In Communism,everything is collectively owned by the People, and there is some sort of government that purports to represent the group based on concepts of Social Ownership; Communism rejects the idea that a class of people can be inherently better suited to governing than the others. So the authority to govern is based on dynamic social factors. Authority to govern is to be decided by meritocracy of some sort, not on membership in a class, or inherent ability.
That's idealized Communism. It's beautiful. As beautiful as idealized Fascism, idealized Libertarianism, idealized Monarchism, idealized Republicanism, idealized National-Bolshevism, and many other utopic systems in which actual human nature is ignored in favor of some abstraction or another.
Here in the real world, Communism is a system implanted by a bourgeois faction (with a few proletarians mixed in their ranks so it doesn't look so bad) who proclaims themselves to be "the vanguard of the proletariat". These bourgeois then go and fight with the incumbent bourgeois faction by making an ideologically-motivated revolution ('ideology' in one of the many meanings Marx gave the word, in this case, when you do something for the actual reason A while rationalizing it as being for noble reason B). The alleged motives are the laws of History, the proletariat, overcoming injustices etc. The real reason, shown over and over again, is power for the vanguard itself, with the actual proletariat, the individual men, women and children who constitute it, relegated to servile functions under the new bourgeois leadership, who, as the old leadership, remains the de facto owners of the means of production while de jure being merely managers of it for the people.
So, yes, North Korea is Communist. They have their well developed Communist ideological credo, the Juche. They have Communist parties all around the world supporting them as Communists. They have the vanguard in power, for as long as it takes to make the Proletariat think for themselves and not need anymore of the vanguard's dictatorship of the proletariat. And once that happens (never), then everything will be alright, in the New World and New Heavens of Communist prophecies.
If you really want something actually different you should look away from systems that accept and endorse the centralization of the means of production in the hands of the few. It makes no difference whether the few are Capitalists or Bureaucrats, as long as anyone is devoid of their own means of productions and from being able to make their own rent, which in turn would grant them autonomy in face of authority, there won't be equality, for those who concretely decide what is to be done with the means of production, you'll have a two class society, always.
If you'd like to know one such system, search for Distributism. The name comes from the core notion of distributing the means of production among all the individuals of a society so that every one of them has autonomy and authority over their own means of production, rather than allowing it to be centralized and thus decided upon by a few. If Capitalism and Communism are the two faces of the same Centralist coin, Distributism is the system that opposes the coin as such.
No, people understand what “free” means. You aspies have tried to redefine the term to only mean what you think not what 99% of people mean when they use it.
Cool! It's the first time I found someone who thinks Newsspeak Dictionary's definition of "free" is the correct one! I guess it's finally time for Ingsoc to ascend to power! Kudos!
If you want to win a war you need to keep destroying the enemy until they surrender unconditionally. Just look at what happened to Japan and Germany.
You're not very well versed in either History of War or Theory of War, are you? You're taking two examples of 3rd generation warfare and uncritically thinking their example applies to 4th generation warfare, without even knowing there's a difference.
Here's a suggestion then: go read some Carl von Clausewitz and, for a more recent take, some William Lind, and come back once you understand war on the strategic rather than merely tactical level, okay?
Erm, the fact that it's devoid of white men is a constant giant fuck you to, well, white men. That's pretty damn SJW.
Remember this is a future in which there are tons of alien species. A SJW version of that would be a show in which a ship was entirely crewed by aliens, the admirals and high officers were all aliens too, and the only human in the show was the janitor.
Patent protection for algorithms? Only in the US and I thought that had been stopped.
AFAIK, you cannot patent the algorithm itself, but that doesn't prevent smart tech companies from patenting everything related to the algorithm except for the algorithm itself, so that it becomes practically impossible to use it anyway.
Example: iPhones' slide-to-unlock. They don't need to patent the small algorithm "change this boolean the finger moves from region A to region B" to make it unusable by anyone else without royalties payment. The same goes for everything else.
When you demand the source and the ability to build it yourself, does that leave a company with a viable product to sell and IP to maintain, or should they just be forced to give their product away for free and surrender all IP?
This makes no sense. There are tons of software for sale out there that come as source code and aren't open source. Being able to compile it yourself is no different from being able to install a huge Python, PHP, Perl or whatever server-side script for which you must pay. Sure, you can pirate it, but you can also pirate the binary for compiled software, so no difference there.
As for copying the algorithms, there are patent protections for that too, so the same idea applies.
Should whoever manufactured the ball claim copyright over a game of football being broadcast? (...) what about claims by the hardware manufacturer(s) or the provider of the os on which the game runs?
First and foremost: why do you begin your comment at the title? Do you like seeing that "like Safari" alone? Because that's what most people reading will see. Almost no one reads post titles.
As for actually using Safari, that requires a computer that'd require, here in Brazil, paying at a minimum 36 monthly installments of up to 15% of one's monthly wages. Besides, even on Macs most users go for Chrome because, of all reasons, favicons on tabs.
I have trouble sympathizing with anyone who willingly uses LabVIEW.
And why is that? It's nice for industrial-focused UIs, hardware configuration, and intuitive parallel programming, as long as it fits into the dataflow paradigm, of course. And following good programming practices makes it easy to change functionality, reuse code, and debug. Only people who don't do it right have difficulties.
Evidently, anything requiring performance goes either into DLLs or pass through embedded MATLAB scripts.
Low contrast text fad makes things difficult to read
The fun thing is when that affects your IDE, particularly when it's entirely graphical. Until version 2015 LabVIEW had nice black graphics in its icons (equivalent to functions in text languages). With version 2016 they went low contrast, hard, so that icons all appear disabled now (there's a wrap around option that allows one to disable areas of the screen and fades the icons there -- all icons look like that now). End result: older programmers complaining and asking for an UI option to switch between low contrast and high contrast, as it isn't like the old icons don't exist anymore.
National Instruments's answer was to the effect that: under focus group tests the lower contrast was welcomed (I wonder if they tested it with 20-years-old only); that nature has no hard blacks so low contrast is easier on the eyes; that industry as a whole is moving towards low contrast so better you guys get used to it; that adding a high/low contrast switch would move engineering effort towards a low priority feature; and that if you're not being able to discern the icons, your monitor is uncalibrated, so call a specialist to calibrate your monitor or buy a better one.
Older programmers answer to this was to uninstall LabVIEW 2016, go back to LabVIEW 2015, and to stick to it for as long as it's supported.
Good thing my company didn't purchase the upgrade to LabVIEW 2016. I still have the version I can comfortably look at.:-)
Oh? So communism is all about expressing doubt, listing uncertainties, hypothesizing possible explanations, and suggesting careful testing so as to discover what works and what doesn't? Glad to know! LOL!:-D
I think we're seeing a failure of the maxim "market forces for the benefit of all" dogma here.
Maybe, but it's difficult to say for sure when the whole thing is wrapped under State-sanctioned anti-free-market monopoly-inducing violence-enforced system of intellectual "property" laws: copyrights, patents and trademarks. Plus the selling of monopolies over radio-frequency bands, tons of incumbent-protecting regulatory laws in all markets, Customs-protection of systemic internal inefficiencies, legal impediments for individuals to use for their own benefit the same tactics corporations use etc. etc. etc.
If those were removed we'd get to see what market forces actually produce on their own under different cultural frameworks. It might be better, it might be even more nightmarish, it might be something equivalent to what we have but different on a few points, and it might even be all of those under different conditions.
Alas, we don't know. What we do know is that market forces operating within the above restrictions have strong incentives to use those restriction in their own favor, so that the whole package is broken. But which part of the whole is providing most of that breakage is difficult to gauge.
if I didn't want Google snooping my browsing habits, I could live with FF.
I tried running FF on my Moto G 1st gen a few months ago. This is a very outdated phone by today's standards, but it's what I can afford here in Brazil. It has only 1 GB RAM, of which only about 220 MB available for user apps.
End result: the fully up-to-date Chrome managed to run fine, with the keyboard managing to run at the same time, while Firefox crashed at almost any heavier page, and even if it didn't crash, almost always caused my keyboard to crash, making typing into forms a challenge.
Needless to say, in a few days I uninstalled Firefox and went Chrome-only.
Forgive me for not giving a shit that it doesn't allow you to change some elements of the theme.
Do you notice that, when you say a feature being deprecated is okay, you're actually agreeing with all the people saying they're abandoning Firefox due to it not having the features they want?
Those people want a browser with complete theme customization. Can we agree Firefox isn't the browser for them anymore?
By the way: I myself run Chrome, Firefox ESR 52.x, and Vivaldi (just testing it now). Once that ESR version stops being updated, the then new ESR will be basically equal to Chrome from an end user's perspective. I'm genuinely curious then: what distinctive features will Firefox have by that point, compared to Chrome, that would make using it worth the trouble?
indesign and Illustrator's link management expects to find an absolute path to those files upon opening the layout document. I don't see a 3rd party versioning app being able to communicate to indesign what the new paths are every time the file locations move.
Ouch! Damn, how can those softwares not provide something as basic as relative paths? o_O
Well, with an SCS the best that could be done would be to make a new/scs folder in all computers that will communicate with it, and configure them to checkout workspaces there. This way at least all links will be absolute in regards to a folder that is the same everywhere. Still a PITA though.
And the time it would take to move multiple GBs every hour just to accomplish this
That isn't quite the case. Locally checked out files continue there. The trick is to remember to mark them for checkin and do so after using them, and then remember to always check them out before using them. This way any newly changed file will be downloaded from the SCS, while those that are still the same won't. But yes, lots of mistakes can happen if anyone forget to do it in the correct sequence, particularly if one's in a hurry.
I wish you is good luck. Nothing much that can be done in addition to that...
Unless it was dead-simple and problem free from the get-go, which I doubt.
Thanks for the detailed information. I'm not sure a SCS would work, but I know that one is used by companies that work with huge file lists and also huge files, such as movie studios. It'd require training as the idea behind a SCS is kind of backwards compared to how people intuitively when it comes to editing, so there'd be a learning curve. In particular, a project's workspace (the set of files you download when you do a checkout, against which your checkins would upload changed files) would have to refer to files locally instead of spread all around the network, because you're always working on a local copy on your machine, not accessing files from elsewhere. On the other hand, there are benefits that become apparent when one needs to go back to a previous version of a work, branch it and start working on that for a different project, and also in managing everything centrally and having a full history of who did what and when.
Notice that SCSes such as Git are way better known, but they are optimized for managing a boatload of small text file and do a lot of text comparison for their magic to work, not for large sets of binary files, which is why I mentioned Helix. I don't know whether there are other binary-optimized SCSes out there though...
I don't use graphical applications except for hobbyist stuff, much less do so on Macs, but what you describe seems to me to be far from an optimal approach. Wouldn't it be better to change the workflow so as to do all this editing by means of large-binary-aware source control systems, such as, let's say, Perforce Helix? You get the benefits of local working, with meaningful backup of previous version, and it only requires getting used to checking files in and out as needed.
Its the grind that fundamentally has always made me not really get RPGs that much.
You can play without grinding, it just becomes more difficult. Sometimes significantly more difficult.
A friend of mine used to do that on purpose in games of the Final Fantasy series. In FFVI, for example, he ran away from all random fights every single time they happened. His goal was to reach the end game with the characters at the lowest level he could manage and defeat the final boss. It was insanely difficult, but he accomplished it.
So, unless the game was made in such a way that grinding is absolutely necessary, you can beat it without doing so. It merely becomes hard mode.
Slashdot Mirror
In Communism,everything is collectively owned by the People, and there is some sort of government that purports to represent the group based on concepts of Social Ownership; Communism rejects the idea that a class of people can be inherently better suited to governing than the others. So the authority to govern is based on dynamic social factors. Authority to govern is to be decided by meritocracy of some sort, not on membership in a class, or inherent ability.
That's idealized Communism. It's beautiful. As beautiful as idealized Fascism, idealized Libertarianism, idealized Monarchism, idealized Republicanism, idealized National-Bolshevism, and many other utopic systems in which actual human nature is ignored in favor of some abstraction or another.
Here in the real world, Communism is a system implanted by a bourgeois faction (with a few proletarians mixed in their ranks so it doesn't look so bad) who proclaims themselves to be "the vanguard of the proletariat". These bourgeois then go and fight with the incumbent bourgeois faction by making an ideologically-motivated revolution ('ideology' in one of the many meanings Marx gave the word, in this case, when you do something for the actual reason A while rationalizing it as being for noble reason B). The alleged motives are the laws of History, the proletariat, overcoming injustices etc. The real reason, shown over and over again, is power for the vanguard itself, with the actual proletariat, the individual men, women and children who constitute it, relegated to servile functions under the new bourgeois leadership, who, as the old leadership, remains the de facto owners of the means of production while de jure being merely managers of it for the people.
So, yes, North Korea is Communist. They have their well developed Communist ideological credo, the Juche. They have Communist parties all around the world supporting them as Communists. They have the vanguard in power, for as long as it takes to make the Proletariat think for themselves and not need anymore of the vanguard's dictatorship of the proletariat. And once that happens (never), then everything will be alright, in the New World and New Heavens of Communist prophecies.
If you really want something actually different you should look away from systems that accept and endorse the centralization of the means of production in the hands of the few. It makes no difference whether the few are Capitalists or Bureaucrats, as long as anyone is devoid of their own means of productions and from being able to make their own rent, which in turn would grant them autonomy in face of authority, there won't be equality, for those who concretely decide what is to be done with the means of production, you'll have a two class society, always.
If you'd like to know one such system, search for Distributism. The name comes from the core notion of distributing the means of production among all the individuals of a society so that every one of them has autonomy and authority over their own means of production, rather than allowing it to be centralized and thus decided upon by a few. If Capitalism and Communism are the two faces of the same Centralist coin, Distributism is the system that opposes the coin as such.
No, people understand what “free” means. You aspies have tried to redefine the term to only mean what you think not what 99% of people mean when they use it.
Cool! It's the first time I found someone who thinks Newsspeak Dictionary's definition of "free" is the correct one! I guess it's finally time for Ingsoc to ascend to power! Kudos!
If you want to win a war you need to keep destroying the enemy until they surrender unconditionally. Just look at what happened to Japan and Germany.
You're not very well versed in either History of War or Theory of War, are you? You're taking two examples of 3rd generation warfare and uncritically thinking their example applies to 4th generation warfare, without even knowing there's a difference.
Here's a suggestion then: go read some Carl von Clausewitz and, for a more recent take, some William Lind, and come back once you understand war on the strategic rather than merely tactical level, okay?
Erm, the fact that it's devoid of white men is a constant giant fuck you to, well, white men. That's pretty damn SJW.
Remember this is a future in which there are tons of alien species. A SJW version of that would be a show in which a ship was entirely crewed by aliens, the admirals and high officers were all aliens too, and the only human in the show was the janitor.
Patent protection for algorithms? Only in the US and I thought that had been stopped.
AFAIK, you cannot patent the algorithm itself, but that doesn't prevent smart tech companies from patenting everything related to the algorithm except for the algorithm itself, so that it becomes practically impossible to use it anyway.
Example: iPhones' slide-to-unlock. They don't need to patent the small algorithm "change this boolean the finger moves from region A to region B" to make it unusable by anyone else without royalties payment. The same goes for everything else.
When you demand the source and the ability to build it yourself, does that leave a company with a viable product to sell and IP to maintain, or should they just be forced to give their product away for free and surrender all IP?
This makes no sense. There are tons of software for sale out there that come as source code and aren't open source. Being able to compile it yourself is no different from being able to install a huge Python, PHP, Perl or whatever server-side script for which you must pay. Sure, you can pirate it, but you can also pirate the binary for compiled software, so no difference there.
As for copying the algorithms, there are patent protections for that too, so the same idea applies.
Who the fuck decides what is "transformative enough" ???
Judges.
Should whoever manufactured the ball claim copyright over a game of football being broadcast?
(...) what about claims by the hardware manufacturer(s) or the provider of the os on which the game runs?
Don't give them ideas...
...like Safari.
First and foremost: why do you begin your comment at the title? Do you like seeing that "like Safari" alone? Because that's what most people reading will see. Almost no one reads post titles.
As for actually using Safari, that requires a computer that'd require, here in Brazil, paying at a minimum 36 monthly installments of up to 15% of one's monthly wages. Besides, even on Macs most users go for Chrome because, of all reasons, favicons on tabs.
So, no.
This is wrong, as of the 2016 version, according to your own post above.
It's good for making industrial-focused UIs.
I have trouble sympathizing with anyone who willingly uses LabVIEW.
And why is that? It's nice for industrial-focused UIs, hardware configuration, and intuitive parallel programming, as long as it fits into the dataflow paradigm, of course. And following good programming practices makes it easy to change functionality, reuse code, and debug. Only people who don't do it right have difficulties.
Evidently, anything requiring performance goes either into DLLs or pass through embedded MATLAB scripts.
LOL! :-D
Low contrast text fad makes things difficult to read
The fun thing is when that affects your IDE, particularly when it's entirely graphical. Until version 2015 LabVIEW had nice black graphics in its icons (equivalent to functions in text languages). With version 2016 they went low contrast, hard, so that icons all appear disabled now (there's a wrap around option that allows one to disable areas of the screen and fades the icons there -- all icons look like that now). End result: older programmers complaining and asking for an UI option to switch between low contrast and high contrast, as it isn't like the old icons don't exist anymore.
National Instruments's answer was to the effect that: under focus group tests the lower contrast was welcomed (I wonder if they tested it with 20-years-old only); that nature has no hard blacks so low contrast is easier on the eyes; that industry as a whole is moving towards low contrast so better you guys get used to it; that adding a high/low contrast switch would move engineering effort towards a low priority feature; and that if you're not being able to discern the icons, your monitor is uncalibrated, so call a specialist to calibrate your monitor or buy a better one.
Older programmers answer to this was to uninstall LabVIEW 2016, go back to LabVIEW 2015, and to stick to it for as long as it's supported.
Good thing my company didn't purchase the upgrade to LabVIEW 2016. I still have the version I can comfortably look at. :-)
Sounds like communism.
Oh? So communism is all about expressing doubt, listing uncertainties, hypothesizing possible explanations, and suggesting careful testing so as to discover what works and what doesn't? Glad to know! LOL! :-D
I think we're seeing a failure of the maxim "market forces for the benefit of all" dogma here.
Maybe, but it's difficult to say for sure when the whole thing is wrapped under State-sanctioned anti-free-market monopoly-inducing violence-enforced system of intellectual "property" laws: copyrights, patents and trademarks. Plus the selling of monopolies over radio-frequency bands, tons of incumbent-protecting regulatory laws in all markets, Customs-protection of systemic internal inefficiencies, legal impediments for individuals to use for their own benefit the same tactics corporations use etc. etc. etc.
If those were removed we'd get to see what market forces actually produce on their own under different cultural frameworks. It might be better, it might be even more nightmarish, it might be something equivalent to what we have but different on a few points, and it might even be all of those under different conditions.
Alas, we don't know. What we do know is that market forces operating within the above restrictions have strong incentives to use those restriction in their own favor, so that the whole package is broken. But which part of the whole is providing most of that breakage is difficult to gauge.
Speak gor yourself.
Heh. Even more than when I said "it's what ***I*** can afford"? :-D
if I didn't want Google snooping my browsing habits, I could live with FF.
I tried running FF on my Moto G 1st gen a few months ago. This is a very outdated phone by today's standards, but it's what I can afford here in Brazil. It has only 1 GB RAM, of which only about 220 MB available for user apps.
End result: the fully up-to-date Chrome managed to run fine, with the keyboard managing to run at the same time, while Firefox crashed at almost any heavier page, and even if it didn't crash, almost always caused my keyboard to crash, making typing into forms a challenge.
Needless to say, in a few days I uninstalled Firefox and went Chrome-only.
Forgive me for not giving a shit that it doesn't allow you to change some elements of the theme.
Do you notice that, when you say a feature being deprecated is okay, you're actually agreeing with all the people saying they're abandoning Firefox due to it not having the features they want?
Those people want a browser with complete theme customization. Can we agree Firefox isn't the browser for them anymore?
By the way: I myself run Chrome, Firefox ESR 52.x, and Vivaldi (just testing it now). Once that ESR version stops being updated, the then new ESR will be basically equal to Chrome from an end user's perspective. I'm genuinely curious then: what distinctive features will Firefox have by that point, compared to Chrome, that would make using it worth the trouble?
indesign and Illustrator's link management expects to find an absolute path to those files upon opening the layout document. I don't see a 3rd party versioning app being able to communicate to indesign what the new paths are every time the file locations move.
Ouch! Damn, how can those softwares not provide something as basic as relative paths? o_O
Well, with an SCS the best that could be done would be to make a new /scs folder in all computers that will communicate with it, and configure them to checkout workspaces there. This way at least all links will be absolute in regards to a folder that is the same everywhere. Still a PITA though.
And the time it would take to move multiple GBs every hour just to accomplish this
That isn't quite the case. Locally checked out files continue there. The trick is to remember to mark them for checkin and do so after using them, and then remember to always check them out before using them. This way any newly changed file will be downloaded from the SCS, while those that are still the same won't. But yes, lots of mistakes can happen if anyone forget to do it in the correct sequence, particularly if one's in a hurry.
I wish you is good luck. Nothing much that can be done in addition to that...
Unless it was dead-simple and problem free from the get-go, which I doubt.
Thanks for the detailed information. I'm not sure a SCS would work, but I know that one is used by companies that work with huge file lists and also huge files, such as movie studios. It'd require training as the idea behind a SCS is kind of backwards compared to how people intuitively when it comes to editing, so there'd be a learning curve. In particular, a project's workspace (the set of files you download when you do a checkout, against which your checkins would upload changed files) would have to refer to files locally instead of spread all around the network, because you're always working on a local copy on your machine, not accessing files from elsewhere. On the other hand, there are benefits that become apparent when one needs to go back to a previous version of a work, branch it and start working on that for a different project, and also in managing everything centrally and having a full history of who did what and when.
Notice that SCSes such as Git are way better known, but they are optimized for managing a boatload of small text file and do a lot of text comparison for their magic to work, not for large sets of binary files, which is why I mentioned Helix. I don't know whether there are other binary-optimized SCSes out there though...
Microsoft forced everyone to get their shit together with regards to filename handling by including a space in the "Program Files" folder.
Thanks for this bit of information. It never occurred to me that might have been the reason!
breaking many workflows
I don't use graphical applications except for hobbyist stuff, much less do so on Macs, but what you describe seems to me to be far from an optimal approach. Wouldn't it be better to change the workflow so as to do all this editing by means of large-binary-aware source control systems, such as, let's say, Perforce Helix? You get the benefits of local working, with meaningful backup of previous version, and it only requires getting used to checking files in and out as needed.
Its the grind that fundamentally has always made me not really get RPGs that much.
You can play without grinding, it just becomes more difficult. Sometimes significantly more difficult.
A friend of mine used to do that on purpose in games of the Final Fantasy series. In FFVI, for example, he ran away from all random fights every single time they happened. His goal was to reach the end game with the characters at the lowest level he could manage and defeat the final boss. It was insanely difficult, but he accomplished it.
So, unless the game was made in such a way that grinding is absolutely necessary, you can beat it without doing so. It merely becomes hard mode.
You're missing commas in all of those examples.
They're actually optional, specially if you're trying to convey spoken language. I agree that with them the sentences read better though.
Is there even a legitimate way to use "should of" or "would of" in a sentence?
Any in which "of" is followed by "course".
a) "He should of course he should!", she exclaimed breathlessly.
b) "If we did X, we would of course get..."
c) "It could of course be a fly."