the military basically made a beeline for Bagdad and figured that once they took out the government, the people would fall in line.)
What keeps Kim Jong Il (or Saddam or Kadaffi or anyone else for that matter) from nuking us is that they know that using nuclear weapons against the US would mean the end of their rule. The idea of mutually assured destruction assumes that the leaders will do what is in the best interests of they people they are leading. The their world dictators could care less about their people. Instead of mutually assured desctuction, we now have a system which basically says "attack the US as a leader of a country, and you will lose your leadership." This system can be maintained without nuclear weapons.
adv 1: in a graceful manner; "she swooped gracefully" [ant: gracelessly] 2: in a gracious or graceful manner; "he did not have a chance to grow up graciously" [syn: graciously] [ant: ungraciously, ungraciously]
since a dictionary definition of gracefully is "in a gracious manner", I think the original poster is right. Now concede gracefully that you were wrong.
Good for PHP. More projects should stand up to RMS's GPL thuggery.
That is a very insightful comment, since RMS is known for using physical violence to intimidate people into doing something they don't want to do. Of course, if RMS simply used his free speech to advocate a particular position, you would be totally wrong. Good thing that isn't true.
Re:Dictionary shows GPL is less free (as in freedo
on
PHP Not Moving To The GPL
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I don't see how misapplying a ton of definitions helps clarify which license is "free-er". A better way to look at is by analogy.
Take two imaginary places: the US as governed by the constitution, and Anarchyland. (The fact that I refer to the US as governed by the constitution as an imaginary place can by interperted as you like.)
In the US, there are many laws that restrict what you can do: you can't kill people, and you cant buy a television station and broadcast 24/7 that your neighbor picks his nose (unless you neighbor is a public figure, of course). By the techincal definition you seem to be using, every one of these laws takes away your freedom, thus making you less free. In that technical sense, I agree.
In Anarchyland, you can do whatever you want. There are absolutely no laws against anything. You can kill your neighbor if he picks his nose in public. According to your technical definition, Anarchyland has the absolute maximum freedom that could ever be achieved in a society.
Now, look at the end result. In Anarchyland, nobody can leave their house, because they are afraid of being killed. It is incredibly unsafe to drive on the highway, and the end result is that people can hardly do anything. In contrast, the US allows people to basically do what they want, when they want, provided they dont want to kill people. I would call this freedom.
To avoid pissing off the libertarians, I should specify that the analysis doesn't have to work out the way I described it. Perhaps Anarchyland actually provides more freedom in the end. My point is that simply looking at the statues themselves is not enough to determine the freedom they provide or protect. It is necessary to analyze the end result and determine how it affects freedom overall. Simply stating that the GPL has more restrictions is like stating that the US has stricter laws against murder, so people in the US are less free than people in Iraq.
Using a device like Pocketster Pro to actually copy music without payment is no better than shoplifting at FYE or Best Buy
It is no different? What if I tape a song off the radio, and convert it to mp3 and listen to it on my ipod? Is this also exactly the same as shoplifting at Best Buy? If so, I am going to make a trip to Best Buy, since what I described is perfectly legal. As far as I can tell, no court has yet ruled that it is illegial to download music. It is illegial to share music, but just downloading it seems to be protected by fair use. I can't see why the Pocketmaster Pro would be any different.
I understand your opinion, but I am not sure it is grounded in fact.
Two things you will never hear a company executive say:
1. Well, we could make a ton of money if we sold programX for linux, but the people on slashdot will complain, so lets not bother.
2. Well, there is no way we can make money by selling programX for linux, but the people on slashdot will be happy, so lets go ahead and do it
Software companies will embrace the market when it is in their financial interests to do so. That is what companies do. No amount of complaining either way by gnu/linux users is going to change that.
Now, a question: how many people have actually bought DVD software for Windows? I would guess approximately 10. For everyone else, it came bundled with either a computer, or a DVD drive they bought. There fact that there is a commercial DVD player for gnu/linux now is great news for those who want to sell gnu/linux computers. Now they can just bundle the PowerDVD, pay the company that makes it 5 bucks, and not have to worrry about making sure mplayer or xine is properly set up to play DVD's (which can be a pain).
Reasonable prices? A $4.00 cup of coffee is reasonable? LMAO
Ummm, maybe they just really like me there, but I dont think I have ever paid more than 2.50 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks, and the largest size (whatever the italian word for that is) nearly comes in a bucket.
It is getting harder and harder to hate Starbucks every day. I try, but my will is breaking down. They have so much going for them nowdays:
- pretty good coffee
- reasonable prices
- comfortable atmophere, including good music playing and plenty of room to study
Now add the fact that they are making an attempt to sell decent music to non-britney-lovers, and I really have to hand it to them. They know how to wooo a customer.
They'll learn the lesson that no one seems capable of learning from history: you can't rely on expansion to keep up your cash flow forever.
Just ask that other famous Seattle company about how that's working out for 'em.
Yea, Microsoft is really screwed. They will probably be filing for bankrucpy any day now. Well, just as soon as they blow through 40 billion dollars and lose their monopoly on computer operating systems and office productivity software, and their ISP business falls through, and their console stops selling, and every other area that Microsoft is doing pretty well in suddenly collapses.
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. This is a tough one for some people though. Some people that have grown up thinking that self interest automatically is bad, while altruism is automatically good, and a lot of these people will despise the message in this book. That's unfortunate, as this book is one title that people consistently mention when asked what their favorite book is.
The reason that they mention it as their favorite book is that it allows them to feel superior to others, while simulitaniously justifying their own greed. Atlas Shrugged is a ham-handed attempt to browbeat it's readers into agreeing that not only is freemarket capitalism good, but any form of wealth redistribution is evil, and anyone who believes in any form of wealth redistribution is evil, and on top of that, people who make alot of money really are better than the rest of us and we should be worshiping them for what they provide us with and poor people smell.
Okay, maybe I went a little overboard with that last one, but Ayn Rand could have got the same message across in about 10 pages instead of 600 or whatever it is if she wanted to.
I don't have my copy handy, and maybe the haze of a decade or so is too cloudy to see through, but isn't it also a tale about dealing with mental illness and the perspective that comes with middle-age?
It probably is. Fortunately, I have not yet reached middle age, and I tend to be oblivious to my own mental ilnesses, so I probably missed these parts of the book completely.
Actually, when I was reading the book, I though of the mental illness part as a sort of cop-out: like when a movie ends with someone waking up and realizing it was all a dream. I wished the author had put less emphasis on the crazy stuff. Of course, some of it was necessary, but it still leaves me with that uneasy feeling.
Finally, someone mentioned Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I am shocked it hasn't been mentioned sooner. This book provides the best description of what it is like inside the mind of an engineer. Perhaps slashdot is too focused on programmers for people to appreciate a masterpiece of engineering.
That's not what you said...you said that the sunfire would _not_ perform similar to a Ferrari
I did? Where? I can't find it for the life of me.
and you made no mention of spending extra to bring the cost to the same level.
I did mention it, just not directly. I said "it just makes it less competitive at the initial purchase time," implying that you could make a Sunfire competitive if you spent more money on it. Of course, I was being vague in order to show how meaningless the previous posters statement was. It technically could apply to just about anything, and demonstrates nothing about the actual costs of the two things being compared.
the low end Macs are well within the grasp of anyone that was going to hand money over to Dell, HP or IBM
As someone who lusted over the macs, yet ultimately handed over my money to Dell, you are only half right. A mac was within my grasp, but the Dell was within my budget. I still wonder whether I made the right decision.
The only people Macs dont appeal to on a cost basis, are those of us who like to build our own, since we can do it much cheaper than what Dell will sell to you for.
Just to be argumentitive, I don't think this is true either. I used to believe this, but nowdays, Dells are so cheap that there is very little difference in price. The only reason to build my own is that I can reuse alot of components.
Slashdot Mirror
Why mod anyone down for that comment?
Because Shrek is generally accepted as a funny, quality movie packed into a tight 90 minute package. If you don't like the movie, it's a matter of poor taste, not poor production.
Let me get this straight. If someone says something that contradicts the general consensus, then they must be a troll?
I know it is hard to imagine, but there are actually people out there who think for themselves instead of just repeating the party line.
He could be a troll, but the only way to tell would be to actually know what he thinks of Shrek, something which is basically impossible.
I normally wouldn't bother replying so late to a post, but it is worth pointing out that you are a complete moron. The grandparent poster was not using generalities, and he didn't construct a strawman - you must have just pulled those out of an intro to logical reasoning textbook. The grandparent offered one specific example, his own college. His point was that smart women went into math, not CS, becuase of the discrimination they faced in the CS department.
You suggestion that we just let people "do what they want to do" ignores the fact that if nothing is done, 50% of the population (women), will not get to do what they want to do. Sometimes corrective action is required to correct for structural biases. I agree that men and women are different. No matter how different they are, though, women should not have to face discrimination.
perhaps they should take a leaf out of their own experiences
Yes, and then they should make like a tree and sell quality products.
I hate to be the Gentoo zealot, but here goes: The popularity of Gentoo is due to it's simplicity.
I don't use Gentoo because compiling from source is faster. I don't use Gentoo because it allows me to configure everything. I don't use Gentoo because USE flags give me more power over what is installed. I use Gentoo becuase It Just Works.
Let me make an analogy out of it:
Gentoo:OtherLinuxDistros::OSX:Windows
Until Gentoo, I mostly used RedHat, but I had tried others too (Suse, Slackware). None of them provide the simplicity and ease of use as Gentoo.
Apparently, RedHat, Suse and Mandrake are finally providing the ease of installing and upgrading that Gentoo (and Debian) have been providing. Perhaps I will give them a try sometime again in the future, but for now, I am feel like a new OSX user - I can't imagine ever going back to the old way of doing things.
Assuming the last comment was supposed to be attributed to the crowd, and hadn't actually gone to the crows, you have successfully pointed out that there is more than 1 opinion on the use of eye candy amongst the slashdot crowd. Considering that I am #731805, I am not that shocked. Here is the OSS world, we are allowed (dare I say, even encouraged) to have individual thoughts and opinions.
Judging by the Ctrl+Alt+Del animations, the smooth color fades in Explorer, the few existing vector graphics, the other random programmer art in the technical previews, Avalon is going to be IMPRESSIVE.
Wow, that does sound IMPRESSIVE. I can't begin to imagine how much more work I will get done with Ctrl-Alt-Del animations and color fades in explorer.
that preferences system they use.. it's also know as xml, not some binary registry file.
Wow? XML preferences? Forget GNU/Linux, I am gonna switch to Apple. I thought that open source code and the right to modify and redistribute software made it open, but I had totally forgotten about the preferences format.
i'm sorry, but apple's only form of lock-in is that no other major manufacturers make ppc mobos and ppc chips besides apple and ibm on a wide enough scale to get high enough performance for os x.
Apple's only form of lock-in is that THEIR operating system will only work on THEIR hardware. Once you have that locked-in, there is not much need to lock-in anything else. What incentive is there for others to make PPC mobos and chips if Apple will not allow OSX to run on them?
Sorry to go offtopic, but I have to ask about your sig. Why is the GPL a long term threat? Do you mean a long term threat to programming jobs? Or to usable software? Just curious what you are talking about.
I take issue with your statement that there's no explanation as to why the sith are the way they are. ... that reason is simply that they are the dark side
That is not a reason, it is a load of BS. It simply leads to a restatement of the question: Why have the sith embraced the dark side? What do they get out of it? What are their goals? What do they stand for? Perhaps more imporantly, what exactly is the Dark Side? Why does it exist? What is the goal of the dark side?
Excuse me for going off topic, but this leads to an interesting parallel: George Bush and his simple breakdown of terrorism: "the terrorists (pronounced terrace) hate us because of our freedoms" and the black and white distinction that you are either with us (the good guys) or you are with them (the bad guys). If you are with them, you are an evildoer. If you are with us, you are good (even if you are a autocratic dictator who represses your people (Mubarak or Musharraf)).
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and here to stay, and there is NO WAY that we should give up our nuclear systems while certain elements of the third world continue to work on theirs
How does having a nuclear arsenal help protect us from third world dictators? If Kim Jong Il nuked us, do you think we would use nuclear weapons to destroy North Korea? Of course not. We would go to war and demolish the country, but it would happen with conventional weapons. (It would probably look like Iraq II, where the military basically made a beeline for Bagdad and figured that once they took out the government, the people would fall in line.)
What keeps Kim Jong Il (or Saddam or Kadaffi or anyone else for that matter) from nuking us is that they know that using nuclear weapons against the US would mean the end of their rule. The idea of mutually assured destruction assumes that the leaders will do what is in the best interests of they people they are leading. The their world dictators could care less about their people. Instead of mutually assured desctuction, we now have a system which basically says "attack the US as a leader of a country, and you will lose your leadership." This system can be maintained without nuclear weapons.
And how many people buy PCs with Windows on them, and immediately format the disk(s) and install Linux?
17? Maybe 20?
um, try the one below it.
gracefully
adv 1: in a graceful manner; "she swooped gracefully" [ant: gracelessly] 2: in a gracious or graceful manner; "he did not have a chance to grow up graciously" [syn: graciously] [ant: ungraciously, ungraciously]
since a dictionary definition of gracefully is "in a gracious manner", I think the original poster is right. Now concede gracefully that you were wrong.
Good for PHP. More projects should stand up to RMS's GPL thuggery.
That is a very insightful comment, since RMS is known for using physical violence to intimidate people into doing something they don't want to do. Of course, if RMS simply used his free speech to advocate a particular position, you would be totally wrong. Good thing that isn't true.
I don't see how misapplying a ton of definitions helps clarify which license is "free-er". A better way to look at is by analogy.
Take two imaginary places: the US as governed by the constitution, and Anarchyland. (The fact that I refer to the US as governed by the constitution as an imaginary place can by interperted as you like.)
In the US, there are many laws that restrict what you can do: you can't kill people, and you cant buy a television station and broadcast 24/7 that your neighbor picks his nose (unless you neighbor is a public figure, of course). By the techincal definition you seem to be using, every one of these laws takes away your freedom, thus making you less free. In that technical sense, I agree.
In Anarchyland, you can do whatever you want. There are absolutely no laws against anything. You can kill your neighbor if he picks his nose in public. According to your technical definition, Anarchyland has the absolute maximum freedom that could ever be achieved in a society.
Now, look at the end result. In Anarchyland, nobody can leave their house, because they are afraid of being killed. It is incredibly unsafe to drive on the highway, and the end result is that people can hardly do anything. In contrast, the US allows people to basically do what they want, when they want, provided they dont want to kill people. I would call this freedom.
To avoid pissing off the libertarians, I should specify that the analysis doesn't have to work out the way I described it. Perhaps Anarchyland actually provides more freedom in the end. My point is that simply looking at the statues themselves is not enough to determine the freedom they provide or protect. It is necessary to analyze the end result and determine how it affects freedom overall. Simply stating that the GPL has more restrictions is like stating that the US has stricter laws against murder, so people in the US are less free than people in Iraq.
Using a device like Pocketster Pro to actually copy music without payment is no better than shoplifting at FYE or Best Buy
It is no different? What if I tape a song off the radio, and convert it to mp3 and listen to it on my ipod? Is this also exactly the same as shoplifting at Best Buy? If so, I am going to make a trip to Best Buy, since what I described is perfectly legal. As far as I can tell, no court has yet ruled that it is illegial to download music. It is illegial to share music, but just downloading it seems to be protected by fair use. I can't see why the Pocketmaster Pro would be any different.
I understand your opinion, but I am not sure it is grounded in fact.
What about when most users had Windows 3.1?
Wow, that is a convincing argument. Switch from Windows XP to the equivalent of Windowx 3.1.
Two things you will never hear a company executive say:
1. Well, we could make a ton of money if we sold programX for linux, but the people on slashdot will complain, so lets not bother.
2. Well, there is no way we can make money by selling programX for linux, but the people on slashdot will be happy, so lets go ahead and do it
Software companies will embrace the market when it is in their financial interests to do so. That is what companies do. No amount of complaining either way by gnu/linux users is going to change that.
Now, a question: how many people have actually bought DVD software for Windows? I would guess approximately 10. For everyone else, it came bundled with either a computer, or a DVD drive they bought. There fact that there is a commercial DVD player for gnu/linux now is great news for those who want to sell gnu/linux computers. Now they can just bundle the PowerDVD, pay the company that makes it 5 bucks, and not have to worrry about making sure mplayer or xine is properly set up to play DVD's (which can be a pain).
If this happens starbucks and borders will be exactly the same store... why dont they just merge?
Why don't they? Maybe because Starbucks has already practically merged with Barnes and Noble?
Reasonable prices? A $4.00 cup of coffee is reasonable? LMAO
Ummm, maybe they just really like me there, but I dont think I have ever paid more than 2.50 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks, and the largest size (whatever the italian word for that is) nearly comes in a bucket.
It is getting harder and harder to hate Starbucks every day. I try, but my will is breaking down. They have so much going for them nowdays:
- pretty good coffee
- reasonable prices
- comfortable atmophere, including good music playing and plenty of room to study
Now add the fact that they are making an attempt to sell decent music to non-britney-lovers, and I really have to hand it to them. They know how to wooo a customer.
They'll learn the lesson that no one seems capable of learning from history: you can't rely on expansion to keep up your cash flow forever.
Just ask that other famous Seattle company about how that's working out for 'em.
Yea, Microsoft is really screwed. They will probably be filing for bankrucpy any day now. Well, just as soon as they blow through 40 billion dollars and lose their monopoly on computer operating systems and office productivity software, and their ISP business falls through, and their console stops selling, and every other area that Microsoft is doing pretty well in suddenly collapses.
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. This is a tough one for some people though. Some people that have grown up thinking that self interest automatically is bad, while altruism is automatically good, and a lot of these people will despise the message in this book. That's unfortunate, as this book is one title that people consistently mention when asked what their favorite book is.
The reason that they mention it as their favorite book is that it allows them to feel superior to others, while simulitaniously justifying their own greed. Atlas Shrugged is a ham-handed attempt to browbeat it's readers into agreeing that not only is freemarket capitalism good, but any form of wealth redistribution is evil, and anyone who believes in any form of wealth redistribution is evil, and on top of that, people who make alot of money really are better than the rest of us and we should be worshiping them for what they provide us with and poor people smell.
Okay, maybe I went a little overboard with that last one, but Ayn Rand could have got the same message across in about 10 pages instead of 600 or whatever it is if she wanted to.
I don't have my copy handy, and maybe the haze of a decade or so is too cloudy to see through, but isn't it also a tale about dealing with mental illness and the perspective that comes with middle-age?
It probably is. Fortunately, I have not yet reached middle age, and I tend to be oblivious to my own mental ilnesses, so I probably missed these parts of the book completely.
Actually, when I was reading the book, I though of the mental illness part as a sort of cop-out: like when a movie ends with someone waking up and realizing it was all a dream. I wished the author had put less emphasis on the crazy stuff. Of course, some of it was necessary, but it still leaves me with that uneasy feeling.
Finally, someone mentioned Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I am shocked it hasn't been mentioned sooner. This book provides the best description of what it is like inside the mind of an engineer. Perhaps slashdot is too focused on programmers for people to appreciate a masterpiece of engineering.
That's not what you said...you said that the sunfire would _not_ perform similar to a Ferrari
I did? Where? I can't find it for the life of me.
and you made no mention of spending extra to bring the cost to the same level.
I did mention it, just not directly. I said "it just makes it less competitive at the initial purchase time," implying that you could make a Sunfire competitive if you spent more money on it. Of course, I was being vague in order to show how meaningless the previous posters statement was. It technically could apply to just about anything, and demonstrates nothing about the actual costs of the two things being compared.
the low end Macs are well within the grasp of anyone that was going to hand money over to Dell, HP or IBM
As someone who lusted over the macs, yet ultimately handed over my money to Dell, you are only half right. A mac was within my grasp, but the Dell was within my budget. I still wonder whether I made the right decision.
The only people Macs dont appeal to on a cost basis, are those of us who like to build our own, since we can do it much cheaper than what Dell will sell to you for.
Just to be argumentitive, I don't think this is true either. I used to believe this, but nowdays, Dells are so cheap that there is very little difference in price. The only reason to build my own is that I can reuse alot of components.