That's as far as I'm willing to go to ensure that my code quality is good
Really? That's a horrible attitude. I hope I never have to work on code you've written. "I did this and this, but if that's not good enough, sucks to be you. I refused to do anything else.
Regardless of whether you think commenting is stupid from a technical perspective, if you're asked to, shouldn't you just do it? I mean, is it really that harmful?
To me, it's a question of economics. And for those sorts of questions, I go to people who know something about how it works, rich people. Particularly rich people who made it rich when they were young and managed to hold on to that money. I know a few of those, and none of them buy extended warranties on products, they self-insure. Granted, they have the money to do so. But, if you buy 2-3 extended warranties per year (that's $400-600/year), you could drop all that in a savings account and afford to replace 1 of those 3 big-ticket items every 3 years (I'm assuming a warranty is 10% of the sticker cost), which is probably how many times those extended warranties would have to completely replace your product. And that's full replacement mind you, that doesn't account for when it just needs a $100 or $200 repair, which if that is all you needed, you can do that 3-6 times a year.
Sure, there will be some bad years, but that's why you have a general emergency fund as well to soak those losses. And, all that money is sitting in your bank account earning you interest (keep it in the right kind of account and it could earn anywhere from 8-12% and still be accessible like a checking account), not some big insurance company.
As has been mentioned several times, this is nothing new. I use this all the time because it saves me trouble. Don't know about the iPhone app, but there is some verification in that you have to enter the amount to deposit. And really, the bank doesn't hold on to a check after you've deposited it anyway. They scan it, store it under your account. But I've asked my banks for copies of checks deposited before, they gave me a printout. All they've done is ask you to scan it for them. Quite frankly, the convenience of
being able to access my money from any ATM in the world without fees
their awesome insurance rates (I pay less to insure my wife and I are two cars we don't fully own yet than my friends the same age pay to insure themselves on a single car that they do own, and we live 3 blocks from each other)
world-class customer service (my mom rear-ended someone, her fault, halfway across the US from home, USAA got her home, wrote out all the checks, handled all the claims, and just sent her a sheet of paper to sign and fax back along with a check less the deductible for the vehicle)
and numerous other benefits
more than compensates for them making me do that small portion of their job for them so I can access my money same-day rather than in 3 to 14 business days.
Breakdown in communication? Perhaps you've never actually been around the military. It's like a Dilbert cartoon with guns and 1,382 more layers of management. Oh, and free healthcare.
My father is in the military, they have a name for the people who manage their networks: DOIM Nazis (DOIM: Directorate of Information Management). Mordak the Preventer is their unofficial mascot.
You know, historically the stock market is a great place to put money you won't be needing for 5+ years. In 59 of the 82 years the S&P 500 has been around, it had a positive return(http://www.icmarc.org/xp/rc/marketview/chart/2008/20080502SP500HistoricalReturns.html. That's 72%, not too bad (and probably more liquid than gold or countries). In fact, there are very few 5 year periods where the stock market averaged a negative return, and even fewer 10 year periods.
Now, the "stock market average" doesn't matter much to the daytrader investor who got a hot tip back in 2006 that CitiGroup was the next Microsoft and invested his entire life savings of $6,203.12 in Citi (there's a reason 90% of daytraders lose money). But when you're talking about enough money to decommission a nuclear reactor.... You can spread your money over a wide enough segment of the market that you should get pretty close to the market average.
Technically speaking, Social Security is the only legal Ponzi scheme out there (Put your money in and you'll get other people's money later). I'm not sure the market qualifies as a Ponzi scheme according to the strictest definition. After all, you are actually buying something, you're just paying a bunch for an electronic representation of a peice of paper that 90% of the time ends up not even being worth enough to wipe your butt with it.
Seriously, dude. This is like arguing "The internet is like a series of tubes" jokes aren't funny because "The ethernet cables are a lot like tubing!"
Besides, have you actually listened to the people he's satiring? After some of the stuff I read just scant days ago debunking the faked landing myths, I'm surprised this wasn't actually one of the arguments presented! I mean, really. Did you know there are people out there who really, seriously believed that the Galileo space probe that was deorbited into Jupiter in 2003 was a plot by NASA to turn Jupiter into a star.
Each one is dedicated to finishing the space station -- now 81 percent complete -- and hauling up supplies and big spare parts that are too big to fly on any other rocketship.
Apparently the author of your linked MSN article has been reading a bit too much 1950's Sci Fi lately.
The day that I, as a nontechnical software user, can meaningfully participate in an open-source project is the day that open source will truly have won.
Show me an instance of this with Apple. In fact, I would argue the opposite - that their strict control of the platform has allowed them to focus on only approving software that specifically fits the customer's needs the best. As apposed to the open source model which is one tool, a million uses. With apple you get the universal 1-piece screw driver. With open source you get the Craftsmen all-in-one screw driver with 36 bits and 6 handles in 4 colors.
From my (admittedly) brief review of the article, it seems like logic to the argument went like this:
I like open source stuff, it's nice, but
I wish it were developed for less technically-minded people. Not for developers.
Apple develops their stuff for less technically-minded people.
And open source lets anybody contribute.
I like the way Apple programs run.
I wish I could make open source stuff look like Apple programs
One day, open souce will be just like Apple and let everyone contribute. Then they'll win.
I've got to admit, I feel like I must have missed a few connecting arguments in there.
Well, at least we agree on one thing. We should all be striving to make this world a better place. The major difference is how we approach it. See, I recognize a pattern in all the YRO articles posted here. I see the commonality between Korea's botnet destroying people's computers and Lancaster's mayor exuberance over their new spy plane. And I approach any and every plan and idea to make this world a better place with the realization that people are evil. They don't make mistakes, they don't unintentionally screw things up. Rather, they have to try to not be evil. So maybe if we work together, your reason and my pessimistic opinion of human nature can make some changes for the better?
As someone who believe this, please don't confuse Catholics and Protestants. Catholics (a large percentage, but far from all of Christianity) believe in Transubstatiation (The bread and wine become the body of Christ). However, the majority of protestant traditions teach that communion is strictly symbolic. And it's not "Hey, be a cannibal so I can save you!" It's a backreference to (among other things) the first passover meal, in which a lamb was slaughtered and it's blood put on the doorposts of the house to save it's occupants from the angel of death in Egypt. It symbolises that just as the lamb had to die (and be eaten) to save those in the house in Egypt, so Christ had to give his body to save those who would believe in him; and just as the blood of the lamb protected everyone who took refuge in that house in Egypt, so the blood of Christ protects all who take refuge in his sacrifice.
Sorry to cloud the issue with pertinent facts though, carry on.
Gotta say, I've got a MS Natural 4000 at work, and I haven't had any RSI since I started using it. And I've dealt with that for over 4 years now. Anybody looking for an Ergonomic Keyboard, this is a good one. Now, I just need to figure out how to make this little zoom wheel in the center scroll instead (come on Microsoft, that option should have been a no-brainer!).
Bottom line is, people don't care about privacy, but they do care about having their personal information being used to hurt them.
And therein lies the fundamental problem. In most people's minds, bad things should always happen fast. Few people realize that, in real life, most things develop slowly, over time. Until more people realize that fact, we will continue to take "short, fast, cheap, and easy" over "longer, slower, more expensive, and harder" as a default. Frankly, I worry about the privacy debate not for my own sake, but for my kid's sake. By the time they are born, it is likely that their entire lives will be recorded electronically (with the possible exception of the first few years). Where they live, what they do, etc, etc. I'm not worried someone in power today will do something bad with that, most of them aren't even aware of the possibilies. I'm worried that some politician-to-be from the class of 2009 is going to do something with it when they get into a high-level public office 15 to 20 years from now.
I know, I totally agree. In the neighborhood I live in, houses get broken into all the time. I know this one guy who has a big, fancy "security system", and he's never been robbed. But I think it's just because there's so much other low-hanging fruit.
Besides, most of the people who got robbed were doing stupid things, like assuming that their locked door would actually stop anybody other than them from getting into their house. One guy forgot his key so often, he just never locked his door anymore. They got him real good.
And really if you think about it, the thieves would just learn, evolve, and adapt if we all got security systems. They'd find a way in. Sure, the break-ins would only happen weekly instead of daily, but I don't think that's really a large enough reduction in frequency. And sure, the alarm system would notify the police so they'd be able to get here quicker and maybe apprehend the criminals, but I think the police should just patrol our street 24/7. They should park a police car in front of ever house, then they'd nail these burglars real fast AND we wouldn't even have to call 911.
What I really wish is for that moron on the hill with the fancy security system to just shut up about how beneficial it is. He must be grade "A" stupid to see most of the people who got robbed were asking for it.
And let us not forget that it was the US playing world police who saved Europe in WWII, changed Japan from a militaristic empire to the Western democracy that they are now, brought South Korea from poverty to wealth and has been a staunch ally of the only truly western country in the middle east.
Minor quibble: The US did not 'save' by it's intervention in WWII (and before you ask: Yes, I'm an American). None of the Allies won WWII by themselves. Yes, the US provided a large portion of the economic muscle, but all that had to happen for a very different war (and a very different outcome) is for the spirit of the British people to have been broken during the Battle of Britain. The groundwork for that could have been laid at Dunkirk, had the Germany army not pulled up short of the withdrawing British forces. Or, the Soviets could have decided enough was enough and signed a peace treaty in 1942 or 43 (even a temporary one), which would have given Hitler time to consolidate. Let's not oversimplify what was possibly one of the most complex events of the 20th century to "The world was going to hell, the British were seriously contemplating starting German classes in their school, then America stepped in and sent the big, bad fascists to the corner."
See, THIS is why we should teach kids computer programming instead of civics. Because computer programming teaches you civics! I knew LISP would come in handy!
In all honesty, I wish legal documents were written that way. It would make the extraneous statements more obvious and the legalese less dense. Then again, it would also allow for easier refactoring, resulting is shorter and more understandable documents. Putting hundreds of lawyers out on the streets... wait, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
I am not a professional programmer, so I have the luxury of getting to choose my tools and switch whenever I want to. I have tried several times over the past to pick up Java, but each time I found it too heavy for what I intended to use it for. Kind of like hunting for deer with a M2 Browning. Personally, I use Python or Ruby for pretty much everything I do. Then again, the biggest project I've ever done was only about 1,000 lines of Python. It was a program for calculating trade between worlds in our http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/traveller/ game.
I have, actually. I've looked at it a few times. I've read up on the projects (both Wine and Cedega), and I'd probably use Wine just because it's free and our budget is kinda tight. But to be honest I am a bit confused as to how to use it. I am moving from a Windows to Linux, and I'm completely self-taught Linux. As I understand it, you just run from the command line something like "wine path/to/program --options". But how does that work with installing programs? And where does it install to? I guess my biggest problem has been lack of a good computer to test on. We only have 1 computer, and it's running windows. I suppose I could fire up VMware and try it in there, but I just wasn't sure how to proceed with actually using Wine/cedega.
It's not some kind of strike, I just won't pay for games that have DRM. That doesn't mean I won't download it and get a crack.
Let me make sure I understand this correctly. You will not pay for a game that has DRM. That is, you will vote with your wallet and refuse to give money to companies which protect their games with DRM copy protection. Excellent use of free-market economics.
But, you reserve the right to download it, find a crack, and play the game without having paid for it. This is like saying you refuse to buy things from Walmart because they put small stores out of business, but then turning around and stealing things from Walmart because "I can't find this in the smaller stores."
Is DRM a Bad Thing? Undoubtably. It prevents people who have purchased a product from using it while providing a temporary hindrance to people who intended to steal it all along. Vote with your wallet. It's a business strategy and, if it lacks support in the market, it will fail. Be proactive about it. Write the company and say "As interesting as this game is, I will not support a company which prevents paying customers from using what they are paying for. Therefore, I will not play it."
But, when you then decide, "You know, I am really interested in that game." If you download it and crack it, you have broken the law. And, you have sent the company the wrong message. Because you have told them, "I refuse to pay for something I can steal for free." Their only logical response is to make it more expensive to steal. Because they are beholden to their stockholders to produce a profit, which makes giving the game away for free problematic.
Exactly! Lack of games is a big part of why I cannot get my wife to let us switch to Linux. She's reasonably tech-savvy so the interface isn't a problem, she uses FF, Open Office, et al. But she likes Sims. She likes World of Warcraft. She likes games and Linux just doesn't have games that appeal to her. And if I built a program and needed to sell x copies a week at n dollars to stay in business, support the product, and develop new products; I'd be kinda ticked if the people I was developing for were stealing it.
Perhaps there could be a way it could store the username/password locally for off-line authentication? That would require you to log in once networked, then once you had authenticated on the computer it put a file for it to check for off-line authentication. A sub-optimal solution, to be sure. But the optimal solution is "They sell enough copies to stay in business while still allowing cheap to free distribution."
I will say though that the computing industry is one of the only places where you are expected to buy a product you cannot return (at least not without a great deal of hassle) without being able to test-drive said product.
FTFA
With $40 billion burning a hole in its pocket following the collapse of the Yahoo deal, Microsoft has been consistently linked with a takeover of Facebook, although CEO Steve Ballmer last week talked down the possibility of a deal. "People don't understand what they're talking about," he told The Financial Times. "At the end of the day, this is about the ad platform. This is not about just any one of the applications." I have to admit, Ballmer actually has this one right. Facebook really is just an ad platform. The programs exist to sell ads. But why are they using that as an excuse not to buy it, isn't that what Microsoft wants? A platform from which to advertise other microsoft products? Perhaps one of the chairs ricocheted?
Me too! That is the biggest thing I miss from being single. Before I was married, I read about 1 book a month. Sometimes fiction, sometimes coding/programming, but still about one a month. And I could code at home.
Now, seems like just as I'm starting to get into something it's, "Hey, honey? ?" And, since it's been almost 2 years since I was where she is in the game, I have to get up and go look to jog my memory. Fortunately, I just got a job promotion that moved me into a quiet, tech room (away from the call center I was in) so I do my reading at work between service calls.
MTTI, amazing. At home, mine is about... 60 seconds. It's almost like she's afraid our connection will time out if I background her process.
I like how wikileaks highlights the parts that make their story look good, you know, like the distruction notice.
"Classified military documents contain orders to destroy the documents to prevent release", news at 11.
In light of the fact that they find that line of particular importance, I find the remainder of their chosen highlighted areas suspect as well... Wait, here's another part.
"Restrictions. Rights on the legality of detention or imprisonment of personnel (for example, habeas corpus) may be temporarily suspended." How horrible! Our government endorses suspension of habeas corpus!! Let's look at the very next sentence.
"This measure must be taken as a last resort, since it may provide the insurgents with an effective propaganda theme." Oh, so it's not just go in and arrest everyone you see, it's "here's a possible tool, use it wisely."
"Just war", "honorable" warfare, etc. ONLY work if everyone is willing to play by those rules. THAT was the military lesson of Vietnam. And no, that doesn't give you free reign to do what you want. By the way, "They broke the rules, so we can do whatever we want" isn't the point of this manual. PDFs are available from the site, I've already downloaded my copy and intend to read it before formulating a full opinion. But the beginning is very keen to point out that these measures must be carefully considered implementation.
Wait a minute. Has anyone stopped to consider other reasons why this might be a serious issue to Muslims besides just "They're a bunch of 14th century savage trogdolytes who can't take a joke." There are real religious and cultural reasons why this 'joke' was not merely distasteful, but down-right revolting.
For a Muslim, this is no greater offense than worshipping something other than Allah. This worship can take many forms, and for them one is creating an idol. That is why there is no Islamic art depicting people or things, they are always geometric figures, because there weren't real objects in geometric figures to be worshipped. Now, knowing that, consider that this is a representation of Muhammed. Not merely any man, but their religious founder. The person who received their message from God! Any religion would be offended by a bad depiction of their founder, but when that depiction also flies in the face of the very thing they hold most dear (in this case, no idolatry...). This is like a picture depicting Jesus burning in hell in their minds!
Now, put that in a cultural context where the worst possible thing that can happen to you is for you to lose face and, bam! you've got death threats, destoryed builtings, riots, and defaced webpages. From our logical mindset, it's overkill, from theirs, it's protecting from heresy and perversion of their core doctrine.
Doesn't make it right, but if we're going to condemn them, we need to do so for the right reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
That's as far as I'm willing to go to ensure that my code quality is good
Really? That's a horrible attitude. I hope I never have to work on code you've written. "I did this and this, but if that's not good enough, sucks to be you. I refused to do anything else.
Regardless of whether you think commenting is stupid from a technical perspective, if you're asked to, shouldn't you just do it? I mean, is it really that harmful?
Mod up parent!
To me, it's a question of economics. And for those sorts of questions, I go to people who know something about how it works, rich people. Particularly rich people who made it rich when they were young and managed to hold on to that money. I know a few of those, and none of them buy extended warranties on products, they self-insure. Granted, they have the money to do so. But, if you buy 2-3 extended warranties per year (that's $400-600/year), you could drop all that in a savings account and afford to replace 1 of those 3 big-ticket items every 3 years (I'm assuming a warranty is 10% of the sticker cost), which is probably how many times those extended warranties would have to completely replace your product. And that's full replacement mind you, that doesn't account for when it just needs a $100 or $200 repair, which if that is all you needed, you can do that 3-6 times a year.
Sure, there will be some bad years, but that's why you have a general emergency fund as well to soak those losses. And, all that money is sitting in your bank account earning you interest (keep it in the right kind of account and it could earn anywhere from 8-12% and still be accessible like a checking account), not some big insurance company.
more than compensates for them making me do that small portion of their job for them so I can access my money same-day rather than in 3 to 14 business days.
Actually.... It would appear there is.
Breakdown in communication? Perhaps you've never actually been around the military. It's like a Dilbert cartoon with guns and 1,382 more layers of management. Oh, and free healthcare.
My father is in the military, they have a name for the people who manage their networks: DOIM Nazis (DOIM: Directorate of Information Management). Mordak the Preventer is their unofficial mascot.
You know, historically the stock market is a great place to put money you won't be needing for 5+ years. In 59 of the 82 years the S&P 500 has been around, it had a positive return(http://www.icmarc.org/xp/rc/marketview/chart/2008/20080502SP500HistoricalReturns.html. That's 72%, not too bad (and probably more liquid than gold or countries). In fact, there are very few 5 year periods where the stock market averaged a negative return, and even fewer 10 year periods.
Now, the "stock market average" doesn't matter much to the daytrader investor who got a hot tip back in 2006 that CitiGroup was the next Microsoft and invested his entire life savings of $6,203.12 in Citi (there's a reason 90% of daytraders lose money). But when you're talking about enough money to decommission a nuclear reactor.... You can spread your money over a wide enough segment of the market that you should get pretty close to the market average.
Technically speaking, Social Security is the only legal Ponzi scheme out there (Put your money in and you'll get other people's money later). I'm not sure the market qualifies as a Ponzi scheme according to the strictest definition. After all, you are actually buying something, you're just paying a bunch for an electronic representation of a peice of paper that 90% of the time ends up not even being worth enough to wipe your butt with it.
Seriously, dude. This is like arguing "The internet is like a series of tubes" jokes aren't funny because "The ethernet cables are a lot like tubing!"
Besides, have you actually listened to the people he's satiring? After some of the stuff I read just scant days ago debunking the faked landing myths, I'm surprised this wasn't actually one of the arguments presented! I mean, really. Did you know there are people out there who really, seriously believed that the Galileo space probe that was deorbited into Jupiter in 2003 was a plot by NASA to turn Jupiter into a star.
In short, lighten up.
Each one is dedicated to finishing the space station -- now 81 percent complete -- and hauling up supplies and big spare parts that are too big to fly on any other rocketship.
Apparently the author of your linked MSN article has been reading a bit too much 1950's Sci Fi lately.
The day that I, as a nontechnical software user, can meaningfully participate in an open-source project is the day that open source will truly have won.
Show me an instance of this with Apple. In fact, I would argue the opposite - that their strict control of the platform has allowed them to focus on only approving software that specifically fits the customer's needs the best. As apposed to the open source model which is one tool, a million uses. With apple you get the universal 1-piece screw driver. With open source you get the Craftsmen all-in-one screw driver with 36 bits and 6 handles in 4 colors.
From my (admittedly) brief review of the article, it seems like logic to the argument went like this:
I've got to admit, I feel like I must have missed a few connecting arguments in there.
Well, at least we agree on one thing. We should all be striving to make this world a better place. The major difference is how we approach it. See, I recognize a pattern in all the YRO articles posted here. I see the commonality between Korea's botnet destroying people's computers and Lancaster's mayor exuberance over their new spy plane. And I approach any and every plan and idea to make this world a better place with the realization that people are evil. They don't make mistakes, they don't unintentionally screw things up. Rather, they have to try to not be evil. So maybe if we work together, your reason and my pessimistic opinion of human nature can make some changes for the better?
As someone who believe this, please don't confuse Catholics and Protestants. Catholics (a large percentage, but far from all of Christianity) believe in Transubstatiation (The bread and wine become the body of Christ). However, the majority of protestant traditions teach that communion is strictly symbolic. And it's not "Hey, be a cannibal so I can save you!" It's a backreference to (among other things) the first passover meal, in which a lamb was slaughtered and it's blood put on the doorposts of the house to save it's occupants from the angel of death in Egypt. It symbolises that just as the lamb had to die (and be eaten) to save those in the house in Egypt, so Christ had to give his body to save those who would believe in him; and just as the blood of the lamb protected everyone who took refuge in that house in Egypt, so the blood of Christ protects all who take refuge in his sacrifice.
Sorry to cloud the issue with pertinent facts though, carry on.
Gotta say, I've got a MS Natural 4000 at work, and I haven't had any RSI since I started using it. And I've dealt with that for over 4 years now. Anybody looking for an Ergonomic Keyboard, this is a good one. Now, I just need to figure out how to make this little zoom wheel in the center scroll instead (come on Microsoft, that option should have been a no-brainer!).
Bottom line is, people don't care about privacy, but they do care about having their personal information being used to hurt them.
And therein lies the fundamental problem. In most people's minds, bad things should always happen fast. Few people realize that, in real life, most things develop slowly, over time. Until more people realize that fact, we will continue to take "short, fast, cheap, and easy" over "longer, slower, more expensive, and harder" as a default. Frankly, I worry about the privacy debate not for my own sake, but for my kid's sake. By the time they are born, it is likely that their entire lives will be recorded electronically (with the possible exception of the first few years). Where they live, what they do, etc, etc. I'm not worried someone in power today will do something bad with that, most of them aren't even aware of the possibilies. I'm worried that some politician-to-be from the class of 2009 is going to do something with it when they get into a high-level public office 15 to 20 years from now.
I know, I totally agree. In the neighborhood I live in, houses get broken into all the time. I know this one guy who has a big, fancy "security system", and he's never been robbed. But I think it's just because there's so much other low-hanging fruit.
Besides, most of the people who got robbed were doing stupid things, like assuming that their locked door would actually stop anybody other than them from getting into their house. One guy forgot his key so often, he just never locked his door anymore. They got him real good.
And really if you think about it, the thieves would just learn, evolve, and adapt if we all got security systems. They'd find a way in. Sure, the break-ins would only happen weekly instead of daily, but I don't think that's really a large enough reduction in frequency. And sure, the alarm system would notify the police so they'd be able to get here quicker and maybe apprehend the criminals, but I think the police should just patrol our street 24/7. They should park a police car in front of ever house, then they'd nail these burglars real fast AND we wouldn't even have to call 911.
What I really wish is for that moron on the hill with the fancy security system to just shut up about how beneficial it is. He must be grade "A" stupid to see most of the people who got robbed were asking for it.
And let us not forget that it was the US playing world police who saved Europe in WWII, changed Japan from a militaristic empire to the Western democracy that they are now, brought South Korea from poverty to wealth and has been a staunch ally of the only truly western country in the middle east.
Minor quibble: The US did not 'save' by it's intervention in WWII (and before you ask: Yes, I'm an American). None of the Allies won WWII by themselves. Yes, the US provided a large portion of the economic muscle, but all that had to happen for a very different war (and a very different outcome) is for the spirit of the British people to have been broken during the Battle of Britain. The groundwork for that could have been laid at Dunkirk, had the Germany army not pulled up short of the withdrawing British forces. Or, the Soviets could have decided enough was enough and signed a peace treaty in 1942 or 43 (even a temporary one), which would have given Hitler time to consolidate. Let's not oversimplify what was possibly one of the most complex events of the 20th century to "The world was going to hell, the British were seriously contemplating starting German classes in their school, then America stepped in and sent the big, bad fascists to the corner."
See, THIS is why we should teach kids computer programming instead of civics. Because computer programming teaches you civics! I knew LISP would come in handy!
In all honesty, I wish legal documents were written that way. It would make the extraneous statements more obvious and the legalese less dense. Then again, it would also allow for easier refactoring, resulting is shorter and more understandable documents. Putting hundreds of lawyers out on the streets... wait, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
I am not a professional programmer, so I have the luxury of getting to choose my tools and switch whenever I want to. I have tried several times over the past to pick up Java, but each time I found it too heavy for what I intended to use it for. Kind of like hunting for deer with a M2 Browning. Personally, I use Python or Ruby for pretty much everything I do. Then again, the biggest project I've ever done was only about 1,000 lines of Python. It was a program for calculating trade between worlds in our http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/traveller/ game.
I have, actually. I've looked at it a few times. I've read up on the projects (both Wine and Cedega), and I'd probably use Wine just because it's free and our budget is kinda tight. But to be honest I am a bit confused as to how to use it. I am moving from a Windows to Linux, and I'm completely self-taught Linux. As I understand it, you just run from the command line something like "wine path/to/program --options". But how does that work with installing programs? And where does it install to? I guess my biggest problem has been lack of a good computer to test on. We only have 1 computer, and it's running windows. I suppose I could fire up VMware and try it in there, but I just wasn't sure how to proceed with actually using Wine/cedega.
Let me make sure I understand this correctly. You will not pay for a game that has DRM. That is, you will vote with your wallet and refuse to give money to companies which protect their games with DRM copy protection. Excellent use of free-market economics.
But, you reserve the right to download it, find a crack, and play the game without having paid for it. This is like saying you refuse to buy things from Walmart because they put small stores out of business, but then turning around and stealing things from Walmart because "I can't find this in the smaller stores."
Is DRM a Bad Thing? Undoubtably. It prevents people who have purchased a product from using it while providing a temporary hindrance to people who intended to steal it all along. Vote with your wallet. It's a business strategy and, if it lacks support in the market, it will fail. Be proactive about it. Write the company and say "As interesting as this game is, I will not support a company which prevents paying customers from using what they are paying for. Therefore, I will not play it."
But, when you then decide, "You know, I am really interested in that game." If you download it and crack it, you have broken the law. And, you have sent the company the wrong message. Because you have told them, "I refuse to pay for something I can steal for free." Their only logical response is to make it more expensive to steal. Because they are beholden to their stockholders to produce a profit, which makes giving the game away for free problematic.
Exactly! Lack of games is a big part of why I cannot get my wife to let us switch to Linux. She's reasonably tech-savvy so the interface isn't a problem, she uses FF, Open Office, et al. But she likes Sims. She likes World of Warcraft. She likes games and Linux just doesn't have games that appeal to her. And if I built a program and needed to sell x copies a week at n dollars to stay in business, support the product, and develop new products; I'd be kinda ticked if the people I was developing for were stealing it.
Perhaps there could be a way it could store the username/password locally for off-line authentication? That would require you to log in once networked, then once you had authenticated on the computer it put a file for it to check for off-line authentication. A sub-optimal solution, to be sure. But the optimal solution is "They sell enough copies to stay in business while still allowing cheap to free distribution."
I will say though that the computing industry is one of the only places where you are expected to buy a product you cannot return (at least not without a great deal of hassle) without being able to test-drive said product.
Me too! That is the biggest thing I miss from being single. Before I was married, I read about 1 book a month. Sometimes fiction, sometimes coding/programming, but still about one a month. And I could code at home. Now, seems like just as I'm starting to get into something it's, "Hey, honey? ?" And, since it's been almost 2 years since I was where she is in the game, I have to get up and go look to jog my memory. Fortunately, I just got a job promotion that moved me into a quiet, tech room (away from the call center I was in) so I do my reading at work between service calls. MTTI, amazing. At home, mine is about... 60 seconds. It's almost like she's afraid our connection will time out if I background her process.
I like how wikileaks highlights the parts that make their story look good, you know, like the distruction notice. "Classified military documents contain orders to destroy the documents to prevent release", news at 11. In light of the fact that they find that line of particular importance, I find the remainder of their chosen highlighted areas suspect as well... Wait, here's another part. "Restrictions. Rights on the legality of detention or imprisonment of personnel (for example, habeas corpus) may be temporarily suspended." How horrible! Our government endorses suspension of habeas corpus!! Let's look at the very next sentence. "This measure must be taken as a last resort, since it may provide the insurgents with an effective propaganda theme." Oh, so it's not just go in and arrest everyone you see, it's "here's a possible tool, use it wisely." "Just war", "honorable" warfare, etc. ONLY work if everyone is willing to play by those rules. THAT was the military lesson of Vietnam. And no, that doesn't give you free reign to do what you want. By the way, "They broke the rules, so we can do whatever we want" isn't the point of this manual. PDFs are available from the site, I've already downloaded my copy and intend to read it before formulating a full opinion. But the beginning is very keen to point out that these measures must be carefully considered implementation.
Wait a minute. Has anyone stopped to consider other reasons why this might be a serious issue to Muslims besides just "They're a bunch of 14th century savage trogdolytes who can't take a joke." There are real religious and cultural reasons why this 'joke' was not merely distasteful, but down-right revolting.
For a Muslim, this is no greater offense than worshipping something other than Allah. This worship can take many forms, and for them one is creating an idol. That is why there is no Islamic art depicting people or things, they are always geometric figures, because there weren't real objects in geometric figures to be worshipped. Now, knowing that, consider that this is a representation of Muhammed. Not merely any man, but their religious founder. The person who received their message from God! Any religion would be offended by a bad depiction of their founder, but when that depiction also flies in the face of the very thing they hold most dear (in this case, no idolatry...). This is like a picture depicting Jesus burning in hell in their minds!
Now, put that in a cultural context where the worst possible thing that can happen to you is for you to lose face and, bam! you've got death threats, destoryed builtings, riots, and defaced webpages. From our logical mindset, it's overkill, from theirs, it's protecting from heresy and perversion of their core doctrine.
Doesn't make it right, but if we're going to condemn them, we need to do so for the right reasons.