I'm beginning to think the nerdacy of the Star Wars fans waiting in costume in line to see the movie is more understandable than someone trying to convince a computer store to bundle open source software.
I mean, at least the Star Wars fans got something in return...
While I can appreciate the work being done on the browser-front to prevent phishing, wouldn't it make more sense to develop preventative software to catch spoofed emails?
Perhaps I'm alone here, but the only way I've ever been targed by phishing is through my email. I'm going to assume that this is the preferred route of most phishing attempts, since I've never seen a spoof used inside a reputable website.
Not sure how that got modded as flamebait, but the parent has a very valid point. All this money and technology could be used to fund legitimate and life-saving research.
Just because someone values the preservation of life over mathematics on Slashdot should not warrant a mod of flamebait.
Cutting someone up on a road is not 'evil' by any stretch of the imagination.
Using your example, a war is evil, but cutting someone off is not. So if you shoot at someone (and miss), that's evil, but cutting someone off at 60mph on a highway (potentially rendering the same effect as shooting at someone with a gun) is not evil? Makes sense!
See, that's a religious person talking there; you assume that to stop something you must destroy it, with all the killing/crusading that history has shown that mankind is capable of when he believes he is righteous.
You've conveniently taken his statement out of context. Original post:
One of these days, there ought to be a showdown getting rid of all those believers in voices in the sky - the only way for science to truly triumph is if religion is taken care of once and for all.
Now, you don't have to be more than a half-wit to realize that "showdown" and "getting rid" means killing. Now back to your reply...
Scientists don't do things that way.
Right. Scientists don't do anything on that front, in fact. It's not the scientists fighting to keep their civilizations alive and intact, it's the grunts of society who would normally be paid minimum wage to clean toilets that are on the front lines. Comparing scientists to soldiers is just laughable:)
Man created god in his own image to explain things that were unexplainable at the time; had I been around back then I would likely have believed it myself. Nowadays, we know that the earth is a planet and it was "created" over a much longer period than seven days. Your "lies for children" are no longer required.
So who has all the answers, then? Can I buy the book?
These days I see more focus on making HTML compliant (and letting you know that your website is crap if it doesn't comply) than promoting standards for actual programming languages.
Since time is money and your short of the latter, your time would be better spent off Slashdot and on development:)
On a serious note, if a lack of funding is cutting your development speeds, perhaps you could consider 'employing' more developers willing to work for a mildly successful project for free?
Quake 3 Arena's success was a bit of an accident. There was no story at all. Single player was a series of 1 vs 1 encounters with various odd oponents. The graphics were superb. The physics were awesome. The game was entertaining, but was a hi-tech arcade.
Then evolved the internet.
Q3's success an accident? Not quite, considering Q3 was made solely to tap into the multiplayer market. And by multiplayer I mean Internet, not networked multiplayer.
And after gauging the rest of your post, I think you've almost completely forgotten that Q1 and Q2 existing before Q3 -- and, along with those games, you could modify the game completely to suit your needs. Q3 didn't "introduce" modifications, and Carmack didn't suddenly think "let's let the user modify the game." No, this happened 4 years before Quake3 was released, so you really don't know what your talking about.
Don't believe me? Look up "Quake Team Fortress". It was the best multiplayer modification ever made, and it's still played today... nearly 9 years later. And it wasn't made for Quake3... no, it was made for Quake, way back in late 96/97.
All these comments in opposition of the creationism/intelligent design theory.
Even on the assumption that intelligent design is false, has zero merit, and never occured, a fundamental question has still gone unanswered (and forever will): if a higher-power/deity played no role in creating matter, then how did it get there?
Forget big bang and evolution for a minute. Matter does not arrive on it's on, and, of course, it cannot be created on it's own, or from nothing. Even had the Earth been a procreation of several other planets' union, what formed those other planets?
This is the problem I have with arguments opposing intelligent design. While I believe in intelligent design, I have long entertained varying theories and facts which have been presented supporting science over the 'supernatural'. But no one has been able to answer the simple question: what created the matter, if a creator did not.
It cannot be answered, because again, something does not come from nothing. Everything needs a starting point, and arguing against intelligent design is ignoring the fact that there MUST be a starting point. There MUST be a cause and effect.
The bottom line is folks, both theories are subject to potentially being disproved, and both theories require an equal amount of faith to believe in. There isn't enough science to support a universe without a creator, and there isn't enough science to support a universe with a creator. Both require a quantity of faith, and hence both should be taught.
Anyone who insists that intelligent design should be scrapped from cirriculums is missing the point of science.
What created the first piece of matter in the beginning? If your answering isn't "nothing", and you actually have an answer, then you'll be marked as a genius in my books.
Your post lost credibility once you introduced the word biblethumper into the mix. Completely unecessary, but it really did highlight the bias (and invalidity) of your message.
Notice the article completely neglects the multiplayer aspect to gaming, which has been responsible for keeping many games alive for years well past their due (read: Quake, which is still rocking).
Sure, single player FPS games are typically similar and repetitive, but as any knowledgeable gamer knows, the multiplayer side of the game is what drives the fanbase and community. And, threaded right into multiplayer, and almost as importantly, is the user modifications.
There may be a few lingering on here who have played Team Fortress (not TFC) for the original Quake; that single modification opened a whole new concept to FPS multiplayer gaming, and there are still many mods trying to recreate it's success nearly 8 years later.
In any event, the validity of this article only applies to the single-player FPS side of gaming; the same could not be said for multiplayer FPS gaming.
"I know programming. I've coded B+ trees and graph search algorithms in languages from C to Scheme to Prolog."
Considering the source(s) for such adt's have been around for many years, I wouldn't call that much of an accomplishment, nor use it as some sort of weight in an argument. The research in these areas has been done, as has the programming implementation.
There's much more thought process to a "trivial" business application. How writing an implementation of a b-tree sets you above the rest is beyond me, considering that is university-level material.
So one could be a great engineer without any practical knowledge of the tools that will construct this engineering project?
That's about as realistic as being a good doctor, but not knowing how to operate the tools that are used, directly or indirectly, by the doctor and his staff.
"Do people who hire drill press operators want them to have a mechanical engineering degree?"
Had you put some thought into this statement, you'd realize that a large part of engineering is deciding how to construct things to accomodate the current tools available. If you don't understand the tools, of what use is the engineer?
I just cannot wrap my head around the fecundity of open source software. The downfalls of it are so blatant and clear that I cannot understand how the majority of this community (and many others externally) is foolish enough to support
Why would you spend your valuable time (unless it's invaluable to you... translation: time is money) researching and developing software which fits a niche, but give it away for absolutely free, on the hope that support will sustain your continuning R&D?
To the consumer, it's a great choice. But to any entrepreneurial developers out there whose time has provided food and shelter to their families, why would you ever decide to offer your software for free?
I've become so fed-up with the absurdity of the open-source movement, and how people claim everything should be open-source. Sure, that would work if life itself wasn't an expense. Living costs money, and any open-source supporter who thinks that offering their time and services for free will reap enough revenue to support a family and a decent life must be losing their minds.
If you offer up a good product, people will pay good money -- this applies to Windows. As much as the majority of Slashdot is against Windows and Microsoft, the fact remainins it IS a very good product. That's the bottom line.
I'll never offer my software or services for free, because my time is worth something to me. If I were to open source my work, then I'd sooner travel the world and spend money, then work my ass off and give it away for free.
To keep this on topic: I hope Microsoft never goes in the open-source direction. Open source is doomed, but people are too busy gagging themselves on the thought that it's free.
Slashdot Mirror
But swap "female" with "male" and you've exponentially increased that probability... ;p
Just kidding :)
Why?
Microsoft Office is mainstream... OpenOffice is not. It would never be beneficial to the average user to take a class in OpenOffice.
I mean, at least the Star Wars fans got something in return...
And nine times out of ten, they will direct you to the manufacturer's tech support.
Invariably better when that user is knowledgeable enough to know to go down that route.
In other words, that's a slim chance. 1-800-Microsoft it is.
Perhaps I'm alone here, but the only way I've ever been targed by phishing is through my email. I'm going to assume that this is the preferred route of most phishing attempts, since I've never seen a spoof used inside a reputable website.
Thoughts?
Looks like their plan foiled :)
Just because someone values the preservation of life over mathematics on Slashdot should not warrant a mod of flamebait.
Thanks for reminding me that the Church is a single man.
Using your example, a war is evil, but cutting someone off is not. So if you shoot at someone (and miss), that's evil, but cutting someone off at 60mph on a highway (potentially rendering the same effect as shooting at someone with a gun) is not evil? Makes sense!
See, that's a religious person talking there; you assume that to stop something you must destroy it, with all the killing/crusading that history has shown that mankind is capable of when he believes he is righteous.
You've conveniently taken his statement out of context. Original post: One of these days, there ought to be a showdown getting rid of all those believers in voices in the sky - the only way for science to truly triumph is if religion is taken care of once and for all.
Now, you don't have to be more than a half-wit to realize that "showdown" and "getting rid" means killing. Now back to your reply...
Scientists don't do things that way.
Right. Scientists don't do anything on that front, in fact. It's not the scientists fighting to keep their civilizations alive and intact, it's the grunts of society who would normally be paid minimum wage to clean toilets that are on the front lines. Comparing scientists to soldiers is just laughable :)
Man created god in his own image to explain things that were unexplainable at the time; had I been around back then I would likely have believed it myself. Nowadays, we know that the earth is a planet and it was "created" over a much longer period than seven days. Your "lies for children" are no longer required.
So who has all the answers, then? Can I buy the book?
It's sad, but true at least from my experience.
On a serious note, if a lack of funding is cutting your development speeds, perhaps you could consider 'employing' more developers willing to work for a mildly successful project for free?
Then evolved the internet.
Q3's success an accident? Not quite, considering Q3 was made solely to tap into the multiplayer market. And by multiplayer I mean Internet, not networked multiplayer.
And after gauging the rest of your post, I think you've almost completely forgotten that Q1 and Q2 existing before Q3 -- and, along with those games, you could modify the game completely to suit your needs. Q3 didn't "introduce" modifications, and Carmack didn't suddenly think "let's let the user modify the game." No, this happened 4 years before Quake3 was released, so you really don't know what your talking about.
Don't believe me? Look up "Quake Team Fortress". It was the best multiplayer modification ever made, and it's still played today... nearly 9 years later. And it wasn't made for Quake3... no, it was made for Quake, way back in late 96/97.
Even on the assumption that intelligent design is false, has zero merit, and never occured, a fundamental question has still gone unanswered (and forever will): if a higher-power/deity played no role in creating matter, then how did it get there?
Forget big bang and evolution for a minute. Matter does not arrive on it's on, and, of course, it cannot be created on it's own, or from nothing. Even had the Earth been a procreation of several other planets' union, what formed those other planets?
This is the problem I have with arguments opposing intelligent design. While I believe in intelligent design, I have long entertained varying theories and facts which have been presented supporting science over the 'supernatural'. But no one has been able to answer the simple question: what created the matter, if a creator did not.
It cannot be answered, because again, something does not come from nothing. Everything needs a starting point, and arguing against intelligent design is ignoring the fact that there MUST be a starting point. There MUST be a cause and effect.
The bottom line is folks, both theories are subject to potentially being disproved, and both theories require an equal amount of faith to believe in. There isn't enough science to support a universe without a creator, and there isn't enough science to support a universe with a creator. Both require a quantity of faith, and hence both should be taught.
Anyone who insists that intelligent design should be scrapped from cirriculums is missing the point of science.
What created the first piece of matter in the beginning? If your answering isn't "nothing", and you actually have an answer, then you'll be marked as a genius in my books.
Until evolution is any more provable than intelligent design, I wouldn't call either garbage.
After all, they both sit in the same, sinkable boat.
Your post lost credibility once you introduced the word biblethumper into the mix. Completely unecessary, but it really did highlight the bias (and invalidity) of your message.
Sure, single player FPS games are typically similar and repetitive, but as any knowledgeable gamer knows, the multiplayer side of the game is what drives the fanbase and community. And, threaded right into multiplayer, and almost as importantly, is the user modifications.
There may be a few lingering on here who have played Team Fortress (not TFC) for the original Quake; that single modification opened a whole new concept to FPS multiplayer gaming, and there are still many mods trying to recreate it's success nearly 8 years later.
In any event, the validity of this article only applies to the single-player FPS side of gaming; the same could not be said for multiplayer FPS gaming.
There's much more thought process to a "trivial" business application. How writing an implementation of a b-tree sets you above the rest is beyond me, considering that is university-level material.
That's about as realistic as being a good doctor, but not knowing how to operate the tools that are used, directly or indirectly, by the doctor and his staff.
"Do people who hire drill press operators want them to have a mechanical engineering degree?"
Had you put some thought into this statement, you'd realize that a large part of engineering is deciding how to construct things to accomodate the current tools available. If you don't understand the tools, of what use is the engineer?
Thanks for the link, whoever you are... bookmarked that site :)
Let's start with a brain, then a decent sense of humour ;)
Why would you spend your valuable time (unless it's invaluable to you... translation: time is money) researching and developing software which fits a niche, but give it away for absolutely free, on the hope that support will sustain your continuning R&D?
To the consumer, it's a great choice. But to any entrepreneurial developers out there whose time has provided food and shelter to their families, why would you ever decide to offer your software for free?
I've become so fed-up with the absurdity of the open-source movement, and how people claim everything should be open-source. Sure, that would work if life itself wasn't an expense. Living costs money, and any open-source supporter who thinks that offering their time and services for free will reap enough revenue to support a family and a decent life must be losing their minds.
If you offer up a good product, people will pay good money -- this applies to Windows. As much as the majority of Slashdot is against Windows and Microsoft, the fact remainins it IS a very good product. That's the bottom line.
I'll never offer my software or services for free, because my time is worth something to me. If I were to open source my work, then I'd sooner travel the world and spend money, then work my ass off and give it away for free.
To keep this on topic: I hope Microsoft never goes in the open-source direction. Open source is doomed, but people are too busy gagging themselves on the thought that it's free.
I'd gather a programmer has already made some sense of a name for himself just by being hired by Google.
(Pulls down facemask)
Keep firing assholes!