This is one of the reasons I despise Flash. Hopefully someday Gnash will be a good replacement for it. Instead of Gnash, wouldn't it be better to abandon Flash altogether, as the specification for Flash is closed and proprietary? Why not move to an open standard?
I think that our ten questions would be better spent asking questions that might have new answers, or at least in asking the old questions in new ways that might provoke thought. How was your Blu-ray question new? The answer will be the same standard answer: It's a bargain, HD content needs it, forward thinking, availability is increasing, consumers are adopting it, prices will come down, blah blah.
In reality, none of these questions matter. The market has already decided that they don't want to buy an expensive console with a bigger DVD and diminishing returns on graphics power. The Wii has won this round through innovation. Better luck next generation.
You're missing out on the community aspect. The shared goal is one of volunteers coming together, to build something in an open, collaborative manner. When the project leaders introduce money into the equation, and single out a few to get paid, it is demoralizing to the rest. That's the reality, whether you think it is wrong or right. To go against the founding principles of the project was a mistake. The developer community let them know. The leaders should realize it, apologize, and move on.
Regardless of what you want to call addiction (choice or disease) we are all better off with a better understanding and better course of action other than "just say no" and locking up minor users. I agree, and I'm no fan of the "war on drugs". My problem is with saying that everybody who gives in to some undesirable behavior has a disease, and there is no choice involved, hence we should not feel angry about them as a society. In reality, pressure from society effects how people behave. If everybody is "understanding" because you have "no choice" because you have a "disease", then it creates an atmosphere where people give up on personal responsibility for their behavior and just give in to their basest desires.
So while I'm all for trying to understand underlying causes, and helping people change using means beyond just locking them up and scorn, I'm against the simplistic notion of using the label "disease" to remove personal responsibility. The guy with cancer has no choice. Let's not put the addict into the same category.
I run Testing, and it is neither up-to-date nor stable. Newer packages are often stuck in Unstable for whatever reason. There have also been several times where my machine had critical bugs after updating. I'm not sure you can summarize the different distributions completely accurately with one word. It's best for users to read a little blurb about which one means, and let them choose what they feel is right for them.
By the way, even Unstable is often not up-to-date. It depends on when the package maintainer gets around to well, maintaining the package!
It should either be abandoned or made correct; no in-between. There is no "correct". Well maybe you have some idea of what correct is, but so does everybody else. So you'll find some other distro to use, get fed up, and leave in another "Fuck XYZ" rant. Better yet, start your own "correct" distro.
Debian's whole reason for coming into existence was to create a distribution by volunteers collaborating over the internet. Introducing paid employees into that equation was just a really bad idea.
Well, this leads into a philosophical discussion about free will. Can anybody be held responsible for anything? We are all just a product of our genes and environment.
However, as a practical matter, I don't believe that a concious choice cannot be made like you describe. For example, as a thought expriment, imagine if some machine could be setup that would cause instant death if the addict gave in to their addiction. How many addicts would cave in? When faced with 100% probability of immediate death, I suspect very few couldn't overcome their addiction.
So there must be some kind of free choice going on. Now compare that to somebody who's going to die of some disease without any choice whatsoever.
Re:Is Roland Piquepaille paid for Slashdot stories
on
A Single-Photon Server
·
· Score: 1
Well, if you're going to complain about annoying self-promotion, what about you? You've got a political sig manually attached to your post. Sigs should be set in your user preferences, so they can be filtered out by users who find them annoying.
It's an easy way out No, it isn't. If it was, people would be killing themselves much more often when they had crippling, fatal diseases. When it's your time do you think you'll be so quick to make that decision, or try to hang on longer? You say it was selfish to talk him out of it. Well, maybe he wanted you to? How would he have felt if you didn't? In the end we all have to make our own decisions.
The bottom line is an addict can still choose not to consume. Addicts who have made this choice prove this. This person with Huntington's has no such choice. Social pressure, intervention, AA meetings, spreading information on the consequence of addiction, etc. None of these will help her. These things do work to some extent with addicts.
IIRC, Tesla was talking about doing it without wires. Yup, sorry for not making that clear for those unfamiliar with Tesla. Fun video here, for anybody reading this far: Tesla - the missing secrets of Nikola Tesla.
Anyway, it's "just" a few millions dollars spent on watching pebbles in the sky, an activity that could be useful and do no harm, Agreed.
and it goes back into the economy anyway... Err, disagree. I see this argument made in favor of any pet project. There's a real opportunity cost funding any project. For something like the moon shot, you can argue that a lot of good technology came out of that and helped the economy. Searching for rocks in the sky? Not so much.
The killer is device support, not applications. There are a lot of people who just want to browse the web, use email, etc. They also want to go to the store, buy a new device, and have it work. Almost all devices come with software to make it work for Windows. It's a crapshoot for Linux. I use Linux, but sadly there's no way I'd recommend it to somebody else.
For the record, I think CCP screwed up, although there is an element of bad luck in T20 being caught when nobody onsite in management had the stones to fire him - or call Magnus' cell. "Hey boss, I hate to bother you, but should we really fire this guy ?" I believe him when he says (ok, clearly implies) in the dev blog that he would have. So why was the guy never fired? If they cared about the reputation of the company then they would have fired him. Maybe it wasn't just that one developer? Maybe there was a culture of cheating, and they didn't want the developer speaking out after getting fired? Who knows for sure, but if there's one cockroach in your kitchen, there's likely more.
I don't understand this "double jeopardy" excuse either. He says this behavior is like "hurting your own baby". Who would keep their baby sitter around after hurting their baby? So he says he was on vacation. Ok, when he comes back, he can't fire him because...?
Why again do we need environmental regulation? If private people owned the land then they could sue when someone polluted their land, this makes regulation unnecessary. Consider pollution from cars. Who are you going to sue for polluting your air? Who will stand up for wildlife? Also consider that by the time you get around to suing somebody, a lot of damage can be done. Wouldn't it be better to prevent this damage in the first place? Regulation has proven itself very practical. Look at how bad the environment was and was getting before regulation came into place. Look at places that don't have regulation.
I have a libertarian bent (I would like more personal freedoms and less government), but I don't think the extreme libertarian view works. An even more practical problem is that a more libertarian view will never come into power when the extreme view is the message. The Libertarians would actually make some headway if they moved more towards the center (speak out against the religious right, and stand for lower taxes).
Patents are about being first to create a product or process, recognizing its value, and capitalizing on that value by seeking patent protection. The basis for patent law is that patents provide necessary protection to inventors to advance society further than would be the case without patents. History shows that software patents are not needed. Even Bill Gates agreed with this position in 1991, but was forced into the patent game for defense. Sadly they extended that to offense.
I believe that, while the patent is valid in principle, since MS failed to actively defend the patent initially they cannot start enforcing it now. "cannot" ethically or legally? And if legally, in which country, Germany or the US?
I don't like over-regulation either, but some regulation is needed for stuff like the environment. There are also markets where the barrier to entry is so high that the free market doesn't function. The completely hands off libertarian point of view is a bit simplistic.
Slashdot Mirror
In reality, none of these questions matter. The market has already decided that they don't want to buy an expensive console with a bigger DVD and diminishing returns on graphics power. The Wii has won this round through innovation. Better luck next generation.
You're missing out on the community aspect. The shared goal is one of volunteers coming together, to build something in an open, collaborative manner. When the project leaders introduce money into the equation, and single out a few to get paid, it is demoralizing to the rest. That's the reality, whether you think it is wrong or right. To go against the founding principles of the project was a mistake. The developer community let them know. The leaders should realize it, apologize, and move on.
So while I'm all for trying to understand underlying causes, and helping people change using means beyond just locking them up and scorn, I'm against the simplistic notion of using the label "disease" to remove personal responsibility. The guy with cancer has no choice. Let's not put the addict into the same category.
I run Testing, and it is neither up-to-date nor stable. Newer packages are often stuck in Unstable for whatever reason. There have also been several times where my machine had critical bugs after updating. I'm not sure you can summarize the different distributions completely accurately with one word. It's best for users to read a little blurb about which one means, and let them choose what they feel is right for them.
By the way, even Unstable is often not up-to-date. It depends on when the package maintainer gets around to well, maintaining the package!
Debian's whole reason for coming into existence was to create a distribution by volunteers collaborating over the internet. Introducing paid employees into that equation was just a really bad idea.
Well, this leads into a philosophical discussion about free will. Can anybody be held responsible for anything? We are all just a product of our genes and environment.
However, as a practical matter, I don't believe that a concious choice cannot be made like you describe. For example, as a thought expriment, imagine if some machine could be setup that would cause instant death if the addict gave in to their addiction. How many addicts would cave in? When faced with 100% probability of immediate death, I suspect very few couldn't overcome their addiction.
So there must be some kind of free choice going on. Now compare that to somebody who's going to die of some disease without any choice whatsoever.
Well, if you're going to complain about annoying self-promotion, what about you? You've got a political sig manually attached to your post. Sigs should be set in your user preferences, so they can be filtered out by users who find them annoying.
The bottom line is an addict can still choose not to consume. Addicts who have made this choice prove this. This person with Huntington's has no such choice. Social pressure, intervention, AA meetings, spreading information on the consequence of addiction, etc. None of these will help her. These things do work to some extent with addicts.
A Slashdot nerd that is pro-nuclear. Absolute faith in technology. Just sayin'.
Wow, that was a total non sequitur to the parent post.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but link-speak is just as bad as emphasis-speak.
The killer is device support, not applications. There are a lot of people who just want to browse the web, use email, etc. They also want to go to the store, buy a new device, and have it work. Almost all devices come with software to make it work for Windows. It's a crapshoot for Linux. I use Linux, but sadly there's no way I'd recommend it to somebody else.
"faster/less error prone" IS easier.
I don't understand this "double jeopardy" excuse either. He says this behavior is like "hurting your own baby". Who would keep their baby sitter around after hurting their baby? So he says he was on vacation. Ok, when he comes back, he can't fire him because...?
I have a libertarian bent (I would like more personal freedoms and less government), but I don't think the extreme libertarian view works. An even more practical problem is that a more libertarian view will never come into power when the extreme view is the message. The Libertarians would actually make some headway if they moved more towards the center (speak out against the religious right, and stand for lower taxes).
You'll probably find this video interesting: Libertarian author David Brin gives a pragmatic, left-libertarian view of political strategy..
I don't like over-regulation either, but some regulation is needed for stuff like the environment. There are also markets where the barrier to entry is so high that the free market doesn't function. The completely hands off libertarian point of view is a bit simplistic.