BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy Giuliani cleaned-up downtown New York. It may seem anal, but in the process of arresting jaywalkers and subway barrier jumpers, he also caught a lot of thieves and murderers.
If you think he arrested every jaywalker and that such a broad act would have any positive affect on city life, I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. Not to mention that the penalty for both offenses is a fine and not arrest.
No, he just separated all of the really the bad neighborhoods from the good and fringe neighborhoods and then made the city too expensive for anybody making less than $60K a year to stay in. Oh wait, that last bit was Bloomberg's bright idea.
For fringe neighborhoods, Giuliani kept throwing cops into the area until it became safe. Which basically meant, certain neighborhoods had a squad car sitting at every other corner 24/7. This confined the riff raff to doing their business inside the projects instead of outside, making the neighborhoods appear safer. The entire thing coincided with Clinton's welfare reform, which meant no more producing more babies for a larger check, and no more sitting around at home not doing anything (bored, and hence more likely to cause trouble), and with an overall improvement in the city's economy. These are important points, because not all people who commit crime want to be criminals but are forced into it by hunger or whatnot, and not all high-risk kids would be committing crimes if they had better things with which to occupy their time.
The other thing Giuliani did was ship all of the homeless to Cali. This improved the quality of life, thus changed people's attitudes towards their neighborhood and reduced the potential for trouble.
As for the subways, yes, there was an increase in the fining of toll booth jumpers. This was the consequence of putting police in the subway stations to make them safe (see above). But at the same time, new toll booths were installed that made it much harder to jump. And the metrocard came into being, reducing the annoyance that was tokens. Nowadays, people just walk through the handicap entrance/emergency exit.
Maybe you should get your facts straight about New York City before using it improperly as an example.
From my experience, shell scripts that use a significant amount of non-shell builtin commands are not portable. The typical shell script is highly dependent on the awk, grep, sed, etc. version on the system. And that varies not only between platforms, but between OS versions.
Simple things, like the improved mv that's floating around, tend to be easier to port. But the chance of a successful port is inversely proportional to the complexity of the script. As well, usefulness, while a loaded term, tends to be proportional to simplicity.
Your experience might be with long scripts (not to be mistaken with complex scripts) that predominantly make use of shell builtins to do all of the work, or with a relatively homogenous network environment. But your situation if true, from my experience, is rather unique.
I think a better statement would be, "Science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive."
But most people couldn't tell you the difference between philosophy and religion, so the confusion persists.
Religion is a set of statements that require belief to be asserted as factual (faith). Science is a set of statements that require the results of observable and repeatable tests to be asserted as factual (scientific method). Philosophy is just a set of statements; it makes no mention of factualness.
So by the above definition, religion and science are mutually exclusive. But I have to add that this is true only on the same level of abstraction. Science is confined to reality. Religion can become more abstract by nature, but science cannot. At some higher level of abstraction, religion becomes diametrically opposed to mathematics instead of science.
And people wonder why religious nuts lack any ability to reason logically.
This is doubtful. Apple isn't required to support every clone in the world. Microsoft has to support every configuration available because they are a software company whose goal is to put their products on any and every configuration out there. Apple only needs to continue to provide a high quality of service in order for their own brand of computers to remain dominant.
It'd be too bad OSX is BSD-based, as the clone makers wouldn't be forced to open up their modifications for Apple to see. But that's another story.
Otherwise, the other route is for Apple to protect their software even more (DRM, etc.).
Layering is good. What's great is getting all of the relevant players to stand behind one standard for each layer, e.g. ODF for documents.
IBM came up with a set of standards for GUI's way back when that everybody uses now. Linux needs the same. In addition to GUI elements, a standard way to communicate with package repositories (so it'll only be a matter of connecting to the right server) would also be useful.
We're not out to become rich billionaires by toppling microsoft and apple, we're just making a nice operating system for ourselves. This is something the majority of the world can't seem to understand.
You speak for yourself. In addition to the fact that everybody has different needs, they're also motivated differently. And the community is already tearing itself apart by not being able to recognize this little snippet.
You're right. But that kind of attitude won't promote adoption of your software.
Maybe you're not interested in your Linux distro or any software you work on as a serious competitor to closed, proprietary software. Maybe you're not interested in open standards and chipping away at the influence of major corporations in your life and the lives of countless others.
But if you are interested in any one of these things, then you'd better start taking notes on how and how not to behave. And for starters, any software development effort where any of the key people have the attitude of a spoiled 4-year old will not get that software adopted at all. After all, why risk the resources of supporting a project where the developers claim they can walk away at any time whatsoever, when a little bit of money can buy a real SLA in writing with much less associated risk, even if the latter product is marginally inferior.
As an aside, the value of an idea can be destroyed when more people know it - this is why we have trade secret law.
Does this imply that the most valuable idea is one that nobody knows? I have to ask how valuable is something that has no purpose. It is only until a consciousness realizes the idea that it has a purpose. And I would argue that the more people who know an idea, the greater its purpose. And hence, the more valuable it becomes.
...the most you can recover is $100.
The flaw in your example is that Microsoft is a monopoly. Ignoring what company it is, if your idea was sold for $100, then that's the free market value, and likely how much you're going to get for it if you tried to sell it (you can't get undercut because ideas cost you no resources to produce). If you think you can make more money than $100, you're welcome to put out an actual product and compete like everybody else. If somebody else can find a way to make your idea better, then they've outcompeted you and fair's fair. The idea that you can have one idea and milk it forever is just an extension of the entitlement attitude in US (and western) culture.
Microsoft is a monopoly, so a different set of rules apply (because the free market always trends towards monopolies). If they started using your idea without your consent, they'd be punished much more heavily because they're in a dominant market position, and they're able to outcompete you by nature of their size alone.
I'll never understand why Slashdot, primarily a group of code-authors are so willing to shoot themselves in the feet and claim that they have no property rights in their works.
You don't seem to understand that the majority of Slashdot readers and commenters write FOSS software. And quite frankly, I haven't heard anybody complaining about a sore foot.
It's also an affirmation of a right that has existed for a few thousand years.
[Citation Needed]
I can tell you that the entire concept of intellectual property likely did not exist until mass reproduction became possible. It began with the printing press (mass production of ideas) and then later the assembly line (mass production of tangible goods based on an idea). Prior to that, it was too expensive to reproduce for intellectual property rights to even come into play.
Quite frankly, you don't deserve an insightful. You barely know what you're talking about. You have no knowledge of history, and even less knowledge of how free market economics (capitalism) work. Citing a section the constitution only says you can read. And yes, this is an ad hominem. But I can't stand ignorant mods modding up ignorant posts while so many gems elsewhere are left at 2 or modded down to 0.
Anti-trust computing is Microsoft's next big thing.
You can't trust your hardware not to sell you out, you can't trust your software not to sell you out, you can't trust the web services you use not to sell you out.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW arresting jaywalkers is how Rudy Giuliani cleaned-up downtown New York. It may seem anal, but in the process of arresting jaywalkers and subway barrier jumpers, he also caught a lot of thieves and murderers.
If you think he arrested every jaywalker and that such a broad act would have any positive affect on city life, I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. Not to mention that the penalty for both offenses is a fine and not arrest.
No, he just separated all of the really the bad neighborhoods from the good and fringe neighborhoods and then made the city too expensive for anybody making less than $60K a year to stay in. Oh wait, that last bit was Bloomberg's bright idea.
For fringe neighborhoods, Giuliani kept throwing cops into the area until it became safe. Which basically meant, certain neighborhoods had a squad car sitting at every other corner 24/7. This confined the riff raff to doing their business inside the projects instead of outside, making the neighborhoods appear safer. The entire thing coincided with Clinton's welfare reform, which meant no more producing more babies for a larger check, and no more sitting around at home not doing anything (bored, and hence more likely to cause trouble), and with an overall improvement in the city's economy. These are important points, because not all people who commit crime want to be criminals but are forced into it by hunger or whatnot, and not all high-risk kids would be committing crimes if they had better things with which to occupy their time.
The other thing Giuliani did was ship all of the homeless to Cali. This improved the quality of life, thus changed people's attitudes towards their neighborhood and reduced the potential for trouble.
As for the subways, yes, there was an increase in the fining of toll booth jumpers. This was the consequence of putting police in the subway stations to make them safe (see above). But at the same time, new toll booths were installed that made it much harder to jump. And the metrocard came into being, reducing the annoyance that was tokens. Nowadays, people just walk through the handicap entrance/emergency exit.
Maybe you should get your facts straight about New York City before using it improperly as an example.
In a word (or two):
Hash chains.
From my experience, shell scripts that use a significant amount of non-shell builtin commands are not portable. The typical shell script is highly dependent on the awk, grep, sed, etc. version on the system. And that varies not only between platforms, but between OS versions.
Simple things, like the improved mv that's floating around, tend to be easier to port. But the chance of a successful port is inversely proportional to the complexity of the script. As well, usefulness, while a loaded term, tends to be proportional to simplicity.
Your experience might be with long scripts (not to be mistaken with complex scripts) that predominantly make use of shell builtins to do all of the work, or with a relatively homogenous network environment. But your situation if true, from my experience, is rather unique.
Therefore, both of the people out there who care about the content of this particular article will remain blissfully misinformed.
Damn, it's one helluva circle if Wikipedia can change what the primary source remembers.
Derivative work! You now owe GP royalties.
I think a better statement would be, "Science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive."
But most people couldn't tell you the difference between philosophy and religion, so the confusion persists.
Religion is a set of statements that require belief to be asserted as factual (faith). Science is a set of statements that require the results of observable and repeatable tests to be asserted as factual (scientific method). Philosophy is just a set of statements; it makes no mention of factualness.
So by the above definition, religion and science are mutually exclusive. But I have to add that this is true only on the same level of abstraction. Science is confined to reality. Religion can become more abstract by nature, but science cannot. At some higher level of abstraction, religion becomes diametrically opposed to mathematics instead of science.
And people wonder why religious nuts lack any ability to reason logically.
0 = cake is a dupe
So is using ROT-26 jailbait or not?
Well, according to Google images, she could either be a teacher, a photographer, a student, or a 29-year old baby.
Take your pick.
Only if she doesn't screw up. But the same goes for Obama as well.
Sad but true.
So you take a few precautions ahead of time and then you don't need to worry.
So write the password down. If electronic locks are too complicated, change the point of entry to something more manageable, i.e. a physical lock.
A list of database types and you forget the most popular one:
spreadsheet
What, you think all those fancy graphs and numbers on the nice-looking charts come from thin air? (that last one's directed at the GP)
This is doubtful. Apple isn't required to support every clone in the world. Microsoft has to support every configuration available because they are a software company whose goal is to put their products on any and every configuration out there. Apple only needs to continue to provide a high quality of service in order for their own brand of computers to remain dominant.
It'd be too bad OSX is BSD-based, as the clone makers wouldn't be forced to open up their modifications for Apple to see. But that's another story.
Otherwise, the other route is for Apple to protect their software even more (DRM, etc.).
A lot of people do their printing at work.
Ahem. I mean, I don't imply I do it, but I know a lot of people who do. *looks over shoulder*
Retro is in right now.
That's only if each piece of malware doesn't get included in the app count.
And then Steve Jobs went ahead and released it, and look where Apple is now...
Poor people have always been expendable. They are easily replaced, and their rulers have always understood this.
Fixed that for you.
Layering is good. What's great is getting all of the relevant players to stand behind one standard for each layer, e.g. ODF for documents.
IBM came up with a set of standards for GUI's way back when that everybody uses now. Linux needs the same. In addition to GUI elements, a standard way to communicate with package repositories (so it'll only be a matter of connecting to the right server) would also be useful.
We're not out to become rich billionaires by toppling microsoft and apple, we're just making a nice operating system for ourselves. This is something the majority of the world can't seem to understand.
You speak for yourself. In addition to the fact that everybody has different needs, they're also motivated differently. And the community is already tearing itself apart by not being able to recognize this little snippet.
You're right. But that kind of attitude won't promote adoption of your software.
Maybe you're not interested in your Linux distro or any software you work on as a serious competitor to closed, proprietary software. Maybe you're not interested in open standards and chipping away at the influence of major corporations in your life and the lives of countless others.
But if you are interested in any one of these things, then you'd better start taking notes on how and how not to behave. And for starters, any software development effort where any of the key people have the attitude of a spoiled 4-year old will not get that software adopted at all. After all, why risk the resources of supporting a project where the developers claim they can walk away at any time whatsoever, when a little bit of money can buy a real SLA in writing with much less associated risk, even if the latter product is marginally inferior.
As an aside, the value of an idea can be destroyed when more people know it - this is why we have trade secret law.
Does this imply that the most valuable idea is one that nobody knows? I have to ask how valuable is something that has no purpose. It is only until a consciousness realizes the idea that it has a purpose. And I would argue that the more people who know an idea, the greater its purpose. And hence, the more valuable it becomes.
...the most you can recover is $100.
The flaw in your example is that Microsoft is a monopoly. Ignoring what company it is, if your idea was sold for $100, then that's the free market value, and likely how much you're going to get for it if you tried to sell it (you can't get undercut because ideas cost you no resources to produce). If you think you can make more money than $100, you're welcome to put out an actual product and compete like everybody else. If somebody else can find a way to make your idea better, then they've outcompeted you and fair's fair. The idea that you can have one idea and milk it forever is just an extension of the entitlement attitude in US (and western) culture.
Microsoft is a monopoly, so a different set of rules apply (because the free market always trends towards monopolies). If they started using your idea without your consent, they'd be punished much more heavily because they're in a dominant market position, and they're able to outcompete you by nature of their size alone.
I'll never understand why Slashdot, primarily a group of code-authors are so willing to shoot themselves in the feet and claim that they have no property rights in their works.
You don't seem to understand that the majority of Slashdot readers and commenters write FOSS software. And quite frankly, I haven't heard anybody complaining about a sore foot.
It's also an affirmation of a right that has existed for a few thousand years.
[Citation Needed]
I can tell you that the entire concept of intellectual property likely did not exist until mass reproduction became possible. It began with the printing press (mass production of ideas) and then later the assembly line (mass production of tangible goods based on an idea). Prior to that, it was too expensive to reproduce for intellectual property rights to even come into play.
Quite frankly, you don't deserve an insightful. You barely know what you're talking about. You have no knowledge of history, and even less knowledge of how free market economics (capitalism) work. Citing a section the constitution only says you can read. And yes, this is an ad hominem. But I can't stand ignorant mods modding up ignorant posts while so many gems elsewhere are left at 2 or modded down to 0.
Anti-trust computing is Microsoft's next big thing.
You can't trust your hardware not to sell you out, you can't trust your software not to sell you out, you can't trust the web services you use not to sell you out.
Cox blocked by a computer. That's harsh.
but then we're not downloading porn torrents...
Yeah, why use bittorrent when you can just stream it in 1080p from the "studios" in real-time.
That sounds like the perfect way to send analog TV out with a bang.
And it would be the perfect opportunity to fill /. with jokes about a billion TV transmitters crying out and suddenly silenced.