"No seriously, stop throwing that chair!" "What the hell is wrong with your comp Steve!?" "Is that even a BSOD? It's just skewed now!" "How the fuck do you turn this thing off!" "What does this button do?" "It's doing crazy things man, maybe we should just pull the plug!" "No Steve, throwing a chair at it doesn't work!" "CRASH BOOM CRASH"
Steve Ballmers accidently send an e-mail while diligently testing the software. The e-mail says:
"Sir put down the chair, then we'll talk" "No Steve wait up, don't do that" "BOOM CRASH BOOM CRASH BOOM CRAASH WAAAH NOOO STOOOOP" "DUDE, THE COMP HAS A BSOD! WAAH!"
"Search" is a word used by "commoners". "Google" is a word used by "commoners that play on 'puters". But "text mine"? Why, that's a word meant only for science's finest.
A rose may still smell as beautiful when it's named shit, but who names their daughters "Shit", like, ever?
Are you talking to me? You've only enforced my point...
TANSTAAFL means that a person or a society cannot get something for nothing. Even if something appears to be free, there is always a cost to the person or to society as a whole even though that cost may be hidden or distributed. For example, you may get free food at a bar during "happy hour", but the bar-owner must recover that marketing expense somehow, perhaps by charging slightly more for drinks or other food, and even if you personally never buy those drinks or that other food, someone else has to or the bar will go out of business.
It is thought that TANSTAAFL may not always hold at the individual level, depending on the interpretation of the phrase; for example, some may argue that mothers often provide their children with lunch at no cost. But that food still had to be produced by someone somewhere, so even though the cost isn't paid by the children themselves, it is still paid by someone.
True, but like I said, it's not about (individual) perspectives.
Technically, you can buy a friend a beer without ever getting anything back, goodbye party or whatever. Does that mean the beer is free? For him it is, but realistically, it costed you to give him that beer. So it's not a free lunch.
In your case, you lost something which he gained. So which part of that would be the "free lunch"? It's not, you paid for it, he got it.
No, having a BBQ party is not a free lunch. YOU put effort in creating food for more people. They may not have paid for it (btw, I'm not trying to say it's stealing) but it's not a "free lunch" since someone worked to put that amount of food "on the table".
The whole philosophy of There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch is not about perspectives, it's about things "overall" speaking.
Hence giving food away is not "a free lunch" much like stealing something isn't.
Is sharing a surplus actually a Free Lunch philosophy?
Technically, leftovers are still things you've essentially WORKED for. So even though one might benefit from it without working for it, doesn't mean someone else didn't put that amount of work in it to achieve it. Isn't that the real philosophy of the No Such Thing As A Free Lunch?
Essentially, it's like energy in a closed system: no matter what you do, nobody gains anything extra, it's always the same amount. You gain x here, but you'll lose x there.
In an "open system", one might wager something like the sun being a "free lunch". But even that could probably be argued.
If sharing surpluses is "a free lunch", then so is stealing.
It may have something to do with objectivity. A "reviewer" that can make money if people buy the book. Is that honestly the kind of reviews you want to have to decide whether a book is good or not?
Personally, I wouldn't read a Bill Gates review on Linux to decide if linux is good or not.
'And perhaps not. And perhaps MS IE is exposed to more scrutiny because it's #1 browser? And perhaps not. As we can't tell for sure, it's best to ignore such speculations.'
He's pointing out that the article misses vital information to get something useful out of it. And thus, it's kind of silly to go 'it's best to ignore such speculations'.
Rather than that, it's best to ignore that "report" till something with more information comes out that shows us a more realistic view of the situation.
Souls are usually referred to as the core, or body that can "feel" mentally, ie emotion.
While I have no doubt that animals have said "souls"; like parental love, art is not just about the act but also the "emotion" or "sphere" attached to said actions/results.
In other words, the expression of one's emotions through the actions is what I qualify as art. And with "art", I'm more referring to the "paintings" that seem gibberish to most people in this case.
Question is, what exactly can be identified by an elephant that seems to be randomly spraying paint over a painting? Is there emotion? Is there a story? Is there something attached to that piece of art that can make it "art"? Who'd ever know?
The Mona Lisa, in all its glory, is simply an oil painting of a woman sitting on some rocks looking at the painter. In the world, there are thousands just like that. It was made famous because people simply associated certain feelings, emotions to it and it took off from there.
To me, said art is simply bullshit, but for the so called "real" artists, art needs to have a certain meaning before it can truly be considered art.
When a robot starts spraying everything dark blue, you will definitely know it's experiencing some serious drama and pain..........and that's it's running on a windows OS.
made by soulless beings?
I never did get much into the whole art thing. Chimps that paint, elephants that paint etc. I don't think this will be appreciated by the so called "real" artists.
Slashdot Mirror
"No seriously, stop throwing that chair!"
"What the hell is wrong with your comp Steve!?"
"Is that even a BSOD? It's just skewed now!"
"How the fuck do you turn this thing off!"
"What does this button do?"
"It's doing crazy things man, maybe we should just pull the plug!"
"No Steve, throwing a chair at it doesn't work!"
"CRASH BOOM CRASH"
Steve Ballmers accidently send an e-mail while diligently testing the software. The e-mail says:
"Sir put down the chair, then we'll talk"
"No Steve wait up, don't do that"
"BOOM CRASH BOOM CRASH BOOM CRAASH WAAAH NOOO STOOOOP"
"DUDE, THE COMP HAS A BSOD! WAAH!"
"Search" is a word used by "commoners".
"Google" is a word used by "commoners that play on 'puters".
But "text mine"? Why, that's a word meant only for science's finest.
A rose may still smell as beautiful when it's named shit, but who names their daughters "Shit", like, ever?
They haven't failed. They've just found a way that doesn't work and leads to death. All part of the natural consequences of evolution.
True, but like I said, it's not about (individual) perspectives.
Technically, you can buy a friend a beer without ever getting anything back, goodbye party or whatever. Does that mean the beer is free? For him it is, but realistically, it costed you to give him that beer. So it's not a free lunch.
In your case, you lost something which he gained. So which part of that would be the "free lunch"? It's not, you paid for it, he got it.
No, having a BBQ party is not a free lunch. YOU put effort in creating food for more people. They may not have paid for it (btw, I'm not trying to say it's stealing) but it's not a "free lunch" since someone worked to put that amount of food "on the table".
The whole philosophy of There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch is not about perspectives, it's about things "overall" speaking.
Hence giving food away is not "a free lunch" much like stealing something isn't.
Is sharing a surplus actually a Free Lunch philosophy?
Technically, leftovers are still things you've essentially WORKED for. So even though one might benefit from it without working for it, doesn't mean someone else didn't put that amount of work in it to achieve it. Isn't that the real philosophy of the No Such Thing As A Free Lunch?
Essentially, it's like energy in a closed system: no matter what you do, nobody gains anything extra, it's always the same amount. You gain x here, but you'll lose x there.
In an "open system", one might wager something like the sun being a "free lunch". But even that could probably be argued.
If sharing surpluses is "a free lunch", then so is stealing.
A leak in a "gas tank" is a minor technical issue? :p
"Hey there cowboy, word goes around that there's something wrong with my car."
"Nah sir, just a little scratch."
"Ah if it's just a scratch then I can live with it."
"Yes sir, just a bit of gas leaking through that "scratch", so you might want to cut down on that smoking sir."
Take THAT you silly hackers!
An OS that crashes every 10 seocnds cannot be hacked, after all.
It may have something to do with objectivity. A "reviewer" that can make money if people buy the book. Is that honestly the kind of reviews you want to have to decide whether a book is good or not?
Personally, I wouldn't read a Bill Gates review on Linux to decide if linux is good or not.
It's not really a MMOG but it's still with people and stuff.
:)
I can recommend Gunbound. It's kind of like Worms but funnier (anime style and lots of stuff to modify your guy with).
Games usually don't last more than 5-10 minutes, and you can earn gold which you can spend on items that change your looks and your (damage) stats.
Very nice
Revenge of the Nerds
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088000/
When the word doesn't even exists? What could they possibly ponder over? If it's not in the dictionary, then shut the hell up.
Considering that Bruce Willis hasn't been doing too well financially, that's not such a bad idea.
I mean, how many people can go "I got experience when it comes to blowing up space rocks"?
What's next? DVD's?
Read both articles but couldn't find it...
'And perhaps not.
And perhaps MS IE is exposed to more scrutiny because it's #1 browser? And perhaps not.
As we can't tell for sure, it's best to ignore such speculations.'
He's pointing out that the article misses vital information to get something useful out of it. And thus, it's kind of silly to go 'it's best to ignore such speculations'.
Rather than that, it's best to ignore that "report" till something with more information comes out that shows us a more realistic view of the situation.
OMG.....
That dude is insane....
Funniest 2 lettered FP ever.
For the greater good, sue them (back)! :p
Souls are usually referred to as the core, or body that can "feel" mentally, ie emotion.
While I have no doubt that animals have said "souls"; like parental love, art is not just about the act but also the "emotion" or "sphere" attached to said actions/results.
In other words, the expression of one's emotions through the actions is what I qualify as art. And with "art", I'm more referring to the "paintings" that seem gibberish to most people in this case.
Question is, what exactly can be identified by an elephant that seems to be randomly spraying paint over a painting? Is there emotion? Is there a story? Is there something attached to that piece of art that can make it "art"? Who'd ever know?
The Mona Lisa, in all its glory, is simply an oil painting of a woman sitting on some rocks looking at the painter. In the world, there are thousands just like that. It was made famous because people simply associated certain feelings, emotions to it and it took off from there.
To me, said art is simply bullshit, but for the so called "real" artists, art needs to have a certain meaning before it can truly be considered art.
When a robot starts spraying everything dark blue, you will definitely know it's experiencing some serious drama and pain... .......and that's it's running on a windows OS.
made by soulless beings? I never did get much into the whole art thing. Chimps that paint, elephants that paint etc. I don't think this will be appreciated by the so called "real" artists.