I have to agree. Even at decent connection speeds, uploading that much data would take quite a while (not to mention the price being a bit excessive). I also don't exactly trust Google with that much minable information.
Also, on your comment about external drives, the 320GB Wester Digital external drive that I picked up a couple of months ago was about $120.
MySQL.com have always tacked open source on as an afterthought. Their contributor agreement is effectively 'thanks, your patch, copyright and patents belong to us now, but here's a free t-shirt for your trouble'.
GNU basically requires the same thing of whatever you contribute to a GNU project.
My girlfriend's reaction was "No wonder they can't get girlfriends"
Personally, I think she's rather pretty. Probably not my type, but that's okay.
Most of the girls I've dated were as likely to wear training clothes (whether it's a gi and pants, a keikogi and hakama, fighting robes, or armor) as they were to wear dresses. Truth be told, I thought they looked good in both. =]
You missed my earlier post where I made it clear that I was using "creator" as a shorthand for the person who makes the work or the person/company that comissions it.
Actually, according to what I've read, 2.5% was fairly common. I was amused that, at one point, it even got mentioned on the history channel.
Yes, people get drunk on 5% beer. However, like I said, at 2.5% you're right at about the sweet spot as far as alcohol content goes - just enough to kill microbes but not enough to dehydrate you. By the same token, the extra water in the beer makes it a lot more difficult to drink enough to get drunk. By the time you've had that much alcohol, the stuff that you drank at the beginning is already working it's way out of your system. Besides, people didn't just generally sit there and do nothing but drink. It was spread through the day and even if they went to the pub, there was still a lot of talking and eating (which means even less room for beer).
The hard liquor was generally more popular in the United States than in Europe. Yes, they drank it, but not as much as they drank weaker drinks.
As for the navy, most of that rum was mixed with water to make grog. When you're at sea so long that the barreled water turns foul, the rum helps kill the contaminants and makes the, quite frankly, disgusting water more palatable (to say nothing of the food which was often salted meat and, during longer voyages, worm infested biscuits unless they could get supplies along the way).
Frighteningly enough, from the information I can find online, Budweiser beer ranges from just over 4% to about 5.5% depending on what type you're dealing with. The reason most people complain about American beers like Budweiser isn't the alcohol content. It's the fact that a lot of the grain used to make it is rice instead of barley.
In fact, in some countries, the rulers decreed that only four ingredients could be used to make beer - water, barley, hops, and yeast (and yeast was added later after they realized what caused the fermentation. Before that, the fermentation was caused by wild yeast).
In pre-industrial times most western people were (by modern standards) total lushes. Not exactly conducive to industrialization.
Actually, most of the beer consumed in England and Europe during the day was what would be considered "small beer". It was only about 2.5% alcohol (enough to kill bacteria, but not enough to cause dehydration like stronger drinks or really to cause much in the way of intoxication). It was safer than the local untreated water and yet not so alcoholic that it would cause any significant imparement.
In addition, in several parts of Europe, beer was almost bread in a bottle. It had a great deal of carbs and a fair amount of protein. That was important because there wasn't always a lot of food and, as a side effect, the composition of the beer basically helped to slow the body's assimilation of the alcohol because it was working to process food at the same time.
I have news for you - the person who should have control over their creations is the creator (or the person/company that comissions them to do the work). As I said before, the information doesn't want to be free. It doesn't want to be anything.
If the people who make something decide they want to make it open, great. If not, that's cool too. What isn't cool is people like you going "but but but the information wants to be free!!! It can't be owned!" which is exactly what you're arguing.
This is potentially someone's livelyhood that you're trying to take away here. Grow up and stop trying to use "the information wants to be free" as an excuse for trying to take something from someone else.
Want to know the hilarious thing? I still get fan mail and get emails saying that some of my stuff has become required reading at their companies, but the people here still think I'm a shill for "the other side" because I'm not rabidly against everything that isn't open and have no problem pointing out where the community needs to improve.
The acts oppose each other in outcome. One is releasing proprietary / closed media (ie music) from a narrow distribution model (ie making it open), the other is capturing open media (ie code) and shackling it to (presumably more code in) a traditional narrow distribution model (ie making it closed).
Pulling the argument of "the information wants to be free" (which is what your basically doing) as a reason why the two are different is complete crap. Both cases are someone taking the work of someone else and using it in a way that the creators don't want (the creators have made their desires clear through the license.)
Both acts are equally wrong because you're trying to take away the rights of the person who MADE the thing (the information itself doesn't want to be free. it doesn't want to be anything.)
I think that the funny thing is that, when I say that zealots are a detriment to the community, I get people like some of the ones who responded to me this time coming out of the woodwork to call me a shill or tell me that *I'm* what's wrong with the community.
Hate to disappoint them, but I've actually done a bit to help the community. I believe that, for some things, open source is a good answer. It's not the answer to everything, and likely never will be, but for some thing's it's great. However, the zealots and RMS worshippers are not doing the community any favors with the rabid screaming.
I've known a number of developers that have simply stopped writing open source software because they're sick of the rabid zealots and screaming matches, and I know for a fact that it turns off a lot of businesses because I still get emails from them on the subject.
Actually, kid, I don't have a problem understanding the licenses. In fact, I've helped businesses understand the differences between the major licenses and convinced quite a few that some open source software could indeed help them.
That said, as I stated before, some businesses are wary of using open source because of the license confusion and conflicts in the community between groups of zealots when the sane among us just make and use software.
Now that reddit and digg have become popular seems like everybody else except the shills have left slashdot and a guy who calls people who use linux zealots gets modded up to four.
I never said everyone who uses linux is a zealot. If I did, I'd have to call myself one.
I said the zealots are the ones who yell at anyone using a solution other than theirs or anything that isn't open (no matter what the non-open solution is). And the truth is that those people ARE a problem for the community. They not only split the community itself, they cause companies not want to use open source software, and cause some people to stop contributing altogether.
You either lack reading comprehension skills or are a very poor troll.
See, the thing is that a lot of companies want to know that they can use software without reprecussions - ie they have a license for it, it won't affect anything that they may release (and, like it or not, a lot of places still think that if they make something with open tools that they might have to open it), that, if something goes wrong, there is someone they can contact, etc.
Your average user (and often even your average developer) doesn't generally worry about that. Businesses are a whole other story.
I think the problem is that you don't understand that the community problems are problems for some entities that would otherwise be interested in using the software (and that a lot of other people don't understand it's a problem either).
I tend to agree. If the Linux community is worried about Microsoft trying to fracture them, the simple solution is to not attack each other for dealing with Microsoft.
Pretty much. One of the major things that's actuall fracturing the open source community are the zealots out there that scream at people for using a solution other than theirs or, even worse, using anything (no matter what it is) that isn't open.
Ironically, they tend to be the same people that say "copying music isn't stealing" but turn around and raise mortal hell if someone misappropriates open source code in a closed project when the two things are actually pretty much on par.
I'd say the same is true of killing someone in any manner. The difference is that killing someone with a gun can be a lot less personal. It's generally done from a distance and requires no more effort or agression than squeezing a trigger.
When facing someone with a sword or other melee weapon, it requires a great deal more effort, a will fixed on being the one that comes out of the fight alive (whether or not your opponant does), and the ability to look at your opponant up close and personal while you do what you have to do.
Even in a non-fatal encounter, I can almost guarantee that you will remember the faces of the people you fight unless you're just looking at it purely as a sport (which far too many people do). The thing is that, despite what fm6 seems to think, the people who think they're invincible with a sword are generally the ones who are either poorly trained (if they're trained at all) or who view it all as a game. The rest of us know that one mistake can cost us our lives or permanantly injure us (even in practice if you're not careful or unlucky) just as easily as circumstances can kill or injure the people we face.
I admit that both sexes tend to get snarky and agressive under stress. However, the people that are more prone to being nurturing (whether male or female) tend to do better in situations where there is little space and even less privacy than people who tend to be less nurturing.
What it really comes down to, in my experience, is how well a team pulls together and can trust each other implicitly when it really counts. If your team has that down, you're pretty well golden. The snarkyness and stress can be worked off on shore (as in off site, no matter whether where you were stuck was a boat or an office) with a few drinks, some companionship, and (for some people) getting caught in a bar brawl or whatever your favored method of decompressing is.
There are different types of nurses. Everything from the ones who know enough to help out to ones that are basically one step below a doctor.
As for why you want the people doing the heavy lifting to have medical training, that's fairly easy. First off, you need to know how to safely move and restrain patients without causing them further injury (and part of that involves knowing what is already wrong with the patient). Secondly, in a crisis situation (which a lot of hospitals tend to be on a daily basis), you want to have as many of the people there as possible trained to deal with the situation. Third, some patients respond better to different types of caregivers.
Beating someone to a pulp also requires a fair amount of agression.
I'm not the idiot, and I certainly don't think that a weapon makes me invulnerable. When faced with superior strength, you find and exploit the weakness that results from it. Your opponant can't be strong everywhere. Against strong defense, you find an opening or create one, against greater numbers or greater firepower, you use guerilla tactics.
It's called winning through the use of unorthodox tactics.
Simply running from someone who honestly wants you dead won't do anything except putting off when you get killed. Changing strategy to exploit their weakness, on the other hand, can save your life.
As for leaving the country, no, that wouldn't work either. If they really wanted him dead, they'd have contacted someone to kill him.
Also, counter-intuitively, women perform better in naval submarine service than men. I don't remember the conclusions for why on that one.
Extended service in cramped quarters (which a submarine certainly is) leads to increased levels of agression and stress. If staffed by a crew that understands and is supportive of fellow service people, the stress levels can be reduced a bit.
Actually, aggression is also an emotion. That's the point that you seem to be missing.
To kill someone with a gun requires only pointing the weapon and squeezing the trigger.
To kill someone with a sword, spear, or other melee weapon requires that you be right there when they die. You have to be able to look that person in the face as the light fades from their eyes unless you attack from behind. That requires the will and aggression levels to keep your nerve as you drive home that killing blow. It's very close and infinitely more personal.
There is a whole world of difference in required aggression levels between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree. Even at decent connection speeds, uploading that much data would take quite a while (not to mention the price being a bit excessive). I also don't exactly trust Google with that much minable information.
Also, on your comment about external drives, the 320GB Wester Digital external drive that I picked up a couple of months ago was about $120.
I trust Stallman about as far as I could comfortably spit a large rat.
Zealots make my teeth itch.
Yes, but the shirt isn't something they require of you.
:P
(I am currently trying really hard to not make jokes about Stallman and soap/new shirts)
MySQL.com have always tacked open source on as an afterthought.
Their contributor agreement is effectively
'thanks, your patch, copyright and patents belong to us now, but here's a free t-shirt for your trouble'.
GNU basically requires the same thing of whatever you contribute to a GNU project.
Sudden onset of Turret's Syndrome?
Self-administered electro-shock therapy?
Twitter has a new account?
My girlfriend's reaction was "No wonder they can't get girlfriends"
Personally, I think she's rather pretty. Probably not my type, but that's okay.
Most of the girls I've dated were as likely to wear training clothes (whether it's a gi and pants, a keikogi and hakama, fighting robes, or armor) as they were to wear dresses. Truth be told, I thought they looked good in both. =]
I miss dancing. It seems to be something of a lost art around here. I think that's a shame.
That's not to say that I was a particularly good formal dancer, but I enjoyed myself. Most people seem to be far too insecure anymore.
You missed my earlier post where I made it clear that I was using "creator" as a shorthand for the person who makes the work or the person/company that comissions it.
Guess which the publisher is.
Actually, according to what I've read, 2.5% was fairly common. I was amused that, at one point, it even got mentioned on the history channel.
Yes, people get drunk on 5% beer. However, like I said, at 2.5% you're right at about the sweet spot as far as alcohol content goes - just enough to kill microbes but not enough to dehydrate you. By the same token, the extra water in the beer makes it a lot more difficult to drink enough to get drunk. By the time you've had that much alcohol, the stuff that you drank at the beginning is already working it's way out of your system. Besides, people didn't just generally sit there and do nothing but drink. It was spread through the day and even if they went to the pub, there was still a lot of talking and eating (which means even less room for beer).
The hard liquor was generally more popular in the United States than in Europe. Yes, they drank it, but not as much as they drank weaker drinks.
As for the navy, most of that rum was mixed with water to make grog. When you're at sea so long that the barreled water turns foul, the rum helps kill the contaminants and makes the, quite frankly, disgusting water more palatable (to say nothing of the food which was often salted meat and, during longer voyages, worm infested biscuits unless they could get supplies along the way).
Frighteningly enough, from the information I can find online, Budweiser beer ranges from just over 4% to about 5.5% depending on what type you're dealing with. The reason most people complain about American beers like Budweiser isn't the alcohol content. It's the fact that a lot of the grain used to make it is rice instead of barley.
In fact, in some countries, the rulers decreed that only four ingredients could be used to make beer - water, barley, hops, and yeast (and yeast was added later after they realized what caused the fermentation. Before that, the fermentation was caused by wild yeast).
In pre-industrial times most western people were (by modern standards) total lushes. Not exactly conducive to industrialization.
Actually, most of the beer consumed in England and Europe during the day was what would be considered "small beer". It was only about 2.5% alcohol (enough to kill bacteria, but not enough to cause dehydration like stronger drinks or really to cause much in the way of intoxication). It was safer than the local untreated water and yet not so alcoholic that it would cause any significant imparement.
In addition, in several parts of Europe, beer was almost bread in a bottle. It had a great deal of carbs and a fair amount of protein. That was important because there wasn't always a lot of food and, as a side effect, the composition of the beer basically helped to slow the body's assimilation of the alcohol because it was working to process food at the same time.
I have news for you - the person who should have control over their creations is the creator (or the person/company that comissions them to do the work). As I said before, the information doesn't want to be free. It doesn't want to be anything.
If the people who make something decide they want to make it open, great. If not, that's cool too. What isn't cool is people like you going "but but but the information wants to be free!!! It can't be owned!" which is exactly what you're arguing.
This is potentially someone's livelyhood that you're trying to take away here. Grow up and stop trying to use "the information wants to be free" as an excuse for trying to take something from someone else.
Want to know the hilarious thing? I still get fan mail and get emails saying that some of my stuff has become required reading at their companies, but the people here still think I'm a shill for "the other side" because I'm not rabidly against everything that isn't open and have no problem pointing out where the community needs to improve.
The acts oppose each other in outcome. One is releasing proprietary / closed media (ie music) from a narrow distribution model (ie making it open), the other is capturing open media (ie code) and shackling it to (presumably more code in) a traditional narrow distribution model (ie making it closed).
Pulling the argument of "the information wants to be free" (which is what your basically doing) as a reason why the two are different is complete crap. Both cases are someone taking the work of someone else and using it in a way that the creators don't want (the creators have made their desires clear through the license.)
Both acts are equally wrong because you're trying to take away the rights of the person who MADE the thing (the information itself doesn't want to be free. it doesn't want to be anything.)
I think that the funny thing is that, when I say that zealots are a detriment to the community, I get people like some of the ones who responded to me this time coming out of the woodwork to call me a shill or tell me that *I'm* what's wrong with the community.
Hate to disappoint them, but I've actually done a bit to help the community. I believe that, for some things, open source is a good answer. It's not the answer to everything, and likely never will be, but for some thing's it's great. However, the zealots and RMS worshippers are not doing the community any favors with the rabid screaming.
I've known a number of developers that have simply stopped writing open source software because they're sick of the rabid zealots and screaming matches, and I know for a fact that it turns off a lot of businesses because I still get emails from them on the subject.
Actually, kid, I don't have a problem understanding the licenses. In fact, I've helped businesses understand the differences between the major licenses and convinced quite a few that some open source software could indeed help them.
That said, as I stated before, some businesses are wary of using open source because of the license confusion and conflicts in the community between groups of zealots when the sane among us just make and use software.
I have to say that, as a troll, you suck.
Now that reddit and digg have become popular seems like everybody else except the shills have left slashdot and a guy who calls people who use linux zealots gets modded up to four.
I never said everyone who uses linux is a zealot. If I did, I'd have to call myself one.
I said the zealots are the ones who yell at anyone using a solution other than theirs or anything that isn't open (no matter what the non-open solution is). And the truth is that those people ARE a problem for the community. They not only split the community itself, they cause companies not want to use open source software, and cause some people to stop contributing altogether.
You either lack reading comprehension skills or are a very poor troll.
See, the thing is that a lot of companies want to know that they can use software without reprecussions - ie they have a license for it, it won't affect anything that they may release (and, like it or not, a lot of places still think that if they make something with open tools that they might have to open it), that, if something goes wrong, there is someone they can contact, etc.
Your average user (and often even your average developer) doesn't generally worry about that. Businesses are a whole other story.
I think the problem is that you don't understand that the community problems are problems for some entities that would otherwise be interested in using the software (and that a lot of other people don't understand it's a problem either).
I tend to agree. If the Linux community is worried about Microsoft trying to fracture them, the simple solution is to not attack each other for dealing with Microsoft.
Pretty much. One of the major things that's actuall fracturing the open source community are the zealots out there that scream at people for using a solution other than theirs or, even worse, using anything (no matter what it is) that isn't open.
Ironically, they tend to be the same people that say "copying music isn't stealing" but turn around and raise mortal hell if someone misappropriates open source code in a closed project when the two things are actually pretty much on par.
I'd say the same is true of killing someone in any manner. The difference is that killing someone with a gun can be a lot less personal. It's generally done from a distance and requires no more effort or agression than squeezing a trigger.
When facing someone with a sword or other melee weapon, it requires a great deal more effort, a will fixed on being the one that comes out of the fight alive (whether or not your opponant does), and the ability to look at your opponant up close and personal while you do what you have to do.
Even in a non-fatal encounter, I can almost guarantee that you will remember the faces of the people you fight unless you're just looking at it purely as a sport (which far too many people do). The thing is that, despite what fm6 seems to think, the people who think they're invincible with a sword are generally the ones who are either poorly trained (if they're trained at all) or who view it all as a game. The rest of us know that one mistake can cost us our lives or permanantly injure us (even in practice if you're not careful or unlucky) just as easily as circumstances can kill or injure the people we face.
*laughs* very true.
I admit that both sexes tend to get snarky and agressive under stress. However, the people that are more prone to being nurturing (whether male or female) tend to do better in situations where there is little space and even less privacy than people who tend to be less nurturing.
What it really comes down to, in my experience, is how well a team pulls together and can trust each other implicitly when it really counts. If your team has that down, you're pretty well golden. The snarkyness and stress can be worked off on shore (as in off site, no matter whether where you were stuck was a boat or an office) with a few drinks, some companionship, and (for some people) getting caught in a bar brawl or whatever your favored method of decompressing is.
There are different types of nurses. Everything from the ones who know enough to help out to ones that are basically one step below a doctor.
As for why you want the people doing the heavy lifting to have medical training, that's fairly easy. First off, you need to know how to safely move and restrain patients without causing them further injury (and part of that involves knowing what is already wrong with the patient). Secondly, in a crisis situation (which a lot of hospitals tend to be on a daily basis), you want to have as many of the people there as possible trained to deal with the situation. Third, some patients respond better to different types of caregivers.
Beating someone to a pulp also requires a fair amount of agression.
I'm not the idiot, and I certainly don't think that a weapon makes me invulnerable. When faced with superior strength, you find and exploit the weakness that results from it. Your opponant can't be strong everywhere. Against strong defense, you find an opening or create one, against greater numbers or greater firepower, you use guerilla tactics.
It's called winning through the use of unorthodox tactics.
Simply running from someone who honestly wants you dead won't do anything except putting off when you get killed. Changing strategy to exploit their weakness, on the other hand, can save your life.
As for leaving the country, no, that wouldn't work either. If they really wanted him dead, they'd have contacted someone to kill him.
Also, counter-intuitively, women perform better in naval submarine service than men. I don't remember the conclusions for why on that one.
Extended service in cramped quarters (which a submarine certainly is) leads to increased levels of agression and stress. If staffed by a crew that understands and is supportive of fellow service people, the stress levels can be reduced a bit.
Actually, aggression is also an emotion. That's the point that you seem to be missing.
To kill someone with a gun requires only pointing the weapon and squeezing the trigger.
To kill someone with a sword, spear, or other melee weapon requires that you be right there when they die. You have to be able to look that person in the face as the light fades from their eyes unless you attack from behind. That requires the will and aggression levels to keep your nerve as you drive home that killing blow. It's very close and infinitely more personal.
There is a whole world of difference in required aggression levels between the two.