Yeah, he had a section of his writing that had a kinda sloppy counter-argument to this, but advertising and a true free market, according to neoliberals, are fundamentally contradictory.
Not just in the news, but documented as having worked with software companies to inject backdoors into software, and hints that they may have specifically solicited Linus to do that with Linux.
Luckily, the only people asking that question can't afford to buy time slots on television to campaign come election season, so the poor can just suffer.
The most common crimes like vandalism can't be explained at all through greed. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. You should also stop pretending that the two causes you imagine might motivate you to crime are the only ones that motivate anyone.
Desperation from a drug addiction, for example, is still desperation. Peoples' minds can be messed up without them inherently containing a special flaw that separates them from you.
That's an awful lot of incredulity towards the fact that I have an opinion and recognize it as such. I'm not sure what to tell you, other than chill. I could do without the patent nonsense entirely, but once you accept it, this situation is quite complex.
Well, in my own view, the problem is the "blatantness". The obvious, easily-seen facets of what happened appear prejudicial. The nuance of the situation basically gets no discussion.
Earn a bunch of money in a completely ethical way, as you make sure to not cook the books when your boss asks you do. Do trivial sums, and make sure the black outweighs the red, in the most action-unpacked simulator of the year.
Escapism is bad, and we should get as much boring reality into our games as possible. No more unrealistic lack of consequences from violence.
Play the new military shooter, where you patrol the same ground for 3 weeks straight, and nothing happens until several of your friends are injured in an IED attack, and you heroically call for backup and occasionally provide cover fire, setting the stage for the next 8 weeks of recovering in the hospital.
"Won't listen" to what, exactly? Won't blindly accept your neo-anarchist screed without reason? Won't drop my own opinion on the basis that you disagree? What is wrong with your brain?
I'm more than willing to change my mind in the face of actual arguments. And I have numerous times in the past. It's not my fault you have no basis to the things you believe.
Pragmatically, I've never written a complex server application that loads more than 20(and by that time, there was server-side auto-bundling going on), and most of those were part of the open-source platform, not the actual behavior of the application I wrote.
I'm not sure what you want. The rendering engine was 3d. There was a z axis. Do you want to have 3 degrees of freedom of movement? Because that is a UI nightmare, and blizzard is a company built on slick polish.
(No amount of polish will make up for always-online.)
You want backups to save you when you do something really stupid you should never do, and that ought to be rare. Critical backups also have tertiaries, in case that blows at the same time. Even with nuclear reactors, there is no such thing as "completely safe" and people like you would sacrifice the safe in the name of the perfect.
"You clearly have no idea what you're talking about since you disagree with my unsupported hypothesis that dictates my wide range of extreme views. I'm going to leave now because you're hopeless on no particular grounds.(and not because I'm uncomfortable with the degree of support my own beliefs have)"
How about the fact that you don't back up your statement in the slightest just leaving us with a bald assertion that can be countered just as easily by stating the opposite?
Or, if I wanted to take a route of argumentative superiority, I could cite a authoritative source on the purpose of government in this country:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Yes, it's a large company that uses institutional software. It wasn't collaboration software, but from a deployment perspective, the exact nature makes no difference.
The point of authority figures is to do more good than harm, and sometimes they really don't even make that low bar. The bill of rights was an attempt to stop the most common ways authority figures could do harm to help balance that equation better.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess what we have here. A reference! A publication officially saying that description is wrong.
Yeah, he had a section of his writing that had a kinda sloppy counter-argument to this, but advertising and a true free market, according to neoliberals, are fundamentally contradictory.
Not just in the news, but documented as having worked with software companies to inject backdoors into software, and hints that they may have specifically solicited Linus to do that with Linux.
Luckily, the only people asking that question can't afford to buy time slots on television to campaign come election season, so the poor can just suffer.
The most common crimes like vandalism can't be explained at all through greed. Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. You should also stop pretending that the two causes you imagine might motivate you to crime are the only ones that motivate anyone.
Desperation from a drug addiction, for example, is still desperation. Peoples' minds can be messed up without them inherently containing a special flaw that separates them from you.
That's an awful lot of incredulity towards the fact that I have an opinion and recognize it as such. I'm not sure what to tell you, other than chill. I could do without the patent nonsense entirely, but once you accept it, this situation is quite complex.
Well, in my own view, the problem is the "blatantness". The obvious, easily-seen facets of what happened appear prejudicial. The nuance of the situation basically gets no discussion.
Earn a bunch of money in a completely ethical way, as you make sure to not cook the books when your boss asks you do. Do trivial sums, and make sure the black outweighs the red, in the most action-unpacked simulator of the year.
Escapism is bad, and we should get as much boring reality into our games as possible. No more unrealistic lack of consequences from violence.
Play the new military shooter, where you patrol the same ground for 3 weeks straight, and nothing happens until several of your friends are injured in an IED attack, and you heroically call for backup and occasionally provide cover fire, setting the stage for the next 8 weeks of recovering in the hospital.
And jump ship before the long-term consequences of your actions become apparent.
"Won't listen" to what, exactly? Won't blindly accept your neo-anarchist screed without reason? Won't drop my own opinion on the basis that you disagree? What is wrong with your brain?
I'm more than willing to change my mind in the face of actual arguments. And I have numerous times in the past. It's not my fault you have no basis to the things you believe.
Pragmatically, I've never written a complex server application that loads more than 20(and by that time, there was server-side auto-bundling going on), and most of those were part of the open-source platform, not the actual behavior of the application I wrote.
I'm not sure what you want. The rendering engine was 3d. There was a z axis. Do you want to have 3 degrees of freedom of movement? Because that is a UI nightmare, and blizzard is a company built on slick polish.
(No amount of polish will make up for always-online.)
The people who take the taxes also make the rules on these sorts of things.
Yeah, paying armed people to possibly shoot someone could easily be construed to be soliciting criminal activity.
You want backups to save you when you do something really stupid you should never do, and that ought to be rare. Critical backups also have tertiaries, in case that blows at the same time. Even with nuclear reactors, there is no such thing as "completely safe" and people like you would sacrifice the safe in the name of the perfect.
So, now you declare victory and run away.
"You clearly have no idea what you're talking about since you disagree with my unsupported hypothesis that dictates my wide range of extreme views. I'm going to leave now because you're hopeless on no particular grounds.(and not because I'm uncomfortable with the degree of support my own beliefs have)"
Well, there's always the hope for building long-lasting safe nuclear pla---ahahahahahaha, yeah right.
Oh my god, software has downtime! Unbearable!
How about the fact that you don't back up your statement in the slightest just leaving us with a bald assertion that can be countered just as easily by stating the opposite?
Or, if I wanted to take a route of argumentative superiority, I could cite a authoritative source on the purpose of government in this country:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Yes, it's a large company that uses institutional software. It wasn't collaboration software, but from a deployment perspective, the exact nature makes no difference.
Oh look, blind rhetoric disguised as a correction.
Oh look, normal IT operations in a large corporation just happened. I don't see what's special here.
Part of the point is that police don't have to tell you whether you're a suspect or a witness.
Sure, but shale oil is far from uncommon.
The point of authority figures is to do more good than harm, and sometimes they really don't even make that low bar. The bill of rights was an attempt to stop the most common ways authority figures could do harm to help balance that equation better.