Yes. The 80's - Mr Wizard (who is now on dvd - both his shows and books are on his site), You Can't do That on Television (which needs to be on dvd), Double Dare was actually cool unlike when they tried to bring it back, Count Duckula (also on dvd now =]), actual music on Mtv, childrens' cartoons that didn't make you want to rip your eyes out so your brain didn't melt and drip out of your ear...
What the heck happened? I'm only 27 and I feel old thinking of some of this...
I've heard from people in the past that the emails they got actually came from him. His secretary may have taken over once he started not feeling as well.
It kind of ranks up there on my cool-o-meeter with the fact that someone I knew got a reply from Carl Sagen on a science topic he was curious about. However, the fact that we know one of his nephews probably didn't hurt...
He called it "likapodium", but I'm not sure of the spelling.
What can I say? For some things, my memory is way too good (and I haven't seen that show since nick was still running "You can't say that on television")
You've got the same thing with a lot of the people who claim that religion is stupid but science is everything. They're the kind of people that take working theories as laws and try to shoehorn data to fit their current scope because they think the theories could never be wrong.
A lot of them think that their scientific heroes were all staunch men of science who eschewed any sort of religion when the truth is that a lot of the famous scientists, like Einstein, were actually quite strong in their faith. It's just that their faith may not have been one of the "mainstream" religions.
As for intelligent design, to play devils advocate, who says just one side or the other has to be right? As in most things, both sides of the debate are often right on some things and wrong on others. I've seen things where you have to stop and wonder if something wasn't giving events a bit of a nudge in a certain direction.
Sometimes after the statistically impossible happens and you're still standing instead of being in a hole in the ground, you think about what just happened, chuckle, say "thank you," and continue with your life. It doesn't mean that you have to think everything is laid out in advance; just that something, somewhere might have a plan for some of the finer details.
Incorrect. Books are also copyrighted. Everything from the latest Stephen King novel to research material. It's the reason we have to use citations when quoting someone else's work.
Just as long as you're not daft enough to actually believe any of them.
I fail to see what's wrong with having a little faith in something. Becoming blinded by your faith (whether it's your faith in a religion or in science) is something entirely different.
Life requires balance. Being too far one way or the other is not a positive thing.
If you like, we can even go for an Einstein quote.
When asked by an astounded atheist, if he were in fact deeply religious, Einstein replied:
"Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious. "
Except that Hinduism's Gods have never exactly encouraged wanton violence.
Eh, yes and no. Keep in mind that a lot of the Hindu gods and goddesses have many facets to their characters including many which are downright unplesant. Some of the Kali cults have been full of murderous little buggers (the Thugees being one such group).
As for Ganesha, the stories of how he got the elephant head vary, though the more often repeated ones involve him losing his human head (either in battle or through a curse) and having it replaced with the head of an elephant.
Hindu mythology is an interesting topic. Then again, most mythologies are...
You never were community orientated, were you? You probably did nothing more than look for free software. Where's your code contributions, bug reports, documentation etc? I eagerly await being proved wrong!
Well, let's see... There are a few smaller apps on my site (with several more being worked on at the moment and several published articles on the subject.
Frankly, I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree, kiddo.
I used to be a big advocate of the community. Heck, I was the editor of a fairly short-lived open source enterprise magazine.
I still think that open source can be a positive thing. Unfortunately the thing that is right about it (the community collaborating with each other) is very closely tied to the thing that is so very wrong about it (the gimmie gimmie people who think everything should be open).
Before, it was only a few people out there who behaved like that. Now it seems like more and more of them are going the route that everyone owes them everything, and it often gets to the point that I don't want to be associated with it.
I'm a moderate in pretty much everything. Fanatics really aren't my thing and I don't like being lumped in with them. I've heard a lot of other people express the same sentiment.
I know there are still a lot of good people out there in the community, but it just seems like they're very quiet anymore and constantly get drowned out by the nutjobs.
The OP doesn't want MS to open source its code *snip* S/he wants to see the code
First off, the poster said that Microsoft should be *forced* to "open up" everything that they make.
You may see a whole world of difference between that and open sourcing something, and you'd be partially right from a licensing standpoint. Open sourcing software is done voluntarily, and under an OSI approved license.
However, realistically, once the source code cat is out of the bag, it's effectively in the same state of exposure as your typical open source project. Among other things, the less honest among us will feel free to take parts of the code (changing the variables, etc of course) and incorporate it into their projects and it will be easier to pirate because any checks they incorporated into the software can be removed from the code before it's rebuilt.
As for the spirit of his "they should be forced to open up the source" rant, it's the same as all of the other over the top fanatics who think that their way is the only way and don't think that the two can possibly ever exist in the same environment (which is silly because they have for a long long time).
I used to be a big believer in the community. Hell, I still think that open source can be a positive thing. However, the fact that so much of the community is acting like a group of spoiled two year olds really has a habit of souring me on wanting to participate much anymore because I'm tired of the "let's bite every hand whether it feeds us or not becuase we want it all" mentality.
After all, if you're going to own software patents, what's the point of keeping your code secret?
Oh, I don't know. It could have something to do with the fact that some companies actually sell packaged software. Patents are used to keep other companies/organizations from stealing work and using it as their own. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they keep the software closed.
I know the argument that will come from someone on here - that nothing is stopping them from open sourcing the software and still selling it. I have news for them - that doesn't really work. You may be able to sell support, but you'd never be able to just sell the software.
I realize that bashing Microsoft is the hip thing to do here, but some of us realize that, while we hold them accountable for the actual bad things that they do (wanting limitless H1-B holders, trying to squeeze others out of business through illegal means, etc), keeping source code confidential is not something to get in a twist over. In fact, in a whole lot of situations, keeping the source closed makes more sense than opening it up.
I advocate both open anc closed source code depending on the situation. It's not a black and white situation whether they hold software patents or not.
Re-read my comment. I said that they were pretty quick to find a licensing solution if faced with a software patent situation and that they went to decent lengths to avoid *willfully* violating existing patents.
I agree that the software patent system is broken. However, that doesn't detract from my point.
the OP doesn't care what Microsoft has patented, they care about what other people have patented and Microsoft has used.
Considering the sheer number of instances where they make deals with other companies to share the use of patented ideas/technologies and the fact that their legal dept puts rather strict limits on what their developers can look at in the way of other source code, I'd say not horribly many.
Even when they are found to be infringing by a company that holds the patent, they are generally pretty quick to resolve the issue, either by allowing the company in question use of some of their patents or actually (*gasp*) getting a license to use the damned thing.
People with attitudes like yours are part of the reason so many businesses and people view open source as being run by a bunch of crackpots and people who live in their mother's basement.
Microsoft doesn't have to open source anything to show you what they have patented. All they have to do is show you the patent. In fact, they don't even have to do that. If the open source community were really that concerned, they'd hire a lawyer to dig through the patents that Microsoft controls. They are, after all, a matter of public record.
However, none of you people who complain so loudly will ever do that because all you want is to have some reason to bash someone else to make yourself feel better.
The whole world does not have to be open sourced, and it shouldn't be. Some very worthwhile pieces of software that are well worth the money aren't open sourced and it would be suicide for the companies who produce them to make them open source because they get all of their money from sales.
Yes, open source is nice. Yes, some companies who produce open source code succeed. No, it doesn't work for everyone.
To turn your argument on yourself - learn a little bit about how things really work. Until then, STFU. Otherwise, all you do is make yourself look like a fool and alienate yourself from the rest of the world, including people who used to be strong proponants of the community until it started acting more and more like this.
Considering the fact that most companies I've had dealings with keep most of their stuff closed (and this holds true for pretty much all of my friends in the business as well), I'd say the percentage is pretty small.
Granted, there are a number of companies that sponsor open source projects and quite a few people that work on open source software in their off time (usually as a hobby, to learn a new skill/language, or to scratch their own itches), but I'd say they're heavily outweighed by the places that create closed source stuff both for the public consumption and their own internal use.
GCC is however by far the dominant compiler in the Free Software world, and Linux is made of Free Software.
It should be noted that the grandparent to your post said the "modern software world" is pretty much ruled by GCC. Not "Free" software. The modern software world.
Free software is by no means even the majority of the modern software world. By that token, GCC is nowhere close to ruling the modern software world.
In reality, GCC is basically a bit player in the modern software world. Granted, it's a very nice part of the modern software world, but it's still only a small part of the software world.
She is indeed most attractive. Of course, I would also say similar things about Kristanna Loken, and watching Blood Rayne was a traumatic experience...
Heck, even House of the Dead would have been a decent cheesy B horror movie if he hadn't insisted on putting those stupid scenes from the game in the movie...
Slashdot Mirror
Hey wait a minute. This is the same government that pays farmers subsidies NOT to plant?
Also the same government that gives very hefty subsidies to the oil companies...
You can't do what on television? *grin*
(Sorry. Couldn't resist leaving a setup)
I doubt it. They've been sold on his site for quite some time, and that's really the only place you can get them. Amazon doesn't carry them.
They even sell his project books and, I believe, shirts and mugs.
You should just have to wait for the traffic to calm down a bit so you can actually access it.
I couldn't resist *grin*
Yes. The 80's - Mr Wizard (who is now on dvd - both his shows and books are on his site), You Can't do That on Television (which needs to be on dvd), Double Dare was actually cool unlike when they tried to bring it back, Count Duckula (also on dvd now =]), actual music on Mtv, childrens' cartoons that didn't make you want to rip your eyes out so your brain didn't melt and drip out of your ear...
What the heck happened? I'm only 27 and I feel old thinking of some of this...
After all, who do you think's in the burgers?
:P
I don't know...
I've heard from people in the past that the emails they got actually came from him. His secretary may have taken over once he started not feeling as well.
It kind of ranks up there on my cool-o-meeter with the fact that someone I knew got a reply from Carl Sagen on a science topic he was curious about. However, the fact that we know one of his nephews probably didn't hurt...
I only hope my kids have a similar source of inspiration.
Both his first series and his second series are for sale as boxed sets on his website. So are the books that he came out with.
They're even reasonably priced.
Damn. Now I'm all nostalgic for You Can't Do That On Television as well.
:P
I *heard* that...
The frightening thing is that, as I understand it, before his health turned for the worst, he used to answer all of the emails he got from fans.
I always thought that was rather cool.
It's not strange to mourn the passing of one who has impacted so many lives in a positive manner even if you've never met him in person.
He turned a lot of us on to science as kids. He'll be missed.
He called it "likapodium", but I'm not sure of the spelling.
What can I say? For some things, my memory is way too good (and I haven't seen that show since nick was still running "You can't say that on television")
You've got the same thing with a lot of the people who claim that religion is stupid but science is everything. They're the kind of people that take working theories as laws and try to shoehorn data to fit their current scope because they think the theories could never be wrong.
A lot of them think that their scientific heroes were all staunch men of science who eschewed any sort of religion when the truth is that a lot of the famous scientists, like Einstein, were actually quite strong in their faith. It's just that their faith may not have been one of the "mainstream" religions.
As for intelligent design, to play devils advocate, who says just one side or the other has to be right? As in most things, both sides of the debate are often right on some things and wrong on others. I've seen things where you have to stop and wonder if something wasn't giving events a bit of a nudge in a certain direction.
Sometimes after the statistically impossible happens and you're still standing instead of being in a hole in the ground, you think about what just happened, chuckle, say "thank you," and continue with your life. It doesn't mean that you have to think everything is laid out in advance; just that something, somewhere might have a plan for some of the finer details.
Incorrect. Books are also copyrighted. Everything from the latest Stephen King novel to research material. It's the reason we have to use citations when quoting someone else's work.
Just as long as you're not daft enough to actually believe any of them.
I fail to see what's wrong with having a little faith in something. Becoming blinded by your faith (whether it's your faith in a religion or in science) is something entirely different.
Life requires balance. Being too far one way or the other is not a positive thing.
If you like, we can even go for an Einstein quote.
When asked by an astounded atheist, if he were in fact deeply religious, Einstein replied:
"Yes, you can call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious. "
Except that Hinduism's Gods have never exactly encouraged wanton violence.
Eh, yes and no. Keep in mind that a lot of the Hindu gods and goddesses have many facets to their characters including many which are downright unplesant. Some of the Kali cults have been full of murderous little buggers (the Thugees being one such group).
As for Ganesha, the stories of how he got the elephant head vary, though the more often repeated ones involve him losing his human head (either in battle or through a curse) and having it replaced with the head of an elephant.
Hindu mythology is an interesting topic. Then again, most mythologies are...
You never were community orientated, were you? You probably did nothing more than look for free software. Where's your code contributions, bug reports, documentation etc? I eagerly await being proved wrong!
Well, let's see... There are a few smaller apps on my site (with several more being worked on at the moment and several published articles on the subject.
Frankly, I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree, kiddo.
I used to be a big advocate of the community. Heck, I was the editor of a fairly short-lived open source enterprise magazine.
I still think that open source can be a positive thing. Unfortunately the thing that is right about it (the community collaborating with each other) is very closely tied to the thing that is so very wrong about it (the gimmie gimmie people who think everything should be open).
Before, it was only a few people out there who behaved like that. Now it seems like more and more of them are going the route that everyone owes them everything, and it often gets to the point that I don't want to be associated with it.
I'm a moderate in pretty much everything. Fanatics really aren't my thing and I don't like being lumped in with them. I've heard a lot of other people express the same sentiment.
I know there are still a lot of good people out there in the community, but it just seems like they're very quiet anymore and constantly get drowned out by the nutjobs.
The OP doesn't want MS to open source its code *snip* S/he wants to see the code
First off, the poster said that Microsoft should be *forced* to "open up" everything that they make.
You may see a whole world of difference between that and open sourcing something, and you'd be partially right from a licensing standpoint. Open sourcing software is done voluntarily, and under an OSI approved license.
However, realistically, once the source code cat is out of the bag, it's effectively in the same state of exposure as your typical open source project. Among other things, the less honest among us will feel free to take parts of the code (changing the variables, etc of course) and incorporate it into their projects and it will be easier to pirate because any checks they incorporated into the software can be removed from the code before it's rebuilt.
As for the spirit of his "they should be forced to open up the source" rant, it's the same as all of the other over the top fanatics who think that their way is the only way and don't think that the two can possibly ever exist in the same environment (which is silly because they have for a long long time).
I used to be a big believer in the community. Hell, I still think that open source can be a positive thing. However, the fact that so much of the community is acting like a group of spoiled two year olds really has a habit of souring me on wanting to participate much anymore because I'm tired of the "let's bite every hand whether it feeds us or not becuase we want it all" mentality.
After all, if you're going to own software patents, what's the point of keeping your code secret?
Oh, I don't know. It could have something to do with the fact that some companies actually sell packaged software. Patents are used to keep other companies/organizations from stealing work and using it as their own. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they keep the software closed.
I know the argument that will come from someone on here - that nothing is stopping them from open sourcing the software and still selling it. I have news for them - that doesn't really work. You may be able to sell support, but you'd never be able to just sell the software.
I realize that bashing Microsoft is the hip thing to do here, but some of us realize that, while we hold them accountable for the actual bad things that they do (wanting limitless H1-B holders, trying to squeeze others out of business through illegal means, etc), keeping source code confidential is not something to get in a twist over. In fact, in a whole lot of situations, keeping the source closed makes more sense than opening it up.
I advocate both open anc closed source code depending on the situation. It's not a black and white situation whether they hold software patents or not.
Re-read my comment. I said that they were pretty quick to find a licensing solution if faced with a software patent situation and that they went to decent lengths to avoid *willfully* violating existing patents.
I agree that the software patent system is broken. However, that doesn't detract from my point.
the OP doesn't care what Microsoft has patented, they care about what other people have patented and Microsoft has used.
Considering the sheer number of instances where they make deals with other companies to share the use of patented ideas/technologies and the fact that their legal dept puts rather strict limits on what their developers can look at in the way of other source code, I'd say not horribly many.
Even when they are found to be infringing by a company that holds the patent, they are generally pretty quick to resolve the issue, either by allowing the company in question use of some of their patents or actually (*gasp*) getting a license to use the damned thing.
People with attitudes like yours are part of the reason so many businesses and people view open source as being run by a bunch of crackpots and people who live in their mother's basement.
Microsoft doesn't have to open source anything to show you what they have patented. All they have to do is show you the patent. In fact, they don't even have to do that. If the open source community were really that concerned, they'd hire a lawyer to dig through the patents that Microsoft controls. They are, after all, a matter of public record.
However, none of you people who complain so loudly will ever do that because all you want is to have some reason to bash someone else to make yourself feel better.
The whole world does not have to be open sourced, and it shouldn't be. Some very worthwhile pieces of software that are well worth the money aren't open sourced and it would be suicide for the companies who produce them to make them open source because they get all of their money from sales.
Yes, open source is nice. Yes, some companies who produce open source code succeed. No, it doesn't work for everyone.
To turn your argument on yourself - learn a little bit about how things really work. Until then, STFU. Otherwise, all you do is make yourself look like a fool and alienate yourself from the rest of the world, including people who used to be strong proponants of the community until it started acting more and more like this.
Considering the fact that most companies I've had dealings with keep most of their stuff closed (and this holds true for pretty much all of my friends in the business as well), I'd say the percentage is pretty small.
Granted, there are a number of companies that sponsor open source projects and quite a few people that work on open source software in their off time (usually as a hobby, to learn a new skill/language, or to scratch their own itches), but I'd say they're heavily outweighed by the places that create closed source stuff both for the public consumption and their own internal use.
GCC is however by far the dominant compiler in the Free Software world, and Linux is made of Free Software.
It should be noted that the grandparent to your post said the "modern software world" is pretty much ruled by GCC. Not "Free" software. The modern software world.
Free software is by no means even the majority of the modern software world. By that token, GCC is nowhere close to ruling the modern software world.
In reality, GCC is basically a bit player in the modern software world. Granted, it's a very nice part of the modern software world, but it's still only a small part of the software world.
She is indeed most attractive. Of course, I would also say similar things about Kristanna Loken, and watching Blood Rayne was a traumatic experience...
Heck, even House of the Dead would have been a decent cheesy B horror movie if he hadn't insisted on putting those stupid scenes from the game in the movie...