It's a perfectly ridiculous thought. Many of the listed 'masculine' qualities aren't masculine, and almost all of the 'feminine' qualities aren't feminine either. And this idea some people (seemingly including the OP) have that the world would be all sunshine and happiness and everyone would shit rainbows if we put women in charge is just delusional.
Not to mention your quote is only tangentially relevant to the slightest bit of my post; you've basically ignored everything. Are you openly trolling now, or are you just incapable of forming a logical argument and thus have fallen back on throwing random quotes and hoping nobody notices you're not really making any sense?
No, blatantly misrepresenting the concept of freedom of speech in the US, arguing for censorship of the information in the US on the basis of German laws, and making an extremely dishonest comparison between the release of private information like pictures of yourself naked and public information like that you fucking murdered someone is flamebait. The only thing sad here is that you think you actually have a proper argument.
Freedom of speech, in the United States at least, is not given to citizens so that they can harm other people's reputations or hold them accountable for their actions. It is there so that actions by the government can be openly criticized and constructive dialog be established between (and amongst) citizens and the government, without fear of reprisal. It is there for the betterment of everyone. If there is no benefit to society, no protection is granted.
No, you're just blatantly making shit up. There's a lengthy history of freedom of speech in the US being upheld in cases where it is neither about the government nor for "the betterment of everyone". "5, Insightful"? Are the mods on crack again today?
I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to "crucify" a company for possibly accidentally using (stealing? slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [and giving the result away for free]"stealing" but slashdot won't call downloading songs/movies stealing?) open source code without releasing the resulting open source. Sounds... very progressive. Encourages people to use GPL. "Hey, use our free software and code! It's great! Use it however you want! But if you don't follow the GPL you are a horrible, horrible company, even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials."
I had no idea people whose Slashdot ID numbers ended in 5 engaged in gross logical fallacy by generalizing the actions of a single member of a group to the entirety of a group without the slightest reasonable basis for doing so. And yes, breaking news, stop the presses, people who use the GPL for their code have a problem with you taking it and incorporating it into yours and closing it up. If they didn't they'd be using the BSD license or something like that and not the GPL. That is the whole point.
If anything, it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff.
I don't like [...] comparisons of copyright to GPL...
The GPL is a copyright license. It gets all of its force from copyright law. Gee, I wonder why people would be talking about copyright when it's a GPL violation?
I don't think the world needs a whole generation of children wearing Naruto headbands. Now, if we can get them all to read something like Berserk, then maybe it'll be a good idea. We'd certainly be well prepared for any sudden outbreaks of horrible hellish rapebeasts.
Yes, corporations are made of individuals and these individuals can technically do as they please. However there is a strong incentive (i.e., not losing their jobs) to not do certain things, and I'd think Microsoft of all places would certainly make sure their employees avoid doing that sort of thing. I'm not saying it's entirely impossible, I'm just saying it seems rather unlikely.
And there's already a standard protocol in place for dealing with projects that are behind schedule at Microsoft: "drop WinFS".
There is a distinct difference between infringing on someone's copyright and infringing on someone's copyright and trying to pass their work off as your own.
Your pathetic trolling aside, I seriously doubt Microsoft would do something nearly this stupid. What would they have to gain from it? Certainly not enough to offset the damage caused by it being found out.
And what do most package managers do? Utterly lazy dependency management. "Well, you need this package... so you should have the latest version of it. If you want another version, you should rename the package and depend on something else instead."
I've never used a package manager that forced you to upgrade all dependencies to the latest version to install a package. All of them allow not just required packages but required versions of packages, and only force upgrades of dependencies when you don't have a sufficiently recent version.
And that would be almost-excusable, except for the brain-dead "open source is king" approach for updates: "The whole-thing's free anyway, why not just re-send the whole thing?" binary patches are pretty-much unheard of. Of course, sending the whole thing is really just a work-around because-
Some can do patches. I think RPM can. But unless you're using dialup, they're not really that much of advantage. And you also have the problem of having to provide patches from lots of versions to lots of versions. Or you can provide only patches from the last version to the current one, in which case they're useless for anyone who misses an upgrade.
Package managers generally do NOT bother to detect when they are about to clobber or alter "the wrong file". When they do, they don't bother to keep a record of what they/would/ consider to be "the right file", making "merging" impossible and difference examination a guessing game.
I don't know any package manager that does this. For example, Pacman, the package manager of Arch (my current distro of choice), installs new versions of files with the suffix '.pacnew' if the old version was modified and doesn't clobber.
Multiple versions of a single package co-existing on the same base install is generally impossible.
This is true on pretty much any OS. Multiple versions of the same package will install to the same paths, and your package manager would have to be pretty fucked up to do that. If you'd like to horribly violate widely adopted filesystem organization standards and patch your software a bunch to make it work properly with your new layout, you can do that, but there's no real gain.
Which really makes you wonder what the hell a package manager/does/ manage.
They manage packages. Just because they don't implement every feature you'd like doesn't mean that's not true, though evidently they do implement many features you'd like, but you are too busy raging pointlessly to pay attention to the facts. In fact, the only feature they don't implement that you'd like is a major design decision that would require altering pretty much all software on the system for no benefit to the vast, vast majority of users.
It's not third-party software, that's for sure. You want the bleeding-edge version of something? You just want to patch a broken package?
Then you get it from elsewhere if the official repos don't provide it. You can even build your own package, something you certainly ought to be capable of if you're applying your own patches to software. You can even set up your own repos!
That means you're not using the package manager, and that means you're on your own for everything. Either you build a/package/ for what you're doing on the side, or you don't get access to any of the supposed features.
So basically what you're saying is, "you're not using the package manager except if you are". Gee, really?
And anything that depends on what you're doing, you may as well just compile and track yourself- 'cause that's what you like doing, right?
Most of your post you've been toeing a fine line between being just wrong and bei
The third movie was very fairly maligned. Sure, it might have been halfway decent by itself. But as the sequel to Terminator 2, which was basically perfection in action movie form, merely decent isn't enough. It completely shat all over the "they finally beat Skynet and saved humanity!" thing, the characters weren't as well developed, the story didn't have as much depth, it wasn't nearly as tight (T2 advanced the plot in basically every scene and certainly didn't put any to waste), the Terminator in it wasn't really likable (T1's was an unstoppable killing machine; T2's was an unstoppable killing machine with a heart of gold; T3's was just a dick), the action wasn't as good, and the movie simply had overall a significantly different (and worse) feel from either of the previous ones.
Your clever plan has one slight flaw, namely that Toyota is not the only company on the planet making cars. If they stop then people will just buy cars from elsewhere that are probably less environmentally friendly, resulting in more pollution overall.
Environmentalists could do with a lot more pragmatism and a lot less "durr I'm going to vehemently oppose anything short of ceasing all pollution overnight".
Or has this guy fallen prey to the marketing of Microsoft / Apple and using "PC" to mean "Microsoft Widows" computer?
I realized some of Apple's ads were a bit questionable, but I didn't think any of them went quite so far as to claim Microsoft's software actually kills people.
Nice presumption that Nokia's claim is valid. If this were any company other than nefarious, evil, proprietary-everything Apple, would the/. summary be so favorable to Nokia?
This is hardly just "saying it's for the courts" and merely claiming it to be a bad summary. This is "dramatically exaggerating every single aspect of the situation". The summary isn't "presuming" anything. At most it's poorly worded. Most of Slashdot doesn't think Aplle is "nefarious, evil, proprietary-everything". The summary is also fairly neutral and hardly "so favorable to Nokia".
This is a textbook case of someone being perhaps a bit loose with their words and a whiny Apple fanboy grossly misinterpreting it to be a personal attack on their beloved cul^H^H^Hcompany.
You're making the assumption that his fear of people killing him is reasonable and he's not just utterly fucking batshit insane (which would explain a lot, actually).
Slashdot Mirror
It's a perfectly ridiculous thought. Many of the listed 'masculine' qualities aren't masculine, and almost all of the 'feminine' qualities aren't feminine either. And this idea some people (seemingly including the OP) have that the world would be all sunshine and happiness and everyone would shit rainbows if we put women in charge is just delusional.
Better yet, don't. Please.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire
Not to mention your quote is only tangentially relevant to the slightest bit of my post; you've basically ignored everything. Are you openly trolling now, or are you just incapable of forming a logical argument and thus have fallen back on throwing random quotes and hoping nobody notices you're not really making any sense?
No, blatantly misrepresenting the concept of freedom of speech in the US, arguing for censorship of the information in the US on the basis of German laws, and making an extremely dishonest comparison between the release of private information like pictures of yourself naked and public information like that you fucking murdered someone is flamebait. The only thing sad here is that you think you actually have a proper argument.
No, you're just blatantly making shit up. There's a lengthy history of freedom of speech in the US being upheld in cases where it is neither about the government nor for "the betterment of everyone". "5, Insightful"? Are the mods on crack again today?
I had no idea people whose Slashdot ID numbers ended in 5 engaged in gross logical fallacy by generalizing the actions of a single member of a group to the entirety of a group without the slightest reasonable basis for doing so. And yes, breaking news, stop the presses, people who use the GPL for their code have a problem with you taking it and incorporating it into yours and closing it up. If they didn't they'd be using the BSD license or something like that and not the GPL. That is the whole point.
The GPL is a copyright license. It gets all of its force from copyright law. Gee, I wonder why people would be talking about copyright when it's a GPL violation?
The numbers from Docomo's own site agree with the ones there (and also note that it's 19.6mm at the thinnest point).
You left out 'people trolling about copyright', evidently.
I think you mean to say "Personally, I don't care."
And personally, I think you should definitely follow your own advice with that.
Oh right. Probably someone saw that story too and decided to have a little fun with the same gaping security hole too.
I don't think the world needs a whole generation of children wearing Naruto headbands. Now, if we can get them all to read something like Berserk, then maybe it'll be a good idea. We'd certainly be well prepared for any sudden outbreaks of horrible hellish rapebeasts.
Introducing Sony's cutting edge PlayStation 4 game console, now with revolutionary Soylent Green-Ray disc technology.
Yes, corporations are made of individuals and these individuals can technically do as they please. However there is a strong incentive (i.e., not losing their jobs) to not do certain things, and I'd think Microsoft of all places would certainly make sure their employees avoid doing that sort of thing. I'm not saying it's entirely impossible, I'm just saying it seems rather unlikely.
And there's already a standard protocol in place for dealing with projects that are behind schedule at Microsoft: "drop WinFS".
There is a distinct difference between infringing on someone's copyright and infringing on someone's copyright and trying to pass their work off as your own.
Your pathetic trolling aside, I seriously doubt Microsoft would do something nearly this stupid. What would they have to gain from it? Certainly not enough to offset the damage caused by it being found out.
Yes, just one. Do you think Google has never heard of IP addresses?
I've never used a package manager that forced you to upgrade all dependencies to the latest version to install a package. All of them allow not just required packages but required versions of packages, and only force upgrades of dependencies when you don't have a sufficiently recent version.
Some can do patches. I think RPM can. But unless you're using dialup, they're not really that much of advantage. And you also have the problem of having to provide patches from lots of versions to lots of versions. Or you can provide only patches from the last version to the current one, in which case they're useless for anyone who misses an upgrade.
I don't know any package manager that does this. For example, Pacman, the package manager of Arch (my current distro of choice), installs new versions of files with the suffix '.pacnew' if the old version was modified and doesn't clobber.
This is true on pretty much any OS. Multiple versions of the same package will install to the same paths, and your package manager would have to be pretty fucked up to do that. If you'd like to horribly violate widely adopted filesystem organization standards and patch your software a bunch to make it work properly with your new layout, you can do that, but there's no real gain.
They manage packages. Just because they don't implement every feature you'd like doesn't mean that's not true, though evidently they do implement many features you'd like, but you are too busy raging pointlessly to pay attention to the facts. In fact, the only feature they don't implement that you'd like is a major design decision that would require altering pretty much all software on the system for no benefit to the vast, vast majority of users.
Then you get it from elsewhere if the official repos don't provide it. You can even build your own package, something you certainly ought to be capable of if you're applying your own patches to software. You can even set up your own repos!
So basically what you're saying is, "you're not using the package manager except if you are". Gee, really?
Most of your post you've been toeing a fine line between being just wrong and bei
*drag*
*drag drag drag*
*drag all over the screen as fast as I can like an angry monkey on crack*
Nope, don't see any tearing. CLOSED WORKSFORME
Which chapter of the Necronomicon is that from? It doesn't seem to be in mine. Do you have a newer version than I do?
The third movie was very fairly maligned. Sure, it might have been halfway decent by itself. But as the sequel to Terminator 2, which was basically perfection in action movie form, merely decent isn't enough. It completely shat all over the "they finally beat Skynet and saved humanity!" thing, the characters weren't as well developed, the story didn't have as much depth, it wasn't nearly as tight (T2 advanced the plot in basically every scene and certainly didn't put any to waste), the Terminator in it wasn't really likable (T1's was an unstoppable killing machine; T2's was an unstoppable killing machine with a heart of gold; T3's was just a dick), the action wasn't as good, and the movie simply had overall a significantly different (and worse) feel from either of the previous ones.
This is cloud computing like buying another pair of pants is cloud clothing.
Your clever plan has one slight flaw, namely that Toyota is not the only company on the planet making cars. If they stop then people will just buy cars from elsewhere that are probably less environmentally friendly, resulting in more pollution overall.
Environmentalists could do with a lot more pragmatism and a lot less "durr I'm going to vehemently oppose anything short of ceasing all pollution overnight".
I realized some of Apple's ads were a bit questionable, but I didn't think any of them went quite so far as to claim Microsoft's software actually kills people.
This is hardly just "saying it's for the courts" and merely claiming it to be a bad summary. This is "dramatically exaggerating every single aspect of the situation". The summary isn't "presuming" anything. At most it's poorly worded. Most of Slashdot doesn't think Aplle is "nefarious, evil, proprietary-everything". The summary is also fairly neutral and hardly "so favorable to Nokia".
This is a textbook case of someone being perhaps a bit loose with their words and a whiny Apple fanboy grossly misinterpreting it to be a personal attack on their beloved cul^H^H^Hcompany.
You're making the assumption that his fear of people killing him is reasonable and he's not just utterly fucking batshit insane (which would explain a lot, actually).