Agreed. I don't watch Heroes, but two bucks for an hour-long show is fucking insane. $15 is too much for a CD, but I can at least listen to that a few hundred times. $2 for a show? You must be out of your mind.
Do the advertisers really pay that much for our eyes? If so, I feel sorry for them, at least based on my buying habits.
Mono should have two priorities: 1) to help make Gnome software easier to develop... (C# is easier than C++)
C# is in no way a successor to C++. I like programming in C#, but if there were a taxonomy of languages they would share the imperative tree, and (somewhat) similar syntax, but that's about the same as two vertebrates that both have tails.
Also, Gnome and its API is in C, not C++. Yes, I'm aware of {gtk,gnome}mm, but your parenthetical should have said (C# is easier than C). Of course, C# is no more of a successor to C than it is to C++, but it would have been closer to cogency.
Well, yeah, if you do your job searching on monster.com. Hopefully you realize that our real job consists primarily of what I've described, and that those x years, y product are just a way for people to (poorly) reduce the problem of hiring us guys (and girl). If you think your job is to work with Java for 6 years (and I've met plenty who do) then you're one of the bad ones.
Not a matter of dedication or intelligence, I've known plenty of dedicated, intelligent people who simply can't grasp the idea that my job consists of nothing more than reducing big, seemingly-intractable problems down to a set of small, easily-solved ones (much less do the same). No amount of education (or at least, no amount of time in our current education system) can remedy that.
Although I'd like to avoid sounding elitist, I have to agree... and I just don't understand it. One of these days I'd like to see a brain map that, instead of lighting up for God, or love, or fear, lights up when people are practicing reduction, and shows that in a lot of people it only lights up when they're dealing with situations they're familiar with. At least that way I wouldn't feel like I'm some kind of crazy asshole that just looks down on everyone for no reason.
Tangential thought #1: You know creationists speaking of "irreducible complexity"? I wonder if there's ever been a good programmer/computer engineer who's said that. I welcome anecdotes or thoughts, but in the interest of not getting into a religious flamewar I won't be replying to anything on that topic.
Tangential thought #2: I wonder if it's at all related to introspection. I've noticed that many people are just incapable of introspection, and I don't know why, but for some reason I think there's a correlation.
Tangential thought #3: Isn't it weird to think of people not performing those thought processes? Imagine yourself not having those paths open, or not even wanting them. Man. Freaks me right out.
I dunno, I've thought about it a million times, and when it comes down to it our only real skills are memorization, problem domain reduction, patience, discipline, and critical thought... which boils fairly well down to critical thought. Once I come to that conclusion, I can't help but wonder if I even want to be so rare.
Okay, I missed that, but if that's all you're basing this on I'm not certain that's saying they get all of the money from whatever product incorporated BusyBox. It could easily be read to say only whatever money they saved by not writing their own replacement--which yes, is still probably way too much money.
I just read that whole complaint, and nowhere in there does it ask for all of any money. It states that no amount of money would be adequate recompense, which is true. The software wasn't for sale, or at least not for sale for money. It says they should get their lawyer fees, and that they should get whatever additional penalty the court deems appropriate.
To be fair, I did say I've never heard of them taking money. Always thought that was strange, but this is the first I've heard of it, and it can hardly be called a money grab.
Wow, I never thought I'd see someone actually begging the question, and so directly at that. Boil down your post a little, and it comes out, "Jammie's appeal on the grounds that the penalty was unconstitutional will fail because the penalty is constitutional."
When is the last time you heard of somebody making a money grab with a GPL lawsuit? Every complaint I've ever heard of has been looking to get either the source code released under GPL, or to stop distribution, which would bring things exactly back in line even though no money has been transferred. Even when the infringing company is selling the product, I've never heard of a GPL holder taking their money, aside from attorney fees, and usually they (or the FSF) pay that out of their pocket too.
Those reward sizes are insane, and somebody, at some level of the courts, has to realize that. I've never understood what kind of weird Stockholm syndrome makes it that way, but the more of a bumpkin someone is, the more likely they are to look on companies as godlike, and yet, ironically, sympathize with them. As she moves her way up the courts, she will meet a judge who sees the RIAA for what they are.
I don't know what kind of crazy legislation puts an actual dollar value on a copyright infringement case, but I do know that any law made can be unmade, this one should be, and somebody's going to recognize that eventually. How can they put a dollar amount on that? What about inflation? Deflation? What about the well-known fact (and justification) that most artists in a record company's stable is a dud? Base the price off a highly-popular artist, and instantly turn all the record company's failures into huge muggers^Wsuccesses? The whole situation is just flat-out insane, and there's no way it can go on like this for much longer.
Except, unless you're always writing to an empty drive, you're not writing to different cells every time. If your drive is 75% full, you only get... 500 years.
OK, point made, just make sure you don't do a lot of writing for a two years straight when it's 99% full.
Yeah. Strike the Jabba thing too and I'd be cramming french fries and double bacon quarter pounders down my throat every chance I got. They're fucking delicious. I used to eat them damn near every meal from 17 to 25 without gaining a pound, then my metabolism changed on me. Now, I have to eat 300 kcal a meal and exercise every day. I haven't had a quarter pounder in probably a year, but if there were no consequences I'd go back in a second.
Wow, the brain (or at least mine) really sees what it wants to. Not only did I read the original as "STFU", but I read yours as "STFU? Shut The Fuck Up?", and only noticed the actual error because I wondered why you were so confused by that initialism.
I think that is referring to dark fiber. Throughout the article fiber is referred to as if it's some new revolutionary thing that runs on sun magic and will make molasses pour fast.
I wouldn't worry about not making that connection though, it's almost impossible to even tell what the point of the article actually is. Is it a biography? A review of new tech? A warning of impending danger? Who knows! It's just vague sentences strung together!
"The Internet wasn't designed for people to watch television," [Mr. Roberts] says. "I know because I designed it." ... later...
[Mr. Roberts] raised $317 million from venture capitalists for Caspian to manufacture the flow-based routers that could analyze Internet traffic and improve how that traffic moved.
Now, maybe I'm dense here, but when he says that he designed the Internet, I imagine that he's talking about a lower level than the design of routers. In fact, earlier, he says that one of the problems is that it doesn't guarantee that packets arrive at their destination, leading me to believe that he's talking about, at highest, the IP level. So my question is, how is this router project related? What does it have to do with the Internet problems we're supposedly facing? Is this router going to change the basic design of the Internet? I don't know, I can't say exactly what's wrong and I can't say if it's the article author or Roberts or the editor, but it's just so off I smell bullshit somewhere.
Another thing that gets me is, how is it bad that we don't guarantee packet delivery? (At lower levels and for some protocols.) If we put that in, say, IP, how would we then have UDP? And how is TCP's transmission guarantee not a guarantee? I mean, yes, it's possible you won't get your packet, but at the very worst you can detect that you didn't get your packet, which is about as good as it's possible to do while operating in the real world.
Reading through the article I got the same hand-wavy, smoke-blowing impression many times, which is odd given that it's about a couple of people who created the Internet. You'd think they would point out hard facts and real problems. Anybody else see something off with this article, and maybe see what agenda it's actually going for? It reads like something that belongs in the pessimistic bizarro-New Scientist.
No, you're just not getting it. I listen to, and am moved by music every bit as much as you. I wish I could stop hearing the flaws, and I do things to try and mask them, but once you hear them you can't stop. And here's the thing that gets me, the thing that really makes me mad about it--it doesn't have to be that way. There's just no good reason for it, it makes it sound worse than it needs to, and they have to expend a whole lot of effort to get their tracks up to -3 dB, just to make it sound crappy but loud. It's stupid and it pisses me off. So sorry I don't just accept it.
What? The fact that I don't like the production of current music, can't stand Mars Volta, never heard of Animal Collective, and am asking them to return to the production values they had when some of my favorite bands--The Beatles, The Who, Black Sabbath--were around, and fight that trend in whatever little way I can whenever I can, that's why music is the way it is today?
Also, I don't care that the music is good? You don't know what you're talking about. I listen through that, but I listen to the crap production value stuff the same way everybody else does: either for a short duration, at low volume, or drunk. It affects everybody else the same way, the only difference is that I know why we listen to music that way now. And I have absolutely no problem with music being like Radiohead, they're one of the best bands in existence right now. Maybe that's not saying a whole lot these days, but they ain't bad by any stretch of the imagination.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I don't watch Heroes, but two bucks for an hour-long show is fucking insane. $15 is too much for a CD, but I can at least listen to that a few hundred times. $2 for a show? You must be out of your mind.
Do the advertisers really pay that much for our eyes? If so, I feel sorry for them, at least based on my buying habits.
Calmer than you are, Dude.
Mono should have two priorities: 1) to help make Gnome software easier to develop ... (C# is easier than C++)
C# is in no way a successor to C++. I like programming in C#, but if there were a taxonomy of languages they would share the imperative tree, and (somewhat) similar syntax, but that's about the same as two vertebrates that both have tails.
Also, Gnome and its API is in C, not C++. Yes, I'm aware of {gtk,gnome}mm, but your parenthetical should have said (C# is easier than C). Of course, C# is no more of a successor to C than it is to C++, but it would have been closer to cogency.
Well, yeah, if you do your job searching on monster.com. Hopefully you realize that our real job consists primarily of what I've described, and that those x years, y product are just a way for people to (poorly) reduce the problem of hiring us guys (and girl). If you think your job is to work with Java for 6 years (and I've met plenty who do) then you're one of the bad ones.
Not a matter of dedication or intelligence, I've known plenty of dedicated, intelligent people who simply can't grasp the idea that my job consists of nothing more than reducing big, seemingly-intractable problems down to a set of small, easily-solved ones (much less do the same). No amount of education (or at least, no amount of time in our current education system) can remedy that.
Although I'd like to avoid sounding elitist, I have to agree ... and I just don't understand it. One of these days I'd like to see a brain map that, instead of lighting up for God, or love, or fear, lights up when people are practicing reduction, and shows that in a lot of people it only lights up when they're dealing with situations they're familiar with. At least that way I wouldn't feel like I'm some kind of crazy asshole that just looks down on everyone for no reason.
Tangential thought #1: You know creationists speaking of "irreducible complexity"? I wonder if there's ever been a good programmer/computer engineer who's said that. I welcome anecdotes or thoughts, but in the interest of not getting into a religious flamewar I won't be replying to anything on that topic.
Tangential thought #2: I wonder if it's at all related to introspection. I've noticed that many people are just incapable of introspection, and I don't know why, but for some reason I think there's a correlation.
Tangential thought #3: Isn't it weird to think of people not performing those thought processes? Imagine yourself not having those paths open, or not even wanting them. Man. Freaks me right out.
Kaplan: Sure. We're your jacket.
Kaplan: Sure. Where you're [the] jacket.
Kaplan: Sure. WHERE YOUR JACKET!?!
Kaplan: Sure. Where your jack, Kit?
Kit: *whooshwhoosh* *whooshwhoosh*
I dunno, I've thought about it a million times, and when it comes down to it our only real skills are memorization, problem domain reduction, patience, discipline, and critical thought ... which boils fairly well down to critical thought. Once I come to that conclusion, I can't help but wonder if I even want to be so rare.
Sure, as long as you're OK with being stuck on a planet that can only support a few billion people.
Be careful doing what others expect of you. It's habit forming.
Okay, I missed that, but if that's all you're basing this on I'm not certain that's saying they get all of the money from whatever product incorporated BusyBox. It could easily be read to say only whatever money they saved by not writing their own replacement--which yes, is still probably way too much money.
I just read that whole complaint, and nowhere in there does it ask for all of any money. It states that no amount of money would be adequate recompense, which is true. The software wasn't for sale, or at least not for sale for money. It says they should get their lawyer fees, and that they should get whatever additional penalty the court deems appropriate.
To be fair, I did say I've never heard of them taking money. Always thought that was strange, but this is the first I've heard of it, and it can hardly be called a money grab.
Wow, I never thought I'd see someone actually begging the question, and so directly at that. Boil down your post a little, and it comes out, "Jammie's appeal on the grounds that the penalty was unconstitutional will fail because the penalty is constitutional."
When is the last time you heard of somebody making a money grab with a GPL lawsuit? Every complaint I've ever heard of has been looking to get either the source code released under GPL, or to stop distribution, which would bring things exactly back in line even though no money has been transferred. Even when the infringing company is selling the product, I've never heard of a GPL holder taking their money, aside from attorney fees, and usually they (or the FSF) pay that out of their pocket too.
Those reward sizes are insane, and somebody, at some level of the courts, has to realize that. I've never understood what kind of weird Stockholm syndrome makes it that way, but the more of a bumpkin someone is, the more likely they are to look on companies as godlike, and yet, ironically, sympathize with them. As she moves her way up the courts, she will meet a judge who sees the RIAA for what they are.
I don't know what kind of crazy legislation puts an actual dollar value on a copyright infringement case, but I do know that any law made can be unmade, this one should be, and somebody's going to recognize that eventually. How can they put a dollar amount on that? What about inflation? Deflation? What about the well-known fact (and justification) that most artists in a record company's stable is a dud? Base the price off a highly-popular artist, and instantly turn all the record company's failures into huge muggers^Wsuccesses? The whole situation is just flat-out insane, and there's no way it can go on like this for much longer.
I'm super serial.
Except, unless you're always writing to an empty drive, you're not writing to different cells every time. If your drive is 75% full, you only get ... 500 years.
OK, point made, just make sure you don't do a lot of writing for a two years straight when it's 99% full.
He's thinking of flywheels as platters.
Ahh, the joys of pot.
Yeah. Strike the Jabba thing too and I'd be cramming french fries and double bacon quarter pounders down my throat every chance I got. They're fucking delicious. I used to eat them damn near every meal from 17 to 25 without gaining a pound, then my metabolism changed on me. Now, I have to eat 300 kcal a meal and exercise every day. I haven't had a quarter pounder in probably a year, but if there were no consequences I'd go back in a second.
Wow, the brain (or at least mine) really sees what it wants to. Not only did I read the original as "STFU", but I read yours as "STFU? Shut The Fuck Up?", and only noticed the actual error because I wondered why you were so confused by that initialism.
THIS. IS. FINLAND!
The tower of Ghengi?
I think that is referring to dark fiber. Throughout the article fiber is referred to as if it's some new revolutionary thing that runs on sun magic and will make molasses pour fast.
I wouldn't worry about not making that connection though, it's almost impossible to even tell what the point of the article actually is. Is it a biography? A review of new tech? A warning of impending danger? Who knows! It's just vague sentences strung together!
Now, maybe I'm dense here, but when he says that he designed the Internet, I imagine that he's talking about a lower level than the design of routers. In fact, earlier, he says that one of the problems is that it doesn't guarantee that packets arrive at their destination, leading me to believe that he's talking about, at highest, the IP level. So my question is, how is this router project related? What does it have to do with the Internet problems we're supposedly facing? Is this router going to change the basic design of the Internet? I don't know, I can't say exactly what's wrong and I can't say if it's the article author or Roberts or the editor, but it's just so off I smell bullshit somewhere.
Another thing that gets me is, how is it bad that we don't guarantee packet delivery? (At lower levels and for some protocols.) If we put that in, say, IP, how would we then have UDP? And how is TCP's transmission guarantee not a guarantee? I mean, yes, it's possible you won't get your packet, but at the very worst you can detect that you didn't get your packet, which is about as good as it's possible to do while operating in the real world.
Reading through the article I got the same hand-wavy, smoke-blowing impression many times, which is odd given that it's about a couple of people who created the Internet. You'd think they would point out hard facts and real problems. Anybody else see something off with this article, and maybe see what agenda it's actually going for? It reads like something that belongs in the pessimistic bizarro-New Scientist.
No, you're just not getting it. I listen to, and am moved by music every bit as much as you. I wish I could stop hearing the flaws, and I do things to try and mask them, but once you hear them you can't stop. And here's the thing that gets me, the thing that really makes me mad about it--it doesn't have to be that way. There's just no good reason for it, it makes it sound worse than it needs to, and they have to expend a whole lot of effort to get their tracks up to -3 dB, just to make it sound crappy but loud. It's stupid and it pisses me off. So sorry I don't just accept it.
What? The fact that I don't like the production of current music, can't stand Mars Volta, never heard of Animal Collective, and am asking them to return to the production values they had when some of my favorite bands--The Beatles, The Who, Black Sabbath--were around, and fight that trend in whatever little way I can whenever I can, that's why music is the way it is today?
Also, I don't care that the music is good? You don't know what you're talking about. I listen through that, but I listen to the crap production value stuff the same way everybody else does: either for a short duration, at low volume, or drunk. It affects everybody else the same way, the only difference is that I know why we listen to music that way now. And I have absolutely no problem with music being like Radiohead, they're one of the best bands in existence right now. Maybe that's not saying a whole lot these days, but they ain't bad by any stretch of the imagination.