Look under the "religious" projects. Finally a Christmas card that looks more geeky than the "iphone with cardboard" posted earlier on/.
Don't make one for anyone who's not local - either the TSA or the Post Office will arrest you for being a terrorist if that gets anywhere near either of them.
People have mistaken the agenda of RMS for their own, but he has a political agenda and not a practical one.
RMS's agenda is eminently practical. It's just a long-term practicality over immediate gratification. The Free software ecosystem is now well past the point where sacrificing the functionality of free software is a requirement for the general community. There are certainly niches where that is still true, but something like GNOME is not a niche.
The concern for privacy is definitely waning in younger generations.
The concern for privacy (and a whole host of other concerns) has always been minimal in the young. Teens think they are invulnerable, it's hormonal. And even once past their teen years, a great many people can't conceive of a failure mode until they get hit over the head with it, or at least see someone else get hit. But once that happens, they tend to over-react. I believe a privacy backlash is coming -- it took at least 15 years for "identity theft" to become a widespread concern. I expect we'll see something on the privacy front within a decade, maybe sooner.
Google doesn't seem to have a problem with selling the information they gather to every other single evil company out there that has or hasn't broken the law.
That's a pretty big accusation, unless of course it is more misdirection that truth. Perhaps you could qualify it with some actual examples that can be measured against the claim?
I think the blog's reference to Schmidt was just an excuse (one they've been looking for) to make a shift away from Google.
Yeah, that was my first reaction too. Although any pressure on google to reduce the amount of tracking and data retention that they do, the better.
1) That argument assumes that there are no other stigmas associated with having a disease. With all the crap AIDS patients have been through over the decades, despite the widespread campaigns to educate that you can't get AIDS from toilet seats or touching someone, I think it is unreasonable to expect the general population to react with any degree of equanimity.
2) If full disclosure of such diseases is standard, the result will be that people avoid medical diagnosis and treatment when they have suspicions and will only get care when or if the situation becomes nearly fatal. Meanwhile continuing to spread the disease to anyone who "trusts the system" of full disclosure to protect them from infection.
It's clearly not sarcasm, and I tend to put it in the same category as confusing their/there/they're.
Don't - the later is frequently just a typo - most people are fully aware of the difference between those homonyms. But the "could care less" crowd is not - they are just rotely repeating what they've heard.
And finally, may Steve Ballmer always be your public face. He is nearly as amusing as Sarah Palin.
You software hippies are just afraid of Steve Ballmer because of his good looks, his charm, his masculinity, his Christianity, his ability connect to the common user and his overall wonderfulness!
Every instance of implied racism and calling the Tea Party movement "Teabagging" doesn't qualify?
No it doesn't - that's not faux outrage. Faux outrage is choosing to misinterpret a statement then using the misinterpretation as a strawman and doing it with great anger for political gain. Calling teaparty people teabaggers is just a cheap shot - they are laughing at the teaparty people not acting outraged. Accusing members of the teaparty of being racist? Did a teaparty leader say something that sounded racist but wasn't meant to be? I haven't heard any such statement. Pelosi comparing townhall protestors to nazis is not faux outrage, its like teabagging - calling them names. That would be the same as saying every case of Godwin's law is a case of faux outrage - clearly not.
All your examples are just simple accusations and while faux outrage can be used to hatemonger, hate mongering is not automatically faux outrage.
I know - I figured I would give them the benefit of the doubt and spread the net wide for any evidence at all of "doing the right" thing when caught doing the wrong thing.
It has nothing to do with party affiliation. Politicians in general do what you describe. Come on, don't sit and assign blame to only some of the guilty.
Ordinarily, I'm equal opportunity for criticizing the republicrats - but I can't recall a faux outrage episode from the democrats, while I can think of a couple from the republicans - lipstick on a pig, and letterman's joke about palin's daughter, and somewhat more seriously there has been Cheney's criticism of Obama for following through on plans like SOFA that were developed while Cheney was running the show.
Anyway, trust me - it's very professional, clean code, nice design, and not filled with hacks like the Big Global Lock that used to be in the Linux kernel.
Bad example. Just about every uniprocessor-developed OS had a Big Global Lock until they went multi-cpu - and even then it usually took a few releases before it was really eliminated. I would be hugely surprised to find that the Win9x series didn't have one too. When did the linux kernel deprecate it? Like a decade ago?
Because heaven forbid the alternative: that they were informed they did something wrong and then voluntarily did the right thing, regardless of how enforceable the license is.
[citation needed]
No really, is there a citeable example of MS ever having acted like that before?
I suppose there must be, but all I can think of is stuff like Stac which took losing a lawsuit to convince MS to do "the right thing."
Microsoft has open sourced portions of their code before, that really isn't newsworthy.
But have they GPL'd anything before? Seems like anytime they comment on open source, they make sure to give love to BSD and tell everyone that the GPL is the devil - or at least ebola since they are fond of the gpl-is-viral meme.
Let's apply a bit of research to that John Kerry quote, turns out he just boffed a joke, the copy of his written remarks that was handed out to reporters before he made the speech had this sentence at that point: "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."
Something that the youtube sound-bite has conveniently edited out is the fact that he was clearly beating up on Bush at that point, to take his statement the way you have is to completely ignore the context and assume he just decided to make a random comment about the military in the middle of a totally unrelated discussion.
I can't really blame you for doing that, the republican party is so highly skilled at doing the faux outrage act, its no surprise millions of people are suckered in by it. However, I do blame you for citing Murtha - how does accusing someone of murder equate to thinking that they are dumb or poor? Since when do only dumb or poor people commit homicide? Sounds like you may be a classist. And, you didn't even get that one right either, Wuterich is still charged with negligent homicide.
So, in summary you have completely failed to support your claims that Murtha or Kerry have a "desire to paint the military as a bunch of dumb poor people."
Now, lets take on the general perception that poor and uneducated people end up in the military...
99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor's degree; 0.7 percent have a master's degree and.01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree."
You just kicked the crap out of your premise with that one.
let's compare:
Bachelor's Degree: enlisted force: 4.7% us population: 16.7%
Master's Degree: enlisted force: 0.7% us population: 5.9%
And don't even try to point at the officers - a bachelor's is a requirement to be a commissioned officer, having a degree gives you options. This is about the military being the employer of last resort for a lot people. If that were not the case, we would not have seen the number of conduct waivers double over the last 5 years - the people with options have been going elsewhere.
except you just can't get the purchasing power to deliver the benefits you will need for the income you will get.
It's not so hard if you look enough, especially if you decide that you don't have to fit the mold promulgated in the media.
For example - forget about expecting health 'insurance' to pay for routine medical care. Get a very high deductible policy (with correspondingly very low premiums) for actual emergencies and a tax-free medical savings account and pay for the basics with that tax-free cash - some doctors will give you a cash discount because insurance overheads are routinely 30-50% of their costs, so use those. Added bonus - your personal health information stays out of the hands the people with the most to gain from misusing it.
As for retirement, look into the 'personal 401k' - you can stuff nearly $40K into pre-tax savings using one of those.
consultants? nice way to get out of paying for there health care and makeing them pay all the taxes on there own. How about helping and makeing them w2 workers?
You are kidding, right?
Where do you think the money comes from to pay for benefits and employment taxes in the first place?
I'd rather have the cash and spend it the way I want than be stuck in some lowest-common-denominator benefits system.
Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?
No.
You will almost always need glasses, except possibly for special 3D monitors that sit close enough to your face to be able to send different images to each eye by using a fancy grating.
However, the glasses you will need won't suck like the red/green ones you are used to. They will be either grey lenses with each eye polarized differently or they will be shutter glasses that actively flip on and off for each eye at a pretty high frequency (probably 60 hz) - depending on the display device.
Either way you get full color images - just like you can get today at the various 3D theaters.
Or just don't go to sites that have advertisements you don't want to see. That seems a bit more fair than using resources of a site you clearly want to visit while denying them income...
The only one denying the website income is the website programmer. It is their responsibility to decide whether or not to hand out web pages willy nilly. If they don't think it is worth the effort of denying access to people who block advertisements, then that is clearly their decision to make.
Slashdot Mirror
Look under the "religious" projects. Finally a Christmas card that looks more geeky than the "iphone with cardboard" posted earlier on /.
Don't make one for anyone who's not local - either the TSA or the Post Office will arrest you for being a terrorist if that gets anywhere near either of them.
People have mistaken the agenda of RMS for their own, but he has a political agenda and not a practical one.
RMS's agenda is eminently practical. It's just a long-term practicality over immediate gratification.
The Free software ecosystem is now well past the point where sacrificing the functionality of free software is a requirement for the general community. There are certainly niches where that is still true, but something like GNOME is not a niche.
Why does Apple try to make money with that engine while MS at least provides some sort of "wizard" to make your own choices, even a http mail service?
That one is easy to answer - because the EU forced them to.
The concern for privacy is definitely waning in younger generations.
The concern for privacy (and a whole host of other concerns) has always been minimal in the young. Teens think they are invulnerable, it's hormonal. And even once past their teen years, a great many people can't conceive of a failure mode until they get hit over the head with it, or at least see someone else get hit. But once that happens, they tend to over-react. I believe a privacy backlash is coming -- it took at least 15 years for "identity theft" to become a widespread concern. I expect we'll see something on the privacy front within a decade, maybe sooner.
Google doesn't seem to have a problem with selling the information they gather to every other single evil company out there that has or hasn't broken the law.
That's a pretty big accusation, unless of course it is more misdirection that truth. Perhaps you could qualify it with some actual examples that can be measured against the claim?
I think the blog's reference to Schmidt was just an excuse (one they've been looking for) to make a shift away from Google.
Yeah, that was my first reaction too. Although any pressure on google to reduce the amount of tracking and data retention that they do, the better.
Here's a couple of problems with that --
1) That argument assumes that there are no other stigmas associated with having a disease. With all the crap AIDS patients have been through over the decades, despite the widespread campaigns to educate that you can't get AIDS from toilet seats or touching someone, I think it is unreasonable to expect the general population to react with any degree of equanimity.
2) If full disclosure of such diseases is standard, the result will be that people avoid medical diagnosis and treatment when they have suspicions and will only get care when or if the situation becomes nearly fatal. Meanwhile continuing to spread the disease to anyone who "trusts the system" of full disclosure to protect them from infection.
It's clearly not sarcasm, and I tend to put it in the same category as confusing their/there/they're.
Don't - the later is frequently just a typo - most people are fully aware of the difference between those homonyms. But the "could care less" crowd is not - they are just rotely repeating what they've heard.
And finally, may Steve Ballmer always be your public face. He is nearly as amusing as Sarah Palin.
You software hippies are just afraid of Steve Ballmer because of his good looks, his charm, his masculinity, his Christianity, his ability connect to the common user and his overall wonderfulness!
Every instance of implied racism and calling the Tea Party movement "Teabagging" doesn't qualify?
No it doesn't - that's not faux outrage. Faux outrage is choosing to misinterpret a statement then using the misinterpretation as a strawman and doing it with great anger for political gain. Calling teaparty people teabaggers is just a cheap shot - they are laughing at the teaparty people not acting outraged. Accusing members of the teaparty of being racist? Did a teaparty leader say something that sounded racist but wasn't meant to be? I haven't heard any such statement. Pelosi comparing townhall protestors to nazis is not faux outrage, its like teabagging - calling them names. That would be the same as saying every case of Godwin's law is a case of faux outrage - clearly not.
All your examples are just simple accusations and while faux outrage can be used to hatemonger, hate mongering is not automatically faux outrage.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Nor cunnilingus.
You got a couple of things wrong about videocd.
Catch up on the details at wikipedia's article on videocd.
How is that relevant to the question of MS being forced to do the right rather than doing it voluntarily?
"Like that before" is somewhat vague.
I know - I figured I would give them the benefit of the doubt and spread the net wide for any evidence at all of "doing the right" thing when caught doing the wrong thing.
It has nothing to do with party affiliation. Politicians in general do what you describe. Come on, don't sit and assign blame to only some of the guilty.
Ordinarily, I'm equal opportunity for criticizing the republicrats - but I can't recall a faux outrage episode from the democrats, while I can think of a couple from the republicans - lipstick on a pig, and letterman's joke about palin's daughter, and somewhat more seriously there has been Cheney's criticism of Obama for following through on plans like SOFA that were developed while Cheney was running the show.
Depends on your definition of "deprecate" and "decade". As late as last year (2008), the kernel people were still working on removing it.
My definition of "deprecate" is to stop accepting new code that depends on the BKL. What's yours?
Anyway, trust me - it's very professional, clean code, nice design, and not filled with hacks like the Big Global Lock that used to be in the Linux kernel.
Bad example. Just about every uniprocessor-developed OS had a Big Global Lock until they went multi-cpu - and even then it usually took a few releases before it was really eliminated. I would be hugely surprised to find that the Win9x series didn't have one too. When did the linux kernel deprecate it? Like a decade ago?
Because heaven forbid the alternative: that they were informed they did something wrong and then voluntarily did the right thing, regardless of how enforceable the license is.
[citation needed]
No really, is there a citeable example of MS ever having acted like that before?
I suppose there must be, but all I can think of is stuff like Stac which took losing a lawsuit to convince MS to do "the right thing."
Microsoft has open sourced portions of their code before, that really isn't newsworthy.
But have they GPL'd anything before?
Seems like anytime they comment on open source, they make sure to give love to BSD and tell everyone that the GPL is the devil - or at least ebola since they are fond of the gpl-is-viral meme.
The statistics quoted are actually just for the airforce, which obviously is the most educated and well-off of the armed forces.
Truth
Let's apply a bit of research to that John Kerry quote, turns out he just boffed a joke, the copy of his written remarks that was handed out to reporters before he made the speech had this sentence at that point: "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."
Something that the youtube sound-bite has conveniently edited out is the fact that he was clearly beating up on Bush at that point, to take his statement the way you have is to completely ignore the context and assume he just decided to make a random comment about the military in the middle of a totally unrelated discussion.
I can't really blame you for doing that, the republican party is so highly skilled at doing the faux outrage act, its no surprise millions of people are suckered in by it. However, I do blame you for citing Murtha - how does accusing someone of murder equate to thinking that they are dumb or poor? Since when do only dumb or poor people commit homicide? Sounds like you may be a classist. And, you didn't even get that one right either, Wuterich is still charged with negligent homicide.
So, in summary you have completely failed to support your claims that Murtha or Kerry have a "desire to paint the military as a bunch of dumb poor people."
Now, lets take on the general perception that poor and uneducated people end up in the military...
99.9 percent of the enlisted force have at least a high school education; 73.3 percent have some semester hours toward a college degree; 16.2 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours; 4.7 percent have a bachelor's degree; 0.7 percent have a master's degree and .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree."
You just kicked the crap out of your premise with that one.
let's compare:
Bachelor's Degree:
enlisted force: 4.7%
us population: 16.7%
Master's Degree:
enlisted force: 0.7%
us population: 5.9%
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_009.asp
And don't even try to point at the officers - a bachelor's is a requirement to be a commissioned officer, having a degree gives you options. This is about the military being the employer of last resort for a lot people. If that were not the case, we would not have seen the number of conduct waivers double over the last 5 years - the people with options have been going elsewhere.
except you just can't get the purchasing power to deliver the benefits you will need for the income you will get.
It's not so hard if you look enough, especially if you decide that you don't have to fit the mold promulgated in the media.
For example - forget about expecting health 'insurance' to pay for routine medical care. Get a very high deductible policy (with correspondingly very low premiums) for actual emergencies and a tax-free medical savings account and pay for the basics with that tax-free cash - some doctors will give you a cash discount because insurance overheads are routinely 30-50% of their costs, so use those. Added bonus - your personal health information stays out of the hands the people with the most to gain from misusing it.
As for retirement, look into the 'personal 401k' - you can stuff nearly $40K into pre-tax savings using one of those.
Free your mind, and your wallet will follow.
consultants? nice way to get out of paying for there health care and makeing them pay all the taxes on there own. How about helping and makeing them w2 workers?
You are kidding, right?
Where do you think the money comes from to pay for benefits and employment taxes in the first place?
I'd rather have the cash and spend it the way I want than be stuck in some lowest-common-denominator benefits system.
Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?
No.
You will almost always need glasses, except possibly for special 3D monitors that sit close enough to your face to be able to send different images to each eye by using a fancy grating.
However, the glasses you will need won't suck like the red/green ones you are used to. They will be either grey lenses with each eye polarized differently or they will be shutter glasses that actively flip on and off for each eye at a pretty high frequency (probably 60 hz) - depending on the display device.
Either way you get full color images - just like you can get today at the various 3D theaters.
If only I can be modded to generate electricity for my mobile devices*.
Please spare me the obvious matrix reference.
Hey, you are The One who brought it up first.
Or just don't go to sites that have advertisements you don't want to see. That seems a bit more fair than using resources of a site you clearly want to visit while denying them income...
The only one denying the website income is the website programmer. It is their responsibility to decide whether or not to hand out web pages willy nilly. If they don't think it is worth the effort of denying access to people who block advertisements, then that is clearly their decision to make.