Have you ever noticed that whenever someone starts a post saying that an analogy is bad, they then try to add more convolutions to that same analogy as if that will improve it?
Why, that kind of analogy is just like when someone puts a rocket on their neighbor's car and doesn't tell the neighbor, then fires it up when the neighbor leaves for work in the morning.
This code sucks and people that develop it suck as well. They are people that do not believe rules are for them. Why don't they just go write ther own Open source versions of WoW and play with themselves. I want to play the game WITHOUT having to resort to cheat.
I've come to realize that for them it's not cheating - they're just playing a different game than other people are. Their game revolves around finding, creating and using exploits, and is quite different from the one that everyone else plays.
They did; and a large number of them are getting just what they deserve - bailouts notwithstanding. There are very few of those compared to the number of small institutions in trouble.
Here's what I'm saying: Anyone with the power to ruin your life just by their word against yours should not be trusted.
And I think here's what he's saying: overgeneralizations are usually a bad idea. This statement provides a good example: if I followed it, it would means that I should not trust my wife, my coworkers, my boss, my employees, my kids, or the stranger on the street.
I think that the bigger proof is that their product sucks ass. Go try and use it. I looked for "aes zip linux" and got 0 results. 0 results? Really? You index *more* than google and you can't find ONE reference to "aes zip linux"? I tried to use that thing, but it doesn't seem to enjoy providing me with any results. To me *that* is proof that they are a bubble company. Where's the beef?
Erm... and google's results are so much better? More timely, perhaps, but... c'mon;)
Might I recommend floola? It's like iTunes, but without the irritating bugs. I think it won't directly with DRMd stuff (though it won't break it either) - but if you have MP3s and/or ripped and an iPod, it's great. Built in support for podcasts too, though the interface is a bit klunky for that.
Why is it bad to offer the user the option to configure Firefox the way he/she likes it?
Within reason. Every time you "just make something configurable", you can be doubling the number of paths you have to test and validate whenever you change something.
The most effective way to stop crime? Tech that stops the crime before it can happen. You can't stop people from wanting to be criminals and you can't stop them once they are but if they can't actually commit the crime you stopped them nonetheless.
All this does is breed smarter criminals. Unless we start being able to read minds, this is outside the realm of possibility. And like the overuse of antibiotics, it doesn't 'kill' the 'bacteria' --- it just makes it come back stronger and/more likely/ to thrive.
The problem is that culturally, we practically deify criminal behavior. "Oh no," we say. "That bad bad man killed 30 people!". Then we spend years watching documentaries and specials and movies about how he got away with it for so long.
Our popular methods of artistic expression (writing, movies, games) exhibit the same not-so-grudging respect and admiration for those who commit criminal acts. This is not new - it extends back through recorded history. However the obvious answer of censorship is pointless as a solution-- arts are a reflection of humanity, not a prime motivating factor.
This "shame" tactic is just more of the same, and it is clearly not the answer.
Ultimately the question is this: how do you convince humans to stop being humans? If we can ever figure that out, we'll be living in a crime-free utopia.
You mean all you have to do is not be popular and make a profit?
As opposed to making a profit off of the hard work & money that another person/company put into establishing the name/reputation of their brand? That's what trademark is all about...
Seems like a bit of an odd situation. I mean, they're not/all/ patent trolls - some would be legitimately protecting their interests within the rules provided by the government.
When these people paid for the patents, it's not like they were making an investment -- they were essentially purchasing an asset. They had no way of knowing that the government would be arbitrarily changing the rules on them...
It also seems that this long delay is going to lead to a rather messy situation... although possibly less so than it already was:-)
Indeed - depending how far it goes, what happens to the people who paid thousands, tens of thousands, or more to get their ridiculous and not-so-ridiculous patents?
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to diggdot ;)
And once you purchase your highest level, what is there left to do?
We're enjoying a good rant-fest here, please don't confuse anybody with the facts.
Have you ever noticed that whenever someone starts a post saying that an analogy is bad, they then try to add more convolutions to that same analogy as if that will improve it?
Why, that kind of analogy is just like when someone puts a rocket on their neighbor's car and doesn't tell the neighbor, then fires it up when the neighbor leaves for work in the morning.
Yep, just like it. :D
This code sucks and people that develop it suck as well. They are people that do not believe rules are for them. Why don't they just go write ther own Open source versions of WoW and play with themselves. I want to play the game WITHOUT having to resort to cheat.
I've come to realize that for them it's not cheating - they're just playing a different game than other people are. Their game revolves around finding, creating and using exploits, and is quite different from the one that everyone else plays.
They did; and a large number of them are getting just what they deserve - bailouts notwithstanding. There are very few of those compared to the number of small institutions in trouble.
*wipes away a tear* At least someone does...
Yep, never would have guessed that ;)
Holy crap, do this many people /really/ not get that when someone appends ";)" to a post, he or she just /might/ be joking?
Again, "whoosh". Apparently winky-smiley-face is without meaning these days... ah well.
whoosh. I thought the ";)" was enough to indicate I wasn't serious, but apparently not. Yay mods!
And yet we blame the lending institution because this couple was too stupid to do some math?
Here's what I'm saying: Anyone with the power to ruin your life just by their word against yours should not be trusted.
And I think here's what he's saying: overgeneralizations are usually a bad idea. This statement provides a good example: if I followed it, it would means that I should not trust my wife, my coworkers, my boss, my employees, my kids, or the stranger on the street.
You've got it easy. I'm in a white upper class neighborhood, and our Vietnamese-American cops are brutal! ;)
I think that the bigger proof is that their product sucks ass. Go try and use it. I looked for "aes zip linux" and got 0 results. 0 results? Really? You index *more* than google and you can't find ONE reference to "aes zip linux"? I tried to use that thing, but it doesn't seem to enjoy providing me with any results. To me *that* is proof that they are a bubble company. Where's the beef?
Erm... and google's results are so much better? More timely, perhaps, but ... c'mon ;)
The default allocation also isn't enough to run in seamless mode - you need to bump it to at least 32 IIRC.
Might I recommend floola? It's like iTunes, but without the irritating bugs. I think it won't directly with DRMd stuff (though it won't break it either) - but if you have MP3s and/or ripped and an iPod, it's great. Built in support for podcasts too, though the interface is a bit klunky for that.
That's where assumptions get me. Still... there are for more effective ways of getting porn than use of web sites ;)
Why is it bad to offer the user the option to configure Firefox the way he/she likes it?
Within reason. Every time you "just make something configurable", you can be doubling the number of paths you have to test and validate whenever you change something.
and, okay, an episode that happened to me related to the awfullbar
And that's completely the a*bar's fault, and nothing to do with your browsing inappropriately at work?
The most effective way to stop crime? Tech that stops the crime before it can happen. You can't stop people from wanting to be criminals and you can't stop them once they are but if they can't actually commit the crime you stopped them nonetheless.
All this does is breed smarter criminals. Unless we start being able to read minds, this is outside the realm of possibility. And like the overuse of antibiotics, it doesn't 'kill' the 'bacteria' --- it just makes it come back stronger and /more likely/ to thrive.
The problem is that culturally, we practically deify criminal behavior. "Oh no," we say. "That bad bad man killed 30 people!". Then we spend years watching documentaries and specials and movies about how he got away with it for so long.
Our popular methods of artistic expression (writing, movies, games) exhibit the same not-so-grudging respect and admiration for those who commit criminal acts. This is not new - it extends back through recorded history. However the obvious answer of censorship is pointless as a solution-- arts are a reflection of humanity, not a prime motivating factor.
This "shame" tactic is just more of the same, and it is clearly not the answer.
Ultimately the question is this: how do you convince humans to stop being humans? If we can ever figure that out, we'll be living in a crime-free utopia.
I am not talking about politics here. I am speaking of immutable rights guranteed definitively by the Bill of Rights. The most basic of basic rights.
I thought you said you weren't talking about politics...
You mean all you have to do is not be popular and make a profit?
As opposed to making a profit off of the hard work & money that another person/company put into establishing the name/reputation of their brand? That's what trademark is all about...
When these people paid for the patents, it's not like they were making an investment -- they were essentially purchasing an asset. They had no way of knowing that the government would be arbitrarily changing the rules on them...
It also seems that this long delay is going to lead to a rather messy situation... although possibly less so than it already was :-)
Indeed - depending how far it goes, what happens to the people who paid thousands, tens of thousands, or more to get their ridiculous and not-so-ridiculous patents?