There allready is a ton of grass in the backyard (and yes, I mow it myself
Kill it and replace it with fake grass.
1) Good fake grass is indistinguishable from the real thing unless you get down and stick your face within inches of it. Your bare feet will never know the difference.
2) Fake grass is better for the environment because it requires no water nor chemicals like weed killer, bug killer or fertilizer.
3) You never have to mow it again.
4) It always looks perfect, no browning, etc.
And, in case you were wondering, if a dog takes a crap on it, the crap will weather away like on real grass, you can scoop it off and the next rain will probably wash away the remains.
PS, the trendy name is 'lanai' from the Hawaiian for 'patio.'
I was attacked for flaming, and I pointed out that those I was flaming were more than capable of holding their own.
You need to go back and read more carefully. You were attacked for flaming by using the exact same stereotyping that you claim is offensive.
Read it, and consider it; or ignore it and then wonder why OSS isn't more widely adopted by computer users outside of the geek/techie niche.
He, and thus apparently you too, is just another abuser of the "royal we," as if "we" want anything. If some of us want something, they are free to go and make it happen.
Except that I'm directly talking to the people who I am flaming, and those people are more than capable of defending themselves.
A) Not a gimp developer and I don't see any of them in this thread. Surely you don't think I have anything to say about the name? B) Being a gimp doesn't mean your mind is any less acute and to presume that such people are not capable of defending themselves from the name of a piece of software is really condescending.
So, your whole point boils down to logistics problems. Kinda stupid on your part since I specifically addressed that point in my original post. Please read more carefully befor flying off the handle next time. That is all.
but if the writers are such assholes as to insult handicapped people, maybe we should spend our funds on photoshop instead".
Exactly. If being inoffensive is worth $600 per seat, that's exactly what they should do.
But hey, you and your pals get to sit on IRC and feel all l33t 'cos you use THE GIMP, amirite?
Kinda funny how you are indiscriminatly flaming off in all directions, making the exact same kind of offensive stereotypes as you claim to be protesting. It really undermines your argument.
Since it is the authors' choice as to what to name their creation, perhaps it is the authors' choice that that the thin-skinned self-select into not using the authors' creation.
When you don't have to worry about selling a product, you don't have to worry about catering to the lowest common denominator.
Besides, if the demand for a politically-correct gimp is great enough, someone will come along, repackage or fully fork it with a nice inoffensive name and then sell it to those who require inoffensively software. The beauty of the GPL and all that rot.
You still have not demonstrated how free riders hurt the company doing the development.
Remember, the point of patents is to guarantee a monopoly market in order to provide (but not guarantee) a better chance of showing a return on investment for the developer.
If the developer is instead guaranteed payment for their work ahead of time, the presence, or lack of, free riders has zero impact on the developer's profitability.
Actually.. under your example, there would still be free riders. You just change who they are.
Note, I did not say that they would go away. I just said that they are not a problem any more.
Essentially, when the people funding the work are the ones who need the results, then as long as they get the results, it does not matter who else gets the results too. Because a drug design is just a bunch information, it costs nothing to give the design to everyone once its creation has been paid for.
Without an exclusive license, free riders become a problem.
Only if your funding model is stuck in "venture capital" mode.
Today, in the USA and most of the Western world, biotech development is funded by people who do not care about the end result. All they care about is that the end result is marketable, that somebody, somewhere, will pay for it, regardless of what it does. It is kind of the "money for money's sake" approach to business rather than a "money for beneficient results" model.
One possible alternative is to enable the people who would directly benefit from the development fund the development. As an illustration consider if everyone in the nation who was at risk AIDS infection were to put up $100 to fund the development of an AIDS "vaccine."
Ignoring the logistics problems (which can be solved, but are not the point of my post) if the cost for R&D plus a "decent" profit margin could be paid for up front by the people who directly benefit from the end result then free riders are not a problem. The company benefits by reducing its risk of losing money on the project to near zero. The people putting up the money benefit from whatever vaccine is produced. If no vaccine is produced, if all the pre-paid money gets burnt up with no tangible result, the cost to the individuals who fronted the money is relatively small - they've only put up $100 each, so losing a $100, while sucky, isn't anywhere near as catastrophic as one company losing $30B.
That's just one approach, there are other "non-traditional" business plans out there. Federally funded development isn't really too different from that example, except that nowadays they are trying to eliminate the original "free riders" via IP law. while letting the corps be free riders on the tax payer's dollar.
For a million, you better have the commercial side locked up before you risk it.
I disagree. For a million, or $10M or whatever, you better have the equivalent amount of money locked up before you risk it. But you do not need to have a guarantee of patent-protected commercial exploitability, or even patent-protected profitability in order to acquire that funding. Because of the environment you've been exposed to, that's what you see as the primary way to do business, but there are alternatives.
okay folks repeat after me. ON-star is a service the user signs up and pays for. it is not forced on you. there are no privacy issues,
FALSE
OnStar is both a package of remote telematics equipment included in the base configuration of many GM vehicles AND a subscription service that makes use of the remote telematics equipment.
Here's the key part - even if you do not subscribe, the equipment is still in the car and functional. It can be turned on at a moments notice without the consent or even knowledge of the vehicle's owner.
GM has publically promised to include the OnStar equipment in the base configuration of ALL GM vehicles within a few years.
If you do not understand how such a system can enable extreme abuses of privacy, you must have been living in a cave for the last 200 years.
If not, couldn't they put in a mechanism in the car itself, where at the press of a button, all the diagnostics would be run, and a report generated and shown in a panel or something like that.
That doesn't make GM any money. You can't charge a subscription fee for it if you do it that way.
GM sees OnStar as a mongo profit center - they would like to be able to charge a yearly fee to each and every GM owner. That's why they've announced that they will push OnStar into the default configuration of even their cheapest north-american vehicles within just a couple of years.
For me, that alone will keep me from considering a purchase from GM (not like they don't have a lot of other problems too). I'm just not enough of a consumerist to pay subscription feess for my car and the FBI has already made use of similar systems to "bug" a vehicle without having to touch it.
Mercedes took the FBI to court where the court ruled that it is OK to spy on car owners through a system like OnStar as long as it doesn't interfere with the safety functions of the system. I'll bet my bippy the FBI has leaned on GM and others to enable remote snooping without having to worry about those pesky safety functions. Doubly so if you haven't paid the subscription fee but haven't physically disabled the unit.
Not that I'm worried about the FBI spying on me, or even joe random hacker abusing the system and spying on me. It is the fact that the system facilitates spying, possibly on "important" people like political dissendents, whistle-blowers, etc that bothers me enough to make me boycott it. I don't want to encourage such systems to become so common-place that everyone takes them for granted and accepts that much further an encroachment into our rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
now, as for overall school buying, here's the deal. you never come in under budget 'cause next year you'll get less. you always spend eevrything, bo over budget, get too little, then demand more next year.
Newsflash!
This is how it works in any large organization, state or commercial. Anytime there is a disconnect in the feedback loop such that conserving money does not directly benefit the person who makes the decision to conserve, you will see that kind of behaviour.
Heck, it is even the primary reason that health insurance premiums keep increasing - people pay a fixed monthly fee regardless of how little or how much treatment they receive. So of course they will opt for the maximum amount of testing and treatment because the additional costs do not come out of their pocket - they already paid the premium before the costs are incurred. It only affects them at the next annual premium increase and then their personal decision to max-out the available treatments is just a drop in the bucket, lost in the noise of all the other drops in that bucket from everyone else doing exactly the same thing. Just like government and corporate spending.
This is perfect for me and my roommate--we are college students with our own apartment...she misses her Adult Swim.
Clearly you made up this story to troll for karma. Any real slashdothead with a collage-age female roomate would not be so worried about tv cartoons when the distraction of sex is so readily available. If you aren't able to distract her from the tv, you just need to learn how to properly catch and eat beaver.
Same thing holds if you are both girls, in fact, it goes double and requires a webcam.
Actually, given that the Englightenment philosophy as espoused by Locke and others of the time was primarily about life, liberty and property it is almost certain that "pursuit of happiness" was a last-minute substitution for "property" in order to appeal to the large number of potential-americans who did not own any land.
As an aside, I think the conflation of the two may be the earliest example of American-style materialism where property is equated to happiness.
I'm not a Christian, never have been, but it's part and parcel of the Declaration of Independence (Creator anyone?) and the Constitution (God anyone?).
What are you talking about? Neither of the words "god" or "creator" occur even once in the US Constitution. Meanwhile, in the Declaration of Independence the actual terms that occur are "Nature's God" and "Creator" - neither of which says a ringy-ding-ding about a Christian God. Certainly there is NO mention of Christ, Messiah, Yahweh, Prophet, Bodhisattva, Kalima, or any other specific diety or divine office.
Furthermore, there is no indication whatsoever, and plenty of indication to the contrary, in those documents that religion - any religion - should even be acknowledged by the state.
This is where Scalia and his claims of being a "strict constructionist" fall apart. For the most part his words and deeds match, but once religion comes into the picture he's just waving his hands and hoping nobody examines his justifications too closely, because when you do, you see just how far he has to reach to bring his god into the arena.
Stop spreading FUD against cats....Are you next suggesting of "STOPPING" dogs. Dogs are the principal host of rabies in many parts of the world.
We now have scientific evidence of another such parasite. It has been around for millenia, but there is a much higher average rate of infection in people posting to slashdot.
This recently discovered parasite has the primary effect of competely eliminating all sense of humor in the host for the duration of the infection. This makes the host completely unable to recognize a joke. In a few cases, a heavy dose of parody, aimed directly at the host can cure him or her, but 90% of the time even this treatment is ineffectual, and can sometimes cause a relapse instead of a cure.
In days with people suffering because of Katrina, this guy wants to cause a little more suffering.
Bzzt! You lose.
Every day thousands of people die of starvation. Tens of thousands die from "preventable" diseases. Playing the "Katrina card" is just self-aggrandizement. "Oooh look at me, I have more pathos than the other guy, so my argument must be correct!"
Fuddruckers was stupid, and they got slapped for it. So what else is new in the world?
Besides, have you eaten at Fuddruckers? It is the biggest freaking greasebomb I've ever seen, yeech. The links to slaughterhouse pics are appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could choose NOT to be a tree hugging hippy and buy real grass and waste all our precious water.
If you are using fake grass, at most that would make you a fake-tree hugging hippy.
Sounds to me like you are just a redneck who needs to justify his supercharged rider-mower.
There allready is a ton of grass in the backyard (and yes, I mow it myself
Kill it and replace it with fake grass.
1) Good fake grass is indistinguishable from the real thing unless you get down and stick your face within inches of it. Your bare feet will never know the difference.
2) Fake grass is better for the environment because it requires no water nor chemicals like weed killer, bug killer or fertilizer.
3) You never have to mow it again.
4) It always looks perfect, no browning, etc.
And, in case you were wondering, if a dog takes a crap on it, the crap will weather away like on real grass, you can scoop it off and the next rain will probably wash away the remains.
PS, the trendy name is 'lanai' from the Hawaiian for 'patio.'
I was attacked for flaming, and I pointed out that those I was flaming were more than capable of holding their own.
You need to go back and read more carefully. You were attacked for flaming by using the exact same stereotyping that you claim is offensive.
Read it, and consider it; or ignore it and then wonder why OSS isn't more widely adopted by computer users outside of the geek/techie niche.
He, and thus apparently you too, is just another abuser of the "royal we," as if "we" want anything. If some of us want something, they are free to go and make it happen.
Except that I'm directly talking to the people who I am flaming, and those people are more than capable of defending themselves.
A) Not a gimp developer and I don't see any of them in this thread. Surely you don't think I have anything to say about the name?
B) Being a gimp doesn't mean your mind is any less acute and to presume that such people are not capable of defending themselves from the name of a piece of software is really condescending.
So, your whole point boils down to logistics problems. Kinda stupid on your part since I specifically addressed that point in my original post. Please read more carefully befor flying off the handle next time. That is all.
but if the writers are such assholes as to insult handicapped people, maybe we should spend our funds on photoshop instead".
Exactly. If being inoffensive is worth $600 per seat, that's exactly what they should do.
But hey, you and your pals get to sit on IRC and feel all l33t 'cos you use THE GIMP, amirite?
Kinda funny how you are indiscriminatly flaming off in all directions, making the exact same kind of offensive stereotypes as you claim to be protesting. It really undermines your argument.
Here's a scary thought- Slashdot as a valid legal source
Given your username, it's clear you've been concerned about this potential for a while.
Since it is the authors' choice as to what to name their creation, perhaps it is the authors' choice that that the thin-skinned self-select into not using the authors' creation.
When you don't have to worry about selling a product, you don't have to worry about catering to the lowest common denominator.
Besides, if the demand for a politically-correct gimp is great enough, someone will come along, repackage or fully fork it with a nice inoffensive name and then sell it to those who require inoffensively software. The beauty of the GPL and all that rot.
Please explain how letting the people who have a personal interest in the creation of an AIDS vaccine directly pay for that creation is idiotic.
You still have not demonstrated how free riders hurt the company doing the development.
Remember, the point of patents is to guarantee a monopoly market in order to provide (but not guarantee) a better chance of showing a return on investment for the developer.
If the developer is instead guaranteed payment for their work ahead of time, the presence, or lack of, free riders has zero impact on the developer's profitability.
Please... spell it out.
Sure: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=162305&ci
Actually.. under your example, there would still be free riders. You just change who they are.
Note, I did not say that they would go away. I just said that they are not a problem any more.
Essentially, when the people funding the work are the ones who need the results, then as long as they get the results, it does not matter who else gets the results too. Because a drug design is just a bunch information, it costs nothing to give the design to everyone once its creation has been paid for.
Without an exclusive license, free riders become a problem.
Only if your funding model is stuck in "venture capital" mode.
Today, in the USA and most of the Western world, biotech development is funded by people who do not care about the end result. All they care about is that the end result is marketable, that somebody, somewhere, will pay for it, regardless of what it does. It is kind of the "money for money's sake" approach to business rather than a "money for beneficient results" model.
One possible alternative is to enable the people who would directly benefit from the development fund the development. As an illustration consider if everyone in the nation who was at risk AIDS infection were to put up $100 to fund the development of an AIDS "vaccine."
Ignoring the logistics problems (which can be solved, but are not the point of my post) if the cost for R&D plus a "decent" profit margin could be paid for up front by the people who directly benefit from the end result then free riders are not a problem. The company benefits by reducing its risk of losing money on the project to near zero. The people putting up the money benefit from whatever vaccine is produced. If no vaccine is produced, if all the pre-paid money gets burnt up with no tangible result, the cost to the individuals who fronted the money is relatively small - they've only put up $100 each, so losing a $100, while sucky, isn't anywhere near as catastrophic as one company losing $30B.
That's just one approach, there are other "non-traditional" business plans out there. Federally funded development isn't really too different from that example, except that nowadays they are trying to eliminate the original "free riders" via IP law. while letting the corps be free riders on the tax payer's dollar.
For a million, you better have the commercial side locked up before you risk it.
I disagree. For a million, or $10M or whatever, you better have the equivalent amount of money locked up before you risk it. But you do not need to have a guarantee of patent-protected commercial exploitability, or even patent-protected profitability in order to acquire that funding. Because of the environment you've been exposed to, that's what you see as the primary way to do business, but there are alternatives.
Has Richard Pogge called Ortiz a "butthead astronomer" yet?
okay folks repeat after me. ON-star is a service the user signs up and pays for. it is not forced on you. there are no privacy issues,
FALSE
OnStar is both a package of remote telematics equipment included in the base configuration of many GM vehicles AND a subscription service that makes use of the remote telematics equipment.
Here's the key part - even if you do not subscribe, the equipment is still in the car and functional. It can be turned on at a moments notice without the consent or even knowledge of the vehicle's owner.
GM has publically promised to include the OnStar equipment in the base configuration of ALL GM vehicles within a few years.
If you do not understand how such a system can enable extreme abuses of privacy, you must have been living in a cave for the last 200 years.
If not, couldn't they put in a mechanism in the car itself, where at the press of a button, all the diagnostics would be run, and a report generated and shown in a panel or something like that.
i ts_incar_fbi_spying/
That doesn't make GM any money. You can't charge a subscription fee for it if you do it that way.
GM sees OnStar as a mongo profit center - they would like to be able to charge a yearly fee to each and every GM owner. That's why they've announced that they will push OnStar into the default configuration of even their cheapest north-american vehicles within just a couple of years.
For me, that alone will keep me from considering a purchase from GM (not like they don't have a lot of other problems too). I'm just not enough of a consumerist to pay subscription feess for my car and the FBI has already made use of similar systems to "bug" a vehicle without having to touch it.
Mercedes took the FBI to court where the court ruled that it is OK to spy on car owners through a system like OnStar as long as it doesn't interfere with the safety functions of the system. I'll bet my bippy the FBI has leaned on GM and others to enable remote snooping without having to worry about those pesky safety functions. Doubly so if you haven't paid the subscription fee but haven't physically disabled the unit.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/20/court_lim
Not that I'm worried about the FBI spying on me, or even joe random hacker abusing the system and spying on me. It is the fact that the system facilitates spying, possibly on "important" people like political dissendents, whistle-blowers, etc that bothers me enough to make me boycott it. I don't want to encourage such systems to become so common-place that everyone takes them for granted and accepts that much further an encroachment into our rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
now, as for overall school buying, here's the deal. you never come in under budget 'cause next year you'll get less. you always spend eevrything, bo over budget, get too little, then demand more next year.
Newsflash!
This is how it works in any large organization, state or commercial. Anytime there is a disconnect in the feedback loop such that conserving money does not directly benefit the person who makes the decision to conserve, you will see that kind of behaviour.
Heck, it is even the primary reason that health insurance premiums keep increasing - people pay a fixed monthly fee regardless of how little or how much treatment they receive. So of course they will opt for the maximum amount of testing and treatment because the additional costs do not come out of their pocket - they already paid the premium before the costs are incurred. It only affects them at the next annual premium increase and then their personal decision to max-out the available treatments is just a drop in the bucket, lost in the noise of all the other drops in that bucket from everyone else doing exactly the same thing. Just like government and corporate spending.
This is perfect for me and my roommate--we are college students with our own apartment...she misses her Adult Swim.
Clearly you made up this story to troll for karma. Any real slashdothead with a collage-age female roomate would not be so worried about tv cartoons when the distraction of sex is so readily available. If you aren't able to distract her from the tv, you just need to learn how to properly catch and eat beaver.
Same thing holds if you are both girls, in fact, it goes double and requires a webcam.
Californication?
California - from the latin roots cali(hot) and fornia(sexual activity).
Thus California - the land of hot sex.
Actually, given that the Englightenment philosophy as espoused by Locke and others of the time was primarily about life, liberty and property it is almost certain that "pursuit of happiness" was a last-minute substitution for "property" in order to appeal to the large number of potential-americans who did not own any land.
As an aside, I think the conflation of the two may be the earliest example of American-style materialism where property is equated to happiness.
I'm not a Christian, never have been, but it's part and parcel of the Declaration of Independence (Creator anyone?) and the Constitution (God anyone?).
What are you talking about? Neither of the words "god" or "creator" occur even once in the US Constitution. Meanwhile, in the Declaration of Independence the actual terms that occur are "Nature's God" and "Creator" - neither of which says a ringy-ding-ding about a Christian God. Certainly there is NO mention of Christ, Messiah, Yahweh, Prophet, Bodhisattva, Kalima, or any other specific diety or divine office.
Furthermore, there is no indication whatsoever, and plenty of indication to the contrary, in those documents that religion - any religion - should even be acknowledged by the state.
This is where Scalia and his claims of being a "strict constructionist" fall apart. For the most part his words and deeds match, but once religion comes into the picture he's just waving his hands and hoping nobody examines his justifications too closely, because when you do, you see just how far he has to reach to bring his god into the arena.
Stop spreading FUD against cats. ...Are you next suggesting of "STOPPING" dogs. Dogs are the principal host of rabies in many parts of the world.
We now have scientific evidence of another such parasite. It has been around for millenia, but there is a much higher average rate of infection in people posting to slashdot.
This recently discovered parasite has the primary effect of competely eliminating all sense of humor in the host for the duration of the infection. This makes the host completely unable to recognize a joke. In a few cases, a heavy dose of parody, aimed directly at the host can cure him or her, but 90% of the time even this treatment is ineffectual, and can sometimes cause a relapse instead of a cure.
Get well soon jlo!
If your anarchy market had been in place Microsoft would still be controlling traffic lights.
WTF?
Since when has MS ever controlled traffic lights?
In days with people suffering because of Katrina, this guy wants to cause a little more suffering.
Bzzt! You lose.
Every day thousands of people die of starvation. Tens of thousands die from "preventable" diseases. Playing the "Katrina card" is just self-aggrandizement. "Oooh look at me, I have more pathos than the other guy, so my argument must be correct!"
Fuddruckers was stupid, and they got slapped for it. So what else is new in the world?
Besides, have you eaten at Fuddruckers? It is the biggest freaking greasebomb I've ever seen, yeech. The links to slaughterhouse pics are appropriate.