promisory estoppel: A doctrine in which a non contractual promise may be made enforceable to avoid an injustice.
Re:Here's a link to LWN where he talks about it
on
Linus Drops BitKeeper
·
· Score: 1
"Because it sucks?"
Best response ever. And I say this as a serious DB advocate.
Re:Mindshare and image bloodbath for BitKeeper
on
Linus Drops BitKeeper
·
· Score: 1
Um, "WORKING WITH", like reverse engineering? Products that work with BK don't exist, because the fucking vendor doesn't want to play nice. Now that the gloves are off, I'm sure everything will soon be fine, and you can STOP TYPING like a caffinated lemur. BK probably has a nice life as a proprietary vendor, we'll all learn from their greed, and life goes on.
/me, about to go reverse engineer a proprietary product, yo. Eat my 'l33t Cobol spewing p@ntz. It's totally about right justified fixed width, ya'll. Patent in da house.
Amid all the flames Larry is taking, I think it is important to note that they are attempting to do the right thing on ending the free version:
In a post to the Linux Kernel mailing list in February of 2005, Larry discussed a 16 bit limitation of the existing free product. With nearly 64,000 changesets in the mainline kernel tree, future development will quickly exceed this limitation. For that reason, it is likely that BitMover will provide one final release of its free BitKeeper product, allowing kernel developers a graceful transition. By the end of July, the goal is to have completed the migration, thereby terminating the free product and focusing fully on the commercial product.
That said, it is precisely the mismatch between goals of a commercial operation and the goals of an open source project that council caution in becoming dependent in this way. Larry's trying to do the right thing for his business, which he has to do. He's also attempting not to leave Linux developers high and dry, which he easily could; see above.
One can certainly question his choices (and I do; the OSDL who-ha seems like an excuse for a long brewing decision to me, but what do I know.), but ultimately, they are his. What is important is to be pragmatic, as you say.
I'm not sure where you get that. One of my repositories is ~280K files, and it is _far_ faster than when we had it under CVS. Perhaps you have a config issue... Add in the fact that the architecture lets you do a lot of things locally and you're inherently much faster than CVS on those operations.
Granted, svn doesn't have some of the cooler distributed coding features, and that's really the pickle for kernel development. But speed really isn't an issue for it, in my experience.
If you believe in the eye-for-an-eye thing, then you should support court mandated rape under controlled conditions for that class of offenses, rather than the biggest-most-violent-man-wins sort of effect we have now. If someone deserves it, shouldn't we make sure they get it? The contrapositive applies, too: why are we, as a society, condoning rape for minor offenses?
My personal view is that there should be a bright line between, well, cruel and unusual punishments and punishments officially sanctioned by society. It has nothing to do with deterministic arguements; it is about equitability and being civilized. Punishment, even from a retribution standpoint, should never involve torture, because we are more civilized than that. We, as a culture, outgrew drawing and quartering, debtor's prison, and branding. Why is rape in confinement tolerated?
These fraud artists need to be put away in "pmita" prisons, for selling miracle cures and housing siding to old people. And selling the Brooklyn bridge. And selling this hot new miracle cure.
This is an old scam. Fixing the systemic problems that enables it on the net (too easy information sharing, government mandated IDs that can easily be misused, etc.) is hard, and requires government action. It is only becoming easy because of tech; and saying that punishing people harder because the tech slider moved is the functionally the same argument that calls for protecting buggy whip makers. The bar moved; things that used to work need to, too. There are always scammers and parasites. punishing them more doesn't fix the problem that allows them to do the job. Unfortunately, there are a lot of interests that profit from the current situation, not to mention the terrorism hysteria, sotightening up personal privacy is an uphill battle at the moment. Sucks to be a middle class victim right now, but that's who's paying for it. And lots of them are paying.
BTW. This is one of my political hot points. But anyone who believes that prison rape is an equitable punishment for being found guilty for any of the things that are currently on the books is someone that needs to take a serious look at their morals, the law, or, preferably, both. If you're just joking, take a look at what actually happens. If you're not, I hope you just have yet to think about what you're saying.
Sorry, Rod. I misinterpreted your comment. (For the record, you could have been more clear - generally, accusing actor X or making specific mistake Y leads a reader to assume that actor X actually made given mistake; either using a valid specific example, or generalizing the complaint would make the operative point more obvious. But this is now rhetoric, not new database topics.) In fact, I was looking forward to the cool new stupid thing Mysql did with multiplication, and am sad I don't actually get a new trick to freak out the newbies with. But lord knows performing set operations in the face of datatype coercion are still hard enough for the poor beast; I should probably just be happy with the fact that 0 = 1 in Mysqlland, and go about my business.
mysql> select 54363 * 23453;
54363 * 23453
1274975439
1 row in set (0.04 sec)
(Intentionally mangled output due to the $%#& lameness filter.)
I'm not disuputing you, and I can't stand lots of mysql's screwy behaviours (I'm a rather big Postgres booster, actually). I'm just wondering how to reproduce it.
-abulafia, currently supporting Postgresql, Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase and Mysql.
Although he's soft-selling it right now as looking for ways to help the system forward, I suspect it's the prelude to legal action.
Not knowing anything about the situation (other than skimming a few of those articles, and comparing those to past EDS fuckups), I can't really comment. But, this is/. afterall. But this sounds like typical ass-covering - politician gave a contract, then takes heat, then has to generate a report for an investigatory committe with a bit "lessons learned" section.
I'm not disagreeing with your analysis. Merely pointing out that you'll have to get rid of people before you can have "real" capitalism. People == influence peddling, and always has, from the hypothetical caveman who didn't know why he wanted to bash the skulls of other sperm producers on through the alumni associations of modern day private schools. Of course, we're a little more subtle these days, at least most of the time.
If companies (which want to make a profit) exist that help with defensive publication, then defensive patents are anti-innovation?
It doesn't matter that I agree with you; you need better arguments.
Defensive publication happens in biotech all the time - corps will publish a massive swath of molecules with cryptic notes about some of them, in order to kill an area where some other corp might patent something. It isn't really pro-free-use; it is more strategic corporate warfare, but it is one of the few patent-related areas that actually works for freedom. (It is more complex than a Gibsonian struggle, I know; I'm simplifying a little.)
On my rantfest, I simply do two things:
1) Add a form field with a random number, and check for it when a comment is submitted. The hidden form element name is randomized, too, as is the position in the form block I also screw with the displayed field's names.
2) I check the referrer, via apache, when people attempt to talk to my comments page. I use a somewhat complicated mod_perl method, but that's because I'm doing other stuff with it as well. In any case, if you don't come in via the actual page or the front door (if the post is still on it), you get some commentary on your personal habits, but no post. A simple.htaccess could get you most of the way there.
Very little spam. (I've had like 2 spam posts, and I almost feel bad for people doing this manually. Almost.)
I said, Spoken like a loyal marxist., and really meant it to be funny. And then I get back,
Yeah under bourgeois economics. As if there was only one economic system or social order that is 'the best'. The fact is modern production facilities could give the poor and working class a much higher standard of living the fact that discriminatory pricing is even used indicates the very flaws of the capitalist system and that the poor even exist in the first place and 'need' to be 'supported'.
Oops. Didn't mean to pee in your worldview. No, really, it makes me type, when I should be doing something else.
Buddy, deal. Bad things happen, and the "capitalist system" can no more fix it that whatever the hell you're proposing. Bad things happen because people are bad. Suck it up and join the world.
Why can't capitalism fix it, you might ask? Well, that would be due to government, the beast you're promoting. Go look for freedom in China, Syria, et al. where there is a strong central government. And no, I don't support shrub's new version of Manifest Destiny. That is not our job. That doesn't mean I can't comdemn lack of freedom elsewhere. And as soon as you have a plan to fix China, please respond.
Capitalism isn't nice. It is much nicer than the alternatives (with apologies to Churchhill).
(Lest I become accused of not responding, I'll take this space to answer the "we could feed the masses if only..." And so the question devolves into _who_ will feed them. Should the government? maybe. Who is the government? That would be _you_. In andy case, government is not predictable,and currently, it doesn't seem to want to be nice at the moment. If you'd like a government that feeds the poor, perhaps you should become government. In the mean time, I'm looking out for me and mine, and I know that's a bad local optima. But that's what the game is now. Yes, if only we had a somewhat saner HoR, or a pile of Senators. Fact is, they are a pile of fucks. And they have a nice system of elections ensures that we will have a Pile Of Fucks. So deal. Either start fomenting, or shut up. Dumb Marxist claptrap is useless.)
I said potentially, so don't bother playing semantics.
So... what are you arguing against, if you don't like semantic games? Let's look...(from parent):
You have to love how they demonize everyone by using labels like "gang of internet pirates"
"Gang" and "pirate" both have specific, rather loaded meanings. Teh intarnet just makes it sound current, edgy and like consumer-consumer communication is new and stuff, and must be suppressed for the good of buggy-whip makers everywhere.
If you want to defend attacks on copyright infringers, a great place to start would be comparing them to other white-collar crime (because that's what this is), and explain how defrauding thousands for millions is less bad than copying music. Really, go compare punishments (and by this I mean civil settlements as well as penalties - compare the reparations with the putative deprivation from interested parties). After all, we have a rational legal system, right?
I realize that is a digression, but I don't think it is a herring, red or otherwise. Liquidating the company's retirement plan to prop up quarterly profit wins you a slap, and distributing music should bankrupt you instead?
Rebates are not needed at all, they burden the consumer and are in fact designed to take advantage of human beings. You've imbibed too much free market capitalistic religion. Sorry but if Manufacturer A) is willing to give money back to the *customer* then it follows that manufacturer A) should be giving that money to the store when the item is sold and NOT burden the customer. It's this simple, the rest of your argument just doesn't wash with real world economics, businesses primary aims are profit not enabling the poor to buy their items. If they were to enable the poor to buy their items they wouldn't have to sell the item at a higher price and then refund it after the fact.
Spoken like a loyal marxist.
Sorry, I don't actually drink Randian koolaid, etc. But it is worth talking about.
This, in economic terms, is called descriminatory pricing. The idea is that those who can pay more will, and those who can't or won't, well, won't.
Before you scream, notice that it happens daily, on a wide scale: going to movies are the classic example; 9 bucks for a ticket, and then 7 more for popcorn and a drink that would have cost you, maybe, a dollar outside of the theatre. It also happens buying cars, dinner, and booze (Think of the opportunity cost of going 'cross town...)
People pay what they think something is worth daily. And that's a negotiation, even if it happens solely in one's own head - "A pack of ramen costs $0.32 over there, and $0.99 here. Do I want to walk over there?" Sure, you can smuggle in food to a movie, and my example is very urban. But I think you et the point. All these businessess survive.
I don't have a problem with it. If I make a purchase, I hold the seller to the agreement, and that probably makes me an unsatifactory consumer(tm). But more often than not, crap sold with rebates isn't worth even dealing with. So I don't. That said, I own a rather nice scanner that was free. Yes, I did have to fight for the rebate, but for a 1200 DPI (optical) scanner with a slide adapter included, you bet your sweet ass I bought it.
All that said, yes, rebates suck. They're a stupid mechanism for lowering the 'buy Buy BUY' ad price. But really, who cares? Everyone's getting a bad experience with them, and the message is getting around - fuck retailers who whore out rebates.
We don't need more steenken regulation. People are capable of spotting a scam.
"Intellectual property" is a meaningful term, much like your use of "pets". The problem comes in when someone assumes that it has a legal meaning, and -- worse -- when people intentionally attempt to confuse IP with other forms of property. At that point, to use your metaphor, you're close to saying that putting a dog in a tank of water and feeding it fish food is good for it.
People who deal in the industry call it IP. It's only a stupid Slashdot meme that "IP is meaningless".
It may be pedantic, bad politics, or (frequently, here) misinformed, but distinguishing between different types of rights bundles granted by the state is not "onlya stupid Slashdot meme". The state granting those rights does the same, and one way to oppose those who wish ideas to become perpetual cash fountains is to point out the concepts, law and history that underpins the reasons why the state grants those rights in the first place. Of course, to do so, one must explain the difference between different types of things that fall under the umbrella term "IP".
It's fallacious to lump them together under "IP".
The word "fallacious" is an adjective. If you don't know what a word means, try not using it.
Um, would you care to explain what exactly is wrong with the construction "it is [adj] to [verb]..."? You're being unclear, so I don't know if you're attacking sentence structure or vocabulary, so I'll go for both: fallacious: 1: embodying a fallacy 2: tending to deceive or mislead. Hm, definition works. You can argue with the content, but not the word choice. OK: let's try sentence structure. Other than a weak voice (writing style, rather than grammatical criticism), there is nothing wrong with it. If you think there is, please explain: what exactly do you think is wrong with the sentence, "It's stupid to correct others when you don't know what you're talking about?"
Are these people dues-paying members of these parties, or do they just tend to vote that way (in elections)?
They are government officials with publically declared party allegiance.
What kind of Democrat/Republican are they? Slashdot groupthink (as I see it) seems to be (broadly) old-style, small-government Republicanism, as opposed to the policies of the current US administration, formed from the current Republican party.
I can see why it looks that way, from the outside. I think Slashdot groupthink is naive libertarian (small l; continental types would call it 'liberalism') in the way you mean, except when that means that some scum sucking profiteer might win; then the horde is pro-"justice". Really, generally much more 'liberal' than the U.S. at large, and not that different than other countries. The US is shifting slightly harsh-authoritarian, rather than touchy-feely authoritarian, which is a shame. I don't want to move countries that much.
Labelling somebody as 'Democrat' or 'Republican', or for the UK, 'Labour', 'Conservative' or 'Liberal Democrat' (a party name that could use some work), is not particularly helpful and merely serves to polarise and oversimplify politics. It gives no indication of the character or philosophy of the person concerned.
Actually, it does, here in the US. There's quite a bit more of a culture of block-voting, support-the-platform, even-if-it-is-wrong here than in England or many other Euro countries. I could philosophize on why, but will desist. Suffice to say, partisan politics are very entrenched at this point.
Unless, of course, they are but lackeys of the current or former administration, in which case, look to the politician giving the orders.
Now you're catching on. The worst part is, the Demos are starting to become the same way, out of self-defense. Which, of course, they have to.
I hate both of them just about equally. Too bad they're spiraling off into heavily optimized fuck-the-world politics.
Clustering was started on platforms like Sun and Linux. Yet, there is no mention of that in your posting--you talk as if it was Apple and Microsoft. Yeah, Apple has been in the news because they put themselves there.
Actually, clustering started on platforms like Appolo and Cray. Learn some history before you try talking trash. Here, I'll help the education: google for ["oil exploration" clustering]. Look for mentions of platforms from the 80s. Profit.
Cluster computing is still the domain of Linux, BSD, and Solaris, and there is no indication that that is changing at all, glitzy press releases from Apple and Microsoft notwithstanding.
(Emphasis added.) And where do you think Apple got clustering capabilities? [whistles sweetly, waits...]
Really, I don't see anywhere where the GP poster said anything about Apple inventing clustering. Of course, that shouldn't stop you from demonstrating your ignorance and bias on slashdot...
For the record, I haven't owned a Mac in almost 10 years, and I can't stand their legal stance. I am considering an iBook, once I really need to ditch this poor, abused, aging TP running Debian that I type this on... although I do hate the way the keyboard feels.
The decision to rely on a digital signature (which is basically crypto!) and not encrypt the data is positively loopy.
It is clearly an intentional choice. The goal is to make luser's data easy to get at. When talking about "lusers" in the context of government, read aloud as "anyone who doesn't get a bodyguard on government payroll".
Slashdot Mirror
promisory estoppel: A doctrine in which a non contractual promise may be made enforceable to avoid an injustice.
Best response ever. And I say this as a serious DB advocate.
That said, it is precisely the mismatch between goals of a commercial operation and the goals of an open source project that council caution in becoming dependent in this way. Larry's trying to do the right thing for his business, which he has to do. He's also attempting not to leave Linux developers high and dry, which he easily could; see above.
One can certainly question his choices (and I do; the OSDL who-ha seems like an excuse for a long brewing decision to me, but what do I know.), but ultimately, they are his. What is important is to be pragmatic, as you say.
Granted, svn doesn't have some of the cooler distributed coding features, and that's really the pickle for kernel development. But speed really isn't an issue for it, in my experience.
My personal view is that there should be a bright line between, well, cruel and unusual punishments and punishments officially sanctioned by society. It has nothing to do with deterministic arguements; it is about equitability and being civilized. Punishment, even from a retribution standpoint, should never involve torture, because we are more civilized than that. We, as a culture, outgrew drawing and quartering, debtor's prison, and branding. Why is rape in confinement tolerated?
This is an old scam. Fixing the systemic problems that enables it on the net (too easy information sharing, government mandated IDs that can easily be misused, etc.) is hard, and requires government action. It is only becoming easy because of tech; and saying that punishing people harder because the tech slider moved is the functionally the same argument that calls for protecting buggy whip makers. The bar moved; things that used to work need to, too. There are always scammers and parasites. punishing them more doesn't fix the problem that allows them to do the job. Unfortunately, there are a lot of interests that profit from the current situation, not to mention the terrorism hysteria, sotightening up personal privacy is an uphill battle at the moment. Sucks to be a middle class victim right now, but that's who's paying for it. And lots of them are paying.
BTW. This is one of my political hot points. But anyone who believes that prison rape is an equitable punishment for being found guilty for any of the things that are currently on the books is someone that needs to take a serious look at their morals, the law, or, preferably, both. If you're just joking, take a look at what actually happens. If you're not, I hope you just have yet to think about what you're saying.
Who's next?
Scenario: a dog you've never met before is in front of you, unaccompanied by anyone. Do you assume it is safe to treat it like the majority of dogs?
Sorry, Rod. I misinterpreted your comment. (For the record, you could have been more clear - generally, accusing actor X or making specific mistake Y leads a reader to assume that actor X actually made given mistake; either using a valid specific example, or generalizing the complaint would make the operative point more obvious. But this is now rhetoric, not new database topics.) In fact, I was looking forward to the cool new stupid thing Mysql did with multiplication, and am sad I don't actually get a new trick to freak out the newbies with. But lord knows performing set operations in the face of datatype coercion are still hard enough for the poor beast; I should probably just be happy with the fact that 0 = 1 in Mysqlland, and go about my business.
(Intentionally mangled output due to the $%#& lameness filter.)
I'm not disuputing you, and I can't stand lots of mysql's screwy behaviours (I'm a rather big Postgres booster, actually). I'm just wondering how to reproduce it.
-abulafia, currently supporting Postgresql, Oracle, MS SQL Server, Sybase and Mysql.
Not knowing anything about the situation (other than skimming a few of those articles, and comparing those to past EDS fuckups), I can't really comment. But, this is /. afterall. But this sounds like typical ass-covering - politician gave a contract, then takes heat, then has to generate a report for an investigatory committe with a bit "lessons learned" section.
I'm not disagreeing with your analysis. Merely pointing out that you'll have to get rid of people before you can have "real" capitalism. People == influence peddling, and always has, from the hypothetical caveman who didn't know why he wanted to bash the skulls of other sperm producers on through the alumni associations of modern day private schools. Of course, we're a little more subtle these days, at least most of the time.
To be geeky about it, a negative informational payload would be sort of like the famous lightbulb that doesn't emit light, but rather sucks dark.
As stated, just a quibble. Worse, downright pedantic.
Unless it actually sucks signal out of neighboring informational bodies, it can't be negative.
Just a quibble.
If companies (which want to make a profit) exist that help with defensive publication, then defensive patents are anti-innovation?
It doesn't matter that I agree with you; you need better arguments.
Defensive publication happens in biotech all the time - corps will publish a massive swath of molecules with cryptic notes about some of them, in order to kill an area where some other corp might patent something. It isn't really pro-free-use; it is more strategic corporate warfare, but it is one of the few patent-related areas that actually works for freedom. (It is more complex than a Gibsonian struggle, I know; I'm simplifying a little.)
1) Add a form field with a random number, and check for it when a comment is submitted. The hidden form element name is randomized, too, as is the position in the form block I also screw with the displayed field's names.
2) I check the referrer, via apache, when people attempt to talk to my comments page. I use a somewhat complicated mod_perl method, but that's because I'm doing other stuff with it as well. In any case, if you don't come in via the actual page or the front door (if the post is still on it), you get some commentary on your personal habits, but no post. A simple
Very little spam. (I've had like 2 spam posts, and I almost feel bad for people doing this manually. Almost.)
Buddy, deal. Bad things happen, and the "capitalist system" can no more fix it that whatever the hell you're proposing. Bad things happen because people are bad. Suck it up and join the world.
Why can't capitalism fix it, you might ask? Well, that would be due to government, the beast you're promoting. Go look for freedom in China, Syria, et al. where there is a strong central government. And no, I don't support shrub's new version of Manifest Destiny. That is not our job. That doesn't mean I can't comdemn lack of freedom elsewhere. And as soon as you have a plan to fix China, please respond.
Capitalism isn't nice. It is much nicer than the alternatives (with apologies to Churchhill). (Lest I become accused of not responding, I'll take this space to answer the "we could feed the masses if only..." And so the question devolves into _who_ will feed them. Should the government? maybe. Who is the government? That would be _you_. In andy case, government is not predictable,and currently, it doesn't seem to want to be nice at the moment. If you'd like a government that feeds the poor, perhaps you should become government. In the mean time, I'm looking out for me and mine, and I know that's a bad local optima. But that's what the game is now. Yes, if only we had a somewhat saner HoR, or a pile of Senators. Fact is, they are a pile of fucks. And they have a nice system of elections ensures that we will have a Pile Of Fucks. So deal. Either start fomenting, or shut up. Dumb Marxist claptrap is useless.)
So... what are you arguing against, if you don't like semantic games? Let's look...(from parent):
You have to love how they demonize everyone by using labels like "gang of internet pirates"
"Gang" and "pirate" both have specific, rather loaded meanings. Teh intarnet just makes it sound current, edgy and like consumer-consumer communication is new and stuff, and must be suppressed for the good of buggy-whip makers everywhere.
If you want to defend attacks on copyright infringers, a great place to start would be comparing them to other white-collar crime (because that's what this is), and explain how defrauding thousands for millions is less bad than copying music. Really, go compare punishments (and by this I mean civil settlements as well as penalties - compare the reparations with the putative deprivation from interested parties). After all, we have a rational legal system, right?
I realize that is a digression, but I don't think it is a herring, red or otherwise. Liquidating the company's retirement plan to prop up quarterly profit wins you a slap, and distributing music should bankrupt you instead?
Oh, wait - bankruptcy is now only for the rich.
Spoken like a loyal marxist.
Sorry, I don't actually drink Randian koolaid, etc. But it is worth talking about.
This, in economic terms, is called descriminatory pricing. The idea is that those who can pay more will, and those who can't or won't, well, won't.
Before you scream, notice that it happens daily, on a wide scale: going to movies are the classic example; 9 bucks for a ticket, and then 7 more for popcorn and a drink that would have cost you, maybe, a dollar outside of the theatre. It also happens buying cars, dinner, and booze (Think of the opportunity cost of going 'cross town...)
People pay what they think something is worth daily. And that's a negotiation, even if it happens solely in one's own head - "A pack of ramen costs $0.32 over there, and $0.99 here. Do I want to walk over there?" Sure, you can smuggle in food to a movie, and my example is very urban. But I think you et the point. All these businessess survive.
I don't have a problem with it. If I make a purchase, I hold the seller to the agreement, and that probably makes me an unsatifactory consumer(tm). But more often than not, crap sold with rebates isn't worth even dealing with. So I don't. That said, I own a rather nice scanner that was free. Yes, I did have to fight for the rebate, but for a 1200 DPI (optical) scanner with a slide adapter included, you bet your sweet ass I bought it.
All that said, yes, rebates suck. They're a stupid mechanism for lowering the 'buy Buy BUY' ad price. But really, who cares? Everyone's getting a bad experience with them, and the message is getting around - fuck retailers who whore out rebates.
We don't need more steenken regulation. People are capable of spotting a scam.
Just curious.
People who deal in the industry call it IP. It's only a stupid Slashdot meme that "IP is meaningless".
It may be pedantic, bad politics, or (frequently, here) misinformed, but distinguishing between different types of rights bundles granted by the state is not "onlya stupid Slashdot meme". The state granting those rights does the same, and one way to oppose those who wish ideas to become perpetual cash fountains is to point out the concepts, law and history that underpins the reasons why the state grants those rights in the first place. Of course, to do so, one must explain the difference between different types of things that fall under the umbrella term "IP".
Um, would you care to explain what exactly is wrong with the construction "it is [adj] to [verb]Pie.
Are these people dues-paying members of these parties, or do they just tend to vote that way (in elections)?
They are government officials with publically declared party allegiance.
What kind of Democrat/Republican are they? Slashdot groupthink (as I see it) seems to be (broadly) old-style, small-government Republicanism, as opposed to the policies of the current US administration, formed from the current Republican party.
I can see why it looks that way, from the outside. I think Slashdot groupthink is naive libertarian (small l; continental types would call it 'liberalism') in the way you mean, except when that means that some scum sucking profiteer might win; then the horde is pro-"justice". Really, generally much more 'liberal' than the U.S. at large, and not that different than other countries. The US is shifting slightly harsh-authoritarian, rather than touchy-feely authoritarian, which is a shame. I don't want to move countries that much.
Labelling somebody as 'Democrat' or 'Republican', or for the UK, 'Labour', 'Conservative' or 'Liberal Democrat' (a party name that could use some work), is not particularly helpful and merely serves to polarise and oversimplify politics. It gives no indication of the character or philosophy of the person concerned.
Actually, it does, here in the US. There's quite a bit more of a culture of block-voting, support-the-platform, even-if-it-is-wrong here than in England or many other Euro countries. I could philosophize on why, but will desist. Suffice to say, partisan politics are very entrenched at this point.
Unless, of course, they are but lackeys of the current or former administration, in which case, look to the politician giving the orders.
Now you're catching on. The worst part is, the Demos are starting to become the same way, out of self-defense. Which, of course, they have to.
I hate both of them just about equally. Too bad they're spiraling off into heavily optimized fuck-the-world politics.
Actually, clustering started on platforms like Appolo and Cray. Learn some history before you try talking trash. Here, I'll help the education: google for ["oil exploration" clustering]. Look for mentions of platforms from the 80s. Profit.
Cluster computing is still the domain of Linux, BSD, and Solaris, and there is no indication that that is changing at all, glitzy press releases from Apple and Microsoft notwithstanding.
(Emphasis added.) And where do you think Apple got clustering capabilities? [whistles sweetly, waits...]
Really, I don't see anywhere where the GP poster said anything about Apple inventing clustering. Of course, that shouldn't stop you from demonstrating your ignorance and bias on slashdot...
For the record, I haven't owned a Mac in almost 10 years, and I can't stand their legal stance. I am considering an iBook, once I really need to ditch this poor, abused, aging TP running Debian that I type this on... although I do hate the way the keyboard feels.
It is clearly an intentional choice. The goal is to make luser's data easy to get at. When talking about "lusers" in the context of government, read aloud as "anyone who doesn't get a bodyguard on government payroll".