FLOSS in Europe is mainly about leaches. Here in the Netherlands for example the government has subsidized various FLOSS studies and initiatives..GOOD you might think. But then you look a little furhter. First, what you see is they never pour money into the open source projects themselves, so to all you code monkeys, tough luck, but thanks for all the fish. No they are pouring it into Commities to Determine How Good The Fish Is. You got organisations who pretend to be -the- portal to open source, but it's only for companies to want to deploy it. You got studies how open source fares compared to closed source, they are very good at pouring 50K here and 100K there to find out what's best and what the consequences will be.
Now this is all very good. (Until you realize it's always the same people and it's more about networking, the money and the jobs involved). Except, again, they never ever put money into development. To me, this is shameful, all these people going after the money and getting it, and not a single eurocent to what should be the first priority if you're giving away money. But they don't have to - that's not the point. Just start USING open source and stop talking about it/studying it for once, because it's a make money quick scheme, and don't waste tax payer's money on for example 286 page studies.
Sorry, I think you're turning yourself into a Victim, at the expense of the other gender. Reality is somewhat the other way round. If the average IT student is more nerdy and more clumsy with women, that does not equal less respectful. Also, do women pick studies based on where they can find the cutest boys, or something? This is not empowerment. Saying "girls are only not chosing IT because of the boys" is nonsense, utterly lacking any respect to those boys, and defying the real reasons why there are so few women in beta fields. Does this start at high skool, where the nerds terrorize the pretty girls, to prevent them from maturing their hidden interest in Calculus, not boys? Perhaps, it's only a mild suggestion, you should look at yourself?
Endless magnification, not such a stupid concept after all.
Next, computers will have huge letters, beep whenever you press a key, an Override function for those pesty Permission Denied errors, and in general be Apples.
It is funny you mention WWII, but not Irak.
Do you even know what you've been missing?
I've seen so many incidents that were covered widely in Europe, but not at all in the US media. These are usually reports about "collatoral damage" ("Family killed"), death toll among normal civilians (over 50 times the Tower's toll), progress, and everything that would make the war seem less succesful for the USA.
I call it the "Fox censorship". No it ain't just Fox.
Another headphone cowboy. While I like listening to music while I'm programming, I also like to work in silence when I want to. Any company where programmers are required to wear headphones in order to concentrate, I pity them.
I don't like open office plans, because in most cases, you don't pick the people. Logistics say that in any team above the size of 2 there will be one or more noise creating assholes, taking away your concentration, costing everyone money.
The most heart argument is of course quick communication. These people must be challenged or something they need to be within a 3-5m radius in order to effectively communicate, instead of stepping out of the office for a few secs, which of course is an enormous barrier. What?
What you're basically saying is that you prefer a workspace organisated for what you do 10-20% of the time, at the cost of optimizing the other 80% (like needing to wear headphones).
In all the open office plans I've seen I gather people work at 60-70% of what they're capable of. Not to mention many people don't dare to THINK because if you're leaning back and blankly staring at the monitor or ceiling, you're not working, right?
The explanation is simply that birds and other animals that evolved from the leg-losers, don't frequently lose legs, hence this ability is far from being critical for survival, and unused biological abilities wither over time because alterations which don't sport that ability survive just fine.
1. Make the target of the form something bogus, like a page with a few million fake e-mail addresses, or better, a page with a captcha for non-javascript users.
2. Using Javascript's onClick, change the submit button so when it's clicked, it changes the action part of the form, for example getElementById('myform').action = 'targetpage.html'.
All those services, a pity no one uses them, as search still accounts for most of their traffic. In other words, diversity failed so far and in almost no areas besides search are they king of the hill.
Besides that, 9/10 services you mentioned are not innovation. They are excellent buyers and copy-cats.
Ah, so you poison people, yet if they poison you to a lesser degree, you consider it an attack.
Futhermore you take special action to shrug aside your poisonous activities, giving new meaning to the word hypocrisy, and even go ahead and make up some argument that inhaling one type of excaust is preferable over another type.
Ok. So let's take a giant amount of grass. Compress it. Put layers on earth over it. Let it rot, rot, rot. Wait a million years. Pump the rotten liquid up. Burn it.
That's the excaust you prefer over the excaust of the original grass.
You, sir, if you made all that up in order to attack others while you're worse, are a freak and in need of a shrink. If I have to guess you're probably from the most poluting country on earth, and the least interested in fixing that.
Good point, but let's take that approach one step ahead.
First, we should perhaps get our priorities straight and worry more about car drivers. One should worry first about the polution and killer fine dust it takes to move a heavy object with people in it, instead of relatively miniscule amounts of polution generated by the burned grass.
I guess this would be a bit troublesome for fanatic anti-smokers who are into car driving and thus into poisoning the air to a much higher degree, but let's continue this argument or we would be complete hypocrites and control freaks of others.
Really, I don't mind if one has to drive to whatever pointless destination one's heading. But why invade my space with your killer poison? I for one do not wish to die for your visit to your mother in law, or vice versa.
How would you like it if at the traffic light on the way to your MiL, I walk by, knock on your window, make a rotating gesture with my index finger, wait for the window, moon and deliver a nice fart in return?
"In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads."
You're forgetting the China Axiom:
"Every unit of oil you save, will gratefully be burned by the Chinese."
In the end, whether you burn it and dispose what's left into the athmosphere, or the Chinese, it doesn't matter because all oil will be burned eventually.
What can be said is, if you got the money, please burn away because you probably burn it more efficiently in a less poluting way than the Chinese are currently doing with their factories and cars.
"This overloads the waters with nutrients and spawns large algae blooms. The algae sink, die, and decompose, in a process that sucks oxygen out of the water and the topmost layer of sediment on the bottom, where many worms and shellfish live."
Fosfate/nitrate (among others) --> Nutritions for algae --> No oxygen
The "mystery" is where the polution is coming from.
The prices for their products are too high, and once I got a product, it still has a license and I'm limited. They are leeches of the poor programmers that try to get their art to the world. These programmers only get a small fraction of the price of the product! Copyright is sooo outdated, it was never made for this. The programmers should get out, and make a living by selling t-shirts and giving programming demonstrations for crowds of nerds. Next thing you know, the industry will go after us, plain guys, who simply share this stuff among friends, and sue us. How dare they. They make nothing, drive expensive cars, and are just the evil middleware between the people and the programmers. Freedom is what we need. I haven't even started on software protection yet! At least that will be forbidden in France!
"It is difficult to calculate because I couldnt find much info on sending stuff back from the moon, I am willing to bet it is quite a bit cheaper."
I wonder what info you -did- find on sending stuff back from the moon;)
But anyway, why not just "drop" the "gold" of the moon. A gentle push will do. It would need a shell for the forces of re-entry. A guidence rocket or two to make sure it crashes into the desert, not NYC. Gravity will do the rest. Don't send too big packages. The impact will be nukelike.
"But really, trying to claim the BSD or GPL are "ultimate freedom" is a ludicrous argument. Instead, each are an attempt at their own vision of some subset type of freedom."
People choose BSD/MIT exactly to avoid the kind of self-serving yada yada that prevails under GPL users. They want to code and give, not restrict and spin doctor it into "freedom", or "subsets" of it if you will, and then make other licenses look like part of the game, with their own delusions. BSD/MIT = Do with it what you want, no restrictions. That is to all intends and purposes ultimate freedom to the user, even to abuse it in terms that the GPL forbids to, as it redefined freedom, protect the "freedom" of the developers/cummunity, yada yada (translate: Stallman must be able to knock on your door and request your code). If you redefine freedom that way, yes, then indeed you can meta-wisely call the original freedom a subset of freedom, and have endless arguments. That is a shame, because it produces no code and creates an enormous amount of barriers between open source projects wishing to use eachothers code, to a point where clearly more damage is done than any yada yada can talk right.
"And while many have their minor quirks that make them incompatable with each other, they all share one thing: giving freedom to the end user."
No. BSD is about giving freedom to the end user. GPL about paying a price to the "creator" who calls that "freedom". BSD is end-user oriented, GPL developer oriented. It's about getting back stuff. You got it exactly the other way round. If I hand you a gift and then limit what you can do with it because I want stuff back, it's not giving total freedom. If I hand you a gift, limit what you can do with it, and call it total freedom, while at the same time creating the illusion that licenses that do give total freedom are in fact lesser in that department, then I think I just explained why so many don't like the GPL. I don't mind the GPL that it wants to control its users for the developers purposes. But it ain't freedom. I see an anagoly with freedom of speech. Real freedom of software is were you even defend that freedom even if some people do something with it that you don't like or agree with, like closing enhancements and selling it.
"Dare I ask why you can't or shouldn't? The simple fact is, the GPL is doing mostly today what it was designed to do, to give users the freedoms that Stallman set-out to insure existed in GPLed code. To me, the work of GNU has created a moral and social reform in some sense, by making people realize it is possible to run ever increasing sections of one's system on an open and modifiable platform"
Well hallelujah, that seems to come straight out of the GPL Bullsh!t Marketeze Generator. I mean, like "to give users the freedoms that Stallman set-out to insure existed in GPLed code" and "to run ever increasing sections of one's system on an open and modifiable platform", that's nice but not very specific, so dare I ask -you-, how does for example FreeBSD not do this? Does it restrict freedoms? Is it not open and modifiable? I name this OS because it uses the simplest of licences at the opposite end of the spectrum and does exactly what you just vaguely mentioned. The only thing I can come up with is that you cannot close it and redistribute under the GPL, so if you have any numbers on the equation of how many more contributions that deliveres minus the potential contributors one loses, I'd be grateful.
"He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software, but if other people want to hide their code, that's fine, too."
Like with MIT or BSD licenses?
I don't get Linus. I don't like GPL, but as many people do like it and use it, I think there's a use for it and it's ok (that's freedom too). But Linus stated repeatedly to have picked GPL not because for "free" software, but for business reasons, so other businesses would contribute without worrying of competitors running away with the work and closing it. It is called as one of the reaons Linux is so succesful. For many, this is the sole purpose of picking GPL, not because they are hippies, but a practical choise not to be boycotted by potentially contributing companies (quite anti-hippy). So what made him change his mind and why didn't he choose MIT or BSD to begin with? These are -the- licenses if you don't mind others hiding code, exporting it to Mars, or yell it verse-like from towerlike structures towards the east, even for profit.
"Most importantly, instead of reading the BBC page (or without bothering to read anything), go to the Apple website where you find Apple's report that this is all based on"
Yeah good advice, Apple Boy. Tell people don't go to the independent new web site, but go my company that was accused for their spin on it, and that the "lalala we don't hear we don't see because it makes us money" moral is a live style to go by. Totally shameless.
Slashdot Mirror
Now this is all very good. (Until you realize it's always the same people and it's more about networking, the money and the jobs involved). Except, again, they never ever put money into development. To me, this is shameful, all these people going after the money and getting it, and not a single eurocent to what should be the first priority if you're giving away money. But they don't have to - that's not the point. Just start USING open source and stop talking about it/studying it for once, because it's a make money quick scheme, and don't waste tax payer's money on for example 286 page studies.
Sorry, I think you're turning yourself into a Victim, at the expense of the other gender. Reality is somewhat the other way round. If the average IT student is more nerdy and more clumsy with women, that does not equal less respectful. Also, do women pick studies based on where they can find the cutest boys, or something? This is not empowerment. Saying "girls are only not chosing IT because of the boys" is nonsense, utterly lacking any respect to those boys, and defying the real reasons why there are so few women in beta fields. Does this start at high skool, where the nerds terrorize the pretty girls, to prevent them from maturing their hidden interest in Calculus, not boys? Perhaps, it's only a mild suggestion, you should look at yourself?
Next, computers will have huge letters, beep whenever you press a key, an Override function for those pesty Permission Denied errors, and in general be Apples.
I call it the "Fox censorship". No it ain't just Fox.
Another headphone cowboy. While I like listening to music while I'm programming, I also like to work in silence when I want to. Any company where programmers are required to wear headphones in order to concentrate, I pity them.
I don't like open office plans, because in most cases, you don't pick the people. Logistics say that in any team above the size of 2 there will be one or more noise creating assholes, taking away your concentration, costing everyone money.
The most heart argument is of course quick communication. These people must be challenged or something they need to be within a 3-5m radius in order to effectively communicate, instead of stepping out of the office for a few secs, which of course is an enormous barrier. What?
What you're basically saying is that you prefer a workspace organisated for what you do 10-20% of the time, at the cost of optimizing the other 80% (like needing to wear headphones).
In all the open office plans I've seen I gather people work at 60-70% of what they're capable of. Not to mention many people don't dare to THINK because if you're leaning back and blankly staring at the monitor or ceiling, you're not working, right?
The explanation is simply that birds and other animals that evolved from the leg-losers, don't frequently lose legs, hence this ability is far from being critical for survival, and unused biological abilities wither over time because alterations which don't sport that ability survive just fine.
Nuclear weapon simulation. Err, sorry, "to increase the understanding of enduring stockpile." http://www.nv.doe.gov/nationalsecurity/stewardship /default.htm
1. Make the target of the form something bogus, like a page with a few million fake e-mail addresses, or better, a page with a captcha for non-javascript users.
2. Using Javascript's onClick, change the submit button so when it's clicked, it changes the action part of the form, for example getElementById('myform').action = 'targetpage.html'.
No reviews, just product info and links to Amazon with their affiliate ID in it. Is Slashdot running advertorials now???
Wouldn't it be much cheaper to hire the prop makers?
Nah, only books in Japanese for you, I'm afraid.
Besides that, 9/10 services you mentioned are not innovation. They are excellent buyers and copy-cats.
War on Proprietary Software.
Futhermore you take special action to shrug aside your poisonous activities, giving new meaning to the word hypocrisy, and even go ahead and make up some argument that inhaling one type of excaust is preferable over another type.
Ok. So let's take a giant amount of grass. Compress it. Put layers on earth over it. Let it rot, rot, rot. Wait a million years. Pump the rotten liquid up. Burn it.
That's the excaust you prefer over the excaust of the original grass.
You, sir, if you made all that up in order to attack others while you're worse, are a freak and in need of a shrink. If I have to guess you're probably from the most poluting country on earth, and the least interested in fixing that.
Good point, but let's take that approach one step ahead.
First, we should perhaps get our priorities straight and worry more about car drivers. One should worry first about the polution and killer fine dust it takes to move a heavy object with people in it, instead of relatively miniscule amounts of polution generated by the burned grass.
I guess this would be a bit troublesome for fanatic anti-smokers who are into car driving and thus into poisoning the air to a much higher degree, but let's continue this argument or we would be complete hypocrites and control freaks of others.
Really, I don't mind if one has to drive to whatever pointless destination one's heading. But why invade my space with your killer poison? I for one do not wish to die for your visit to your mother in law, or vice versa.
How would you like it if at the traffic light on the way to your MiL, I walk by, knock on your window, make a rotating gesture with my index finger, wait for the window, moon and deliver a nice fart in return?
Let the fart wars begin!
GPL is pushed by propaganda zealots, spin doctors, and to make matters worse, lawyers.
You're forgetting the China Axiom:
"Every unit of oil you save, will gratefully be burned by the Chinese."
In the end, whether you burn it and dispose what's left into the athmosphere, or the Chinese, it doesn't matter because all oil will be burned eventually.
What can be said is, if you got the money, please burn away because you probably burn it more efficiently in a less poluting way than the Chinese are currently doing with their factories and cars.
From the article:
"This overloads the waters with nutrients and spawns large algae blooms. The algae sink, die, and decompose, in a process that sucks oxygen out of the water and the topmost layer of sediment on the bottom, where many worms and shellfish live."
Fosfate/nitrate (among others) --> Nutritions for algae --> No oxygen
The "mystery" is where the polution is coming from.
The prices for their products are too high, and once I got a product, it still has a license and I'm limited. They are leeches of the poor programmers that try to get their art to the world. These programmers only get a small fraction of the price of the product! Copyright is sooo outdated, it was never made for this. The programmers should get out, and make a living by selling t-shirts and giving programming demonstrations for crowds of nerds. Next thing you know, the industry will go after us, plain guys, who simply share this stuff among friends, and sue us. How dare they. They make nothing, drive expensive cars, and are just the evil middleware between the people and the programmers. Freedom is what we need. I haven't even started on software protection yet! At least that will be forbidden in France!
I wonder what info you -did- find on sending stuff back from the moon ;)
But anyway, why not just "drop" the "gold" of the moon. A gentle push will do. It would need a shell for the forces of re-entry. A guidence rocket or two to make sure it crashes into the desert, not NYC. Gravity will do the rest. Don't send too big packages. The impact will be nukelike.
People choose BSD/MIT exactly to avoid the kind of self-serving yada yada that prevails under GPL users. They want to code and give, not restrict and spin doctor it into "freedom", or "subsets" of it if you will, and then make other licenses look like part of the game, with their own delusions. BSD/MIT = Do with it what you want, no restrictions. That is to all intends and purposes ultimate freedom to the user, even to abuse it in terms that the GPL forbids to, as it redefined freedom, protect the "freedom" of the developers/cummunity, yada yada (translate: Stallman must be able to knock on your door and request your code). If you redefine freedom that way, yes, then indeed you can meta-wisely call the original freedom a subset of freedom, and have endless arguments. That is a shame, because it produces no code and creates an enormous amount of barriers between open source projects wishing to use eachothers code, to a point where clearly more damage is done than any yada yada can talk right.
No. BSD is about giving freedom to the end user. GPL about paying a price to the "creator" who calls that "freedom". BSD is end-user oriented, GPL developer oriented. It's about getting back stuff. You got it exactly the other way round. If I hand you a gift and then limit what you can do with it because I want stuff back, it's not giving total freedom. If I hand you a gift, limit what you can do with it, and call it total freedom, while at the same time creating the illusion that licenses that do give total freedom are in fact lesser in that department, then I think I just explained why so many don't like the GPL. I don't mind the GPL that it wants to control its users for the developers purposes. But it ain't freedom. I see an anagoly with freedom of speech. Real freedom of software is were you even defend that freedom even if some people do something with it that you don't like or agree with, like closing enhancements and selling it.
Well hallelujah, that seems to come straight out of the GPL Bullsh!t Marketeze Generator. I mean, like "to give users the freedoms that Stallman set-out to insure existed in GPLed code" and "to run ever increasing sections of one's system on an open and modifiable platform", that's nice but not very specific, so dare I ask -you-, how does for example FreeBSD not do this? Does it restrict freedoms? Is it not open and modifiable? I name this OS because it uses the simplest of licences at the opposite end of the spectrum and does exactly what you just vaguely mentioned. The only thing I can come up with is that you cannot close it and redistribute under the GPL, so if you have any numbers on the equation of how many more contributions that deliveres minus the potential contributors one loses, I'd be grateful.
Like with MIT or BSD licenses?
I don't get Linus. I don't like GPL, but as many people do like it and use it, I think there's a use for it and it's ok (that's freedom too). But Linus stated repeatedly to have picked GPL not because for "free" software, but for business reasons, so other businesses would contribute without worrying of competitors running away with the work and closing it. It is called as one of the reaons Linux is so succesful. For many, this is the sole purpose of picking GPL, not because they are hippies, but a practical choise not to be boycotted by potentially contributing companies (quite anti-hippy). So what made him change his mind and why didn't he choose MIT or BSD to begin with? These are -the- licenses if you don't mind others hiding code, exporting it to Mars, or yell it verse-like from towerlike structures towards the east, even for profit.
Yeah good advice, Apple Boy. Tell people don't go to the independent new web site, but go my company that was accused for their spin on it, and that the "lalala we don't hear we don't see because it makes us money" moral is a live style to go by. Totally shameless.