Wait, is this just an advertisement for Glasshouse? The voice in the video on Green Phosphor's website is exactly the same.
It is totally the same guy - the background noise sounds identical too - like he recorded it on the same microphone with the same environmental conditions. Hell, he even starts each narration exactly the same with the pattern of, "Hi <name> here."
Remember Bob Young's famous quote that his goal for RedHat was not to grow to the size of Microsoft, rather for Microsoft to shrink to the size of RedHat.
Anyone who's seen old-school anime like Akira knows that Japan is doomed to being consumed by an ever-growing blob of indeterminate origin. We now know it will start in the subways...
Sure they're both based on a open source project (Chromium/Webkit and Darwin/BSD) does not mean they are truly open source. Try to modify and redistribute either and see how long before either of their "parents" get all lawyer-ey.
Of course, that depends on ISPs not being entrenched in their crony capitalist markets through special licensing, franchises, and subsidies - as bequeathed by your bipartisan fascist overlords.
Which will never change because landlines require right-of-way easements across large numbers of private properties in order to achieve reasonable levels of coverage.
Favoring Skype and game traffic for short latency wouldn't have much impact on the bandwidth available to streaming content but would certainly improve the quality of gaming and chatting.
The hard part is implementing the ability to do that kind of prioritization internet-wide. I'm too lazy to go dig it up, but there was an analysis published a few years back that suggested any possible benefit of building 'smarts' into the network could be achieved simply by increasing the available bandwidth by roughly 30%. And that it was far cheaper to keep the network dumb, as it has been since pretty much the beginning of the internet, and just add capacity than it would be to add all the computative and buffering functionality required to make it smart enough to do prioritization reliably. (Its cheap and easy to do it unreliably, but if it ain't going be reliable, what's the point?)
It seems a lot of the net neutrality discussions have only worried about one part of the problem -- Netflix, YouTube and P2P -- while an equally important source of concern went unnoticed: latency in online games."
The issue isn't specific to ANY type of usage - net neutrality, or rather the lack of it, impacts all uses of the network. As long as connectivity providers are also application providers, any application they don't like is a potential candidate for connectivity problems.
If anything, the meritocracy of the OSS model is going to provide at least as much accountability as a paycheck can. Seems to me the paycheck is going to assure conformity with the employer's needs - many of which have no technical basis.
I think you've (albeit slowly!) come to admit an understanding of my original post, albeit via sarcastic "sure, that could have been what you meant". We all make misunderstandings and it's cool that we could talk it through.
Don't be so foolish as to mistake sarcasm as agreement.
It's the loaded word fallacy when it's intended to make the audience jump to an unjustified evaluative conclusion. Since no such conclusion has been applied further on in the argument, there is no application of the fallacy.
One need not explicitly state the unjustified conclusion. "Cheerlead," "fashionable," "political war," "liberating" - all of those terms make your implied conclusion crytsal clear.
something precisely unlike my use of the term.
Sure, it wasn't loaded at all, you implied nothing whatsoever.
"so-called" is a cheap rhetorical device used by third rate politicians
Great, that's nice really, but that's not the only use. Your citing of it is irrelevant. Seems like more foaming actually.
To celebrate something isn't necessarily to parade it as a glorious thing in the streets;
Hello, McFly? That's PRECISELY the loaded word fallacy - to use a term that has multiple definitions such that the implications of the other definitions are taken.
You stated, quite clearly, not Ax => not Bx, where "A" is "trying to be made illegal" and "B" is "needs cheerleading".
Didja notice my use of quotations around the word "cheerleading? Or maybe the part were I added "so called" before "cheerleading?" Didja think I just did that to fill out the page? Of course not. I did it to make the point that your exaggerated use of the term was the topic of discussion - not the generalization you have now tried to apply after the fact. Sorry if that simple point was too difficult to decode for you.
What this makes me is a thief of my own time, and little else.
Tell you what. I'll give you the point. Maybe I'm missing the attraction of solitary existence.
I don't think you have given me the point because your follow-on decidedly missed it.
The point is that your claim of expertise was based on a fairly strong disavowal of any expertise.
It has nothing to do with solitude - but simply bad logic in your argument which, come to think of it, might actually be a form of solipsism in the way you've applied it.
Grow up, it was a claim -- but unlike YOUR original claim what followed it was supporting evidence - as in "in the way that the right to abort seems to be celebrated." A clear use of the loaded word fallacy if there ever was one.
What? The only reason to cheerlead something is a few people trying to make it illegal?
Can you show me where either you or I previously used words identical to, or indicating equality with "the only reason?"
What you've done is attempt to exaggerate my point way out of proportion and reason so that you may have a strawman to joust at. What you've really done is out yourself as having no solid basis for your claims since otherwise you would not have felt the need argue with a point I did not make. Do you see how you've painted yourself as being irrational and perhaps even perhaps a slightly foaming at the mouth?
disclaimer: this post is not speaking for or against abortion
Just because you claim it doesn't make it true.
I realise that it is not fashionable to cheerlead adoption, in the way that the right to abort seems to be celebrated.
Apparently you do not. If you did, you would realize that no one is trying to make adoption illegal, hence adoption doesn't need so called 'cheerleading.'
I think what China is defending is national pride, trying to artificially level out the success of foreign vs. domestic films, and preserving the traditional Chinese identity.
Considering the consternation caused by the success of Kung-Fu Panda within China, I think I agree with you:
The whole idea that they are censoring it for political reasons seems like a story made up for westerners and incongruous with the fact that they left it playing on all those 3D screens.
Well, what if everyone wanted to use their own custom solution? This might not be an issue in a company that has 4-10 employees, but one with 100-10000 surely is going to be.
That's a false dichotomy. Most people will get along just fine with the standard stuff, but not everyone. Real life is a constant barrage of exceptions - so too will be any large company. A good 'system' is flexible enough to accommodate those exceptions with ease. Trying to standardize/squash out the exceptions just leads to one of two results - the creative employees leave and all you've got left are drones who will eventually trap the company in mediocrity or "midnight requisitions" where you get exactly those kind of "idiots who think they're the best and then break their computers." Any system designed to go against human nature rather than complement it will eventually result in total failure.
Excuse me, but do yon happen to know any arguments that don't consist entirely of name-calling?
It's not name calling when it is a straightforward description of events.
That you could so thoroughly miss my point about the business of running a newspaper versus the gathering of news when I went out of my way to emphasize the business part in the original post beggars belief. Just about everybody else got it. That you continued to miss the point on two more occasions by actively rewording my statements to make them have a different meaning that you could more easily joust at is really pushing the bounds of credulity. Then you went even further and misconstrued my criticism of that rewording to set up strawmen as criticizing you for being ignorant was just way over the top - it was like a meta strawman all on its own. Furthermore, your own sanctimonious invocation of the charity principle doesn't fly - if I took everything you wrote at face value, then the only conclusion one can come to is that YOU failed to apply the charity principle to what I wrote.
"could I possibly not know as much as I think I do?"
The sad fact here is I am left with two choices - either you are really, really, really dense, or you are a "dickhead" as you have apparently chosen to call yourself.
But the sad fact is that hearing "you're a dickhead" over and over gets a little boring after a while.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, is this just an advertisement for Glasshouse? The voice in the video on Green Phosphor's website is exactly the same.
It is totally the same guy - the background noise sounds identical too - like he recorded it on the same microphone with the same environmental conditions.
Hell, he even starts each narration exactly the same with the pattern of, "Hi <name> here."
This isn't a left or a right thing. Both "sides" seem perfectly comfortable with it.
"We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans."
-- Obama on recent SCOTUS Ruling
That's a pittance in corporate america.
Remember Bob Young's famous quote that his goal for RedHat was not to grow to the size of Microsoft, rather for Microsoft to shrink to the size of RedHat.
Weapons of Mass Proportion?
Anyone who's seen old-school anime like Akira knows that Japan is doomed to being consumed by an ever-growing blob of indeterminate origin.
We now know it will start in the subways...
Sure they're both based on a open source project (Chromium/Webkit and Darwin/BSD) does not mean they are truly open source. Try to modify and redistribute either and see how long before either of their "parents" get all lawyer-ey.
You mean like Iron?
Of course, that depends on ISPs not being entrenched in their crony capitalist markets through special licensing, franchises, and subsidies - as bequeathed by your bipartisan fascist overlords.
Which will never change because landlines require right-of-way easements across large numbers of private properties in order to achieve reasonable levels of coverage.
Favoring Skype and game traffic for short latency wouldn't have much impact on the bandwidth available to streaming content but would certainly improve the quality of gaming and chatting.
The hard part is implementing the ability to do that kind of prioritization internet-wide. I'm too lazy to go dig it up, but there was an analysis published a few years back that suggested any possible benefit of building 'smarts' into the network could be achieved simply by increasing the available bandwidth by roughly 30%. And that it was far cheaper to keep the network dumb, as it has been since pretty much the beginning of the internet, and just add capacity than it would be to add all the computative and buffering functionality required to make it smart enough to do prioritization reliably. (Its cheap and easy to do it unreliably, but if it ain't going be reliable, what's the point?)
It seems a lot of the net neutrality discussions have only worried about one part of the problem -- Netflix, YouTube and P2P -- while an equally important source of concern went unnoticed: latency in online games."
The issue isn't specific to ANY type of usage - net neutrality, or rather the lack of it, impacts all uses of the network.
As long as connectivity providers are also application providers, any application they don't like is a potential candidate for connectivity problems.
... professional accountability...
In software? Where?
If anything, the meritocracy of the OSS model is going to provide at least as much accountability as a paycheck can.
Seems to me the paycheck is going to assure conformity with the employer's needs - many of which have no technical basis.
I think you've (albeit slowly!) come to admit an understanding of my original post, albeit via sarcastic "sure, that could have been what you meant". We all make misunderstandings and it's cool that we could talk it through.
Don't be so foolish as to mistake sarcasm as agreement.
It's the loaded word fallacy when it's intended to make the audience jump to an unjustified evaluative conclusion. Since no such conclusion has been applied further on in the argument, there is no application of the fallacy.
One need not explicitly state the unjustified conclusion. "Cheerlead," "fashionable," "political war," "liberating" - all of those terms make your implied conclusion crytsal clear.
something precisely unlike my use of the term.
Sure, it wasn't loaded at all, you implied nothing whatsoever.
"so-called" is a cheap rhetorical device used by third rate politicians
Great, that's nice really, but that's not the only use. Your citing of it is irrelevant. Seems like more foaming actually.
Shouldn't that be, "LOL I TROL you"?
Stop hitting yourself.
To celebrate something isn't necessarily to parade it as a glorious thing in the streets;
Hello, McFly? That's PRECISELY the loaded word fallacy - to use a term that has multiple definitions such that the implications of the other definitions are taken.
You stated, quite clearly, not Ax => not Bx, where "A" is "trying to be made illegal" and "B" is "needs cheerleading".
Didja notice my use of quotations around the word "cheerleading? Or maybe the part were I added "so called" before "cheerleading?"
Didja think I just did that to fill out the page?
Of course not. I did it to make the point that your exaggerated use of the term was the topic of discussion - not the generalization you have now tried to apply after the fact.
Sorry if that simple point was too difficult to decode for you.
What this makes me is a thief of my own time, and little else.
Stop hitting yourself.
Tell you what. I'll give you the point. Maybe I'm missing the attraction of solitary existence.
I don't think you have given me the point because your follow-on decidedly missed it.
The point is that your claim of expertise was based on a fairly strong disavowal of any expertise.
It has nothing to do with solitude - but simply bad logic in your argument which, come to think of it, might actually be a form of solipsism in the way you've applied it.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
Grow up, it was a claim -- but unlike YOUR original claim what followed it was supporting evidence - as in "in the way that the right to abort seems to be celebrated." A clear use of the loaded word fallacy if there ever was one.
What? The only reason to cheerlead something is a few people trying to make it illegal?
Can you show me where either you or I previously used words identical to, or indicating equality with "the only reason?"
What you've done is attempt to exaggerate my point way out of proportion and reason so that you may have a strawman to joust at.
What you've really done is out yourself as having no solid basis for your claims since otherwise you would not have felt the need argue with a point I did not make.
Do you see how you've painted yourself as being irrational and perhaps even perhaps a slightly foaming at the mouth?
Cuz' I'm a wee bit past twenty years of age. ;-)
Most of which time you presumably were not living in solitude either.
disclaimer: this post is not speaking for or against abortion
Just because you claim it doesn't make it true.
I realise that it is not fashionable to cheerlead adoption, in the way that the right to abort seems to be celebrated.
Apparently you do not. If you did, you would realize that no one is trying to make adoption illegal, hence adoption doesn't need so called 'cheerleading.'
Now, I'm a grey-haired father of several and blissfully married for 20 years, and I can tell you, there is precious little joy in extended solitude.
Huh? How does being constantly surrounded by people for 20+ years make you an expert on solitude?
I think what China is defending is national pride, trying to artificially level out the success of foreign vs. domestic films, and preserving the traditional Chinese identity.
Considering the consternation caused by the success of Kung-Fu Panda within China, I think I agree with you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/weekinreview/20bernstein.html
The whole idea that they are censoring it for political reasons seems like a story made up for westerners and incongruous with the fact that they left it playing on all those 3D screens.
Well, what if everyone wanted to use their own custom solution? This might not be an issue in a company that has 4-10 employees, but one with 100-10000 surely is going to be.
That's a false dichotomy. Most people will get along just fine with the standard stuff, but not everyone. Real life is a constant barrage of exceptions - so too will be any large company. A good 'system' is flexible enough to accommodate those exceptions with ease. Trying to standardize/squash out the exceptions just leads to one of two results - the creative employees leave and all you've got left are drones who will eventually trap the company in mediocrity or "midnight requisitions" where you get exactly those kind of "idiots who think they're the best and then break their computers." Any system designed to go against human nature rather than complement it will eventually result in total failure.
As usual, you claim to understand my arguments better than I do.
As usual, you fail to apply the charity principle.
"No" is a contradiction. Too subtle for you; I guess. I'd explain, but explanations seem to offend you.
I would think that the vast majoirty of embedded processors don't run an OS at all.....
In this context an "os" is really more of a really extensive set of libraries one links the application with rather than making system calls.
A simple "no" would have sufficed.
Don't contradict.
Excuse me, but do yon happen to know any arguments that don't consist entirely of name-calling?
It's not name calling when it is a straightforward description of events.
That you could so thoroughly miss my point about the business of running a newspaper versus the gathering of news when I went out of my way to emphasize the business part in the original post beggars belief. Just about everybody else got it. That you continued to miss the point on two more occasions by actively rewording my statements to make them have a different meaning that you could more easily joust at is really pushing the bounds of credulity. Then you went even further and misconstrued my criticism of that rewording to set up strawmen as criticizing you for being ignorant was just way over the top - it was like a meta strawman all on its own. Furthermore, your own sanctimonious invocation of the charity principle doesn't fly - if I took everything you wrote at face value, then the only conclusion one can come to is that YOU failed to apply the charity principle to what I wrote.
"could I possibly not know as much as I think I do?"
The sad fact here is I am left with two choices - either you are really, really, really dense, or you are a "dickhead" as you have apparently chosen to call yourself.
But the sad fact is that hearing "you're a dickhead" over and over gets a little boring after a while.
Then, I suggest you stop being one.