Sorry troll. I don't really care what you're saying because, clearly, all you're trying to do is piss on what others enjoy. No matter what anyone says you will not open your mind to the possibility of being wrong, thus there is no point in discussing anything of relevance or logic with your kind. Of course you may refute this as well with some anecdote or funny words, but it will never satisfy anyone who knows how flawed the spoken and written languages are with regard to absolute truth. The word is only ever cousin to the deed, so why persist in misunderstanding people and not trying to find truth in what people say but only point out how your presumptions of what they said is wrong? Do you like posting this style of comment?
I wonder if you're one of those people that is incapable of allowing other people to enjoy things in life, and as a result stop enjoying things yourself? Who knows, who cares. Certainly I do, but that will never be appropriately communicated. I find myself wanting to respond to your trolled up post line-by-line, but since you didn't return me the favor you technically lose the argument. You totally skipped over the relevance of communicating excitement, enthusiasm, etc. on slashdot; my points on corporate culture; etc. And as such, your arguing is nothing but froth in a sea of FUD.
Aha! You're just an average every day/. PS3 troll (I hate name-calling/labeling, but this is how you're acting, friend):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206976&cid=168 78650 http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206976&cid=168 76782
P.S. Though parking lots have cameras, that didn't stop people from being robbed for walking out of Target last year with an Xbox 360. The problem is real and, although you don't understand or accept the motivation, perhaps you ought to try. Down play it and piss on us all you want, it won't make you or anyone else better for it.
I'm proud of my group and how we conducted ourselves in line. We took up what slack we could and filled in the void leadership that Target's management provided as best we could. Granted the arrangement was not optimal, we made it work safely and effectively. The average customers were not affected in any direct manner, especially not in a negative way. Those were our goals and they were achieved to the lowest detectable limit of dissatisfaction: Target's employees. I can't help prospective customers who are afraid of queues. Sorry, don't go to a retail store if you're afraid of people.
Looking back on a few of the pictures, it does look a little humorous. Of course that's probably because now I'm warm and 3 to 4 layers of clothing lighter. =)
"Inane?" They're a retail store, not a campground! If anything, you should just be happy that you were allowed to loiter outside the store to begin with, as your presence no doubt had an intimidating effect on the store's more legitimate customers. The people in the lines I saw differed from the people I see on streetcorners holding their cardboard signs only by degree.
Agreed, they are no campground. I much prefer the wooded forests of Red River Gorge, KY than to the slabs of concrete at shopping plazas. However, it was upper 30 degree weather and raining. With no indoors allowed for guaranteed line spots (it was only 8 people) like some of the 24 hour Walmarts did, this presents a unique situation: lose your line spot or suffer from hypothermia. In all reality, if we hadn't banded together to do trips inside while saving others' spots there would be at the least frostbite and at the worst, well, you can imagine. If you don't believe me, try some traditional alpine mountaineering. Fun stuff if you like self-induced misery, the cold, and more misery. As far as the big picture is concerned, which hurts their public image more more, a bunch of frozen kids going to the ER because some exec decided that tents really don't add to the exterior decor of the building or simply allowing the circus to stay for a couple of days?
As far as the "more legitimate customers", I don't see what's so insignificant about 8 people about to drop 5 grand in less than 15 minutes. Not to mention the last minute supplies that many buy at such locations.
Granted, we didn't look like much more than vagabonds trying to play PS2 and Gamecube out in the cold. Even so, the customers were on the whole much more accepting of us than you or I might have thought beforehand. Most people cheered us on or were curious in passing. Sure it may have been intimidating to some, but for the most part I saw smiles, enthusiasm, and kindness in general from these so-called "more legitimate customers". So say what you will about defending Target's policies on such things (why you'd stick up for these execs is beyond me), the fact of the matter is that a lot of corporate policies reek of commandments from on high where nothing is questioned, nothing is feasible in the stated form, and you avoid responsibility and accountability at all costs. This strikes me as wasteful and randomly worth mentioning.
"Along with that, no official rules for the line from Target (read this as ass covering)"
No, read it as "Not their fucking job."
Please explain your logic. I don't see how the rules under which my standing outside for 2 days in front of their store for the future release of a product that they are carrying is neither "their fucking job" or, more appropriately, "their fucking" responsibility. How is it not "their fucking" job to administrate the line? Clearly, it ought to be an every man for himself situation with no rules, no allies, no cops, and no order. Because clearly, that's what works out best for everyone. Who else, then, is more appropriate, less biased, and better placed to administrate the line than the store at which you're lined up at? So, I disagree: their ass covering is for the sake of negating liability at other people's expense. Namely, the consumer. Again, why defend this behavior? It's like telling people it's okay to not be responsible for something if they just announce loudly and often they are not responsible for it. Enron... option backdating... what?
And after Monday? After next week? Next month? Next year? Will the insanity you participated in still have been worth it once the novelty has worn off?
Wow... Sorry for my enthusiasm, I'll get that fixed right away. I'm really really sorry I posted some of my excitement. Um... as far as your literal question goes, that's entirely up to me and how I use my console. The novelty of Halo C/E and Halo 2 have long since worn off, but yet somehow I still enjoy every moment I play them. I didn't buy the PS3 on a whim
Haha... yeah, waiting in line put me a little behind on a few projects. As an engineer, my boss doesn't care about the hours off so long as I get caught back up. It's worth a little sweat to have a PS3. =)
I was first in line at a local Target. It started around 330pm Wednesday and filled up by 6pm, and since I got to run the line the way I wanted I still got to go to work and others got to take miderms, go to class, etc. Even so, it was stressful to deal with the hordes of people so desperate that, if provoked, would forcefully take someone's place. The potential for profit drove most of the idiocy. Also, everyone in the line was there to make a profit except for possibly myself--I haven't decided yet.
The worst part of it was dealing with the corporate nature of Target. The employees were fine and enthusiastic, but the corporate policies were inane. For instance, no tents while they're open (8am to 10pm) with the lows being ~34F and soaking wet. Along with that, no official rules for the line from Target (read this as ass covering) so no waiting inside and no official list guaranteed even after the known slots had been filled--meaning you have to aggressively yet legally assert your place in line with an onslaught of douchebags trying to take your spot when you get up to take a piss.
Would I do it again? Probably not. Am I glad to have a PS3, HELL YES! After work today is going to be insane!
The adoption of the network stack in Windows from BSD licensed code is a success as far as advocates of the BSD code are concerned. It is in no way open. For some reason a lot of people who are GPL advocates see it as a failure and a reason why BSD licensing is flawed, as though it was not doing exactly what the developers intended.
This entire argument is based upon your notion of what a success is. That is entirely subjective and not a point worth arguing.
I understand and I agree that this is a success insofar as the BSD developers are concerned. My comments are and have been, strictly speaking, my opinion concerning Apple's claims for open source and how I "believe" in a different religion. So, when you say my argument is based upon my notion of what success is, you ought to realize that yes, I'm writing my opinion on Apple's open source effectiveness and how it falls short of how the BSDs do it. Why would you think elsewise? It's a I'm-frustrated-so-let's-vent-and-talk-about-how-th ings-ought-to-be comment. Feel free to "correct" me in saying that Apple's doing a damn fine job with the Darwin project. Please. Because as much as I'd rather Darwin succeeded with flying colors, I just don't see that as where it's going. Especially in light of such open source projects like FreeBSD. Darwin has no hopes of being a standalone OS anymore and although that may not mean anything to you, that is a crushing reality to a lot of people who had hoped for and had worked for that. It didn't help that Apple led them on.
I think that collaboration between a given user of some code and other users and the community can be very valuable. That does not, however, mean it is the goal of licensing code.
I'm not sure who you're arguing against here about licensing. We are on the same page as far as I'm concerned with that topic.
Apple doesn't keep Darwin open so that they can get collaboration from hobbyists. They keep it open as a way to aid developers for OS X make things work better on OS X and understand bugs.
And now we get to the meat of our disagreement. Are the volunteer developers for FreeBSD nothing more than hobbyists to you? Is the spirit of BSD solely to be open source to aid developers for their respective platforms? Clearly, it is not. The BSDs are best served in a fashion similar to how they currently serve the public. And I have been saying this entire time that should Apple ever lower itself to supporting a project such as FreeBSD, Good Things(tm) will happen and they as well as others will benefit greatly from such efforts. To say we have the Darwin sources just to aid development for OS X and understand bugs is not what Apple led us to believe Darwin was. If you don't believe me, why don't you do me a favor and read up a bit at opendarwin.org before it closes completely. Then, if you can tell me with a straight face and with no reservations that Apple is honoring the BSDs with Darwin I will buy you a beer for your efforts.
That may not be what you wish they would do, but that does not make it antithetical to the goals of those who licensed their code as BSD in the first place.
Right. The primary goals were served, but there is more to be had. And that is more along the lines of libre software, as you mentioned. I think the rest of your post was based on a simple misunderstandings which really aren't worth dragging out much further. We are both being overly literal and argumentative when we out to be figurative and general. Sure, let's argue about details, but first let's at least agree to what we're talking about. It's almost like we're picking apart the words and not really listening to each other.
That's about all I've got to say really. If you're ever in Ohio you ought to at least try and get that free beer. At least the conversation will be interesting.
The "Open Source Community" and specifically the developers who wrote the BSD licensed code Apple adopted for their OS got exactly what they asked for. They got their code more widely used and on a lot more desktops than they could otherwise have hoped for. They helped define the standard, promoted interoperability, and gained in reputation.
For the most part, I agree that this is the purpose most BSDs choose to serve. However, it is my most humble and honest opinion that the BSDs are successful due in part to the openness that they have achieved. Take for instance "make buildworld". That is open, whereas "darwinbuild" as a build system hack (and a good one at that) to get around Apple's proprietary distributed build system is clearly not. In the "spirit" of open source, giving someone the code is only half the battle. Providing them with the tools to contribute and supporting that in a sustainable manner is, in my opinion, one of the most important technical goals of OSS.
You seem to be of the opinion that those who developed the code were morons. They intended to license their code as GPL, but they were just too dumb, or they copy and pasted the wrong thing or some such thing. They really wanted the code to remain open to all, even if that made companies like Apple choose something else. I submit that you're assuming that the "community" should ethically be able to restrict code and keep it open, even when the developers who put in all the hard work specifically licensed it otherwise.
You seem to be of the stock of people who like to put words in other people's mouthes. ?!? Come on, when did I say anyone was a moron? I have the utmost respect for the developers of the BSDs (and even a few at Apple). I'm merely pointing out in a rather dramatic style that taking from BSD without giving back is not cool, though legal. I understand the license doesn't require anything but recognition of the original authors, however that does not mean that you should make effectively proprietary software out of it and then get to parade it about as OSS! Apple says they are open source, and they are in the strictest sense of the notion, but they are not behind it (yet?).
The purpose of these comments are to spread awareness of the issue, and for anyone who gives a damn to speak up and leave some feedback at apple.com. They are not to bash BSD developers or the BSD licenses. I have an unfortunately pristine picture of what a corporate legal department considers a non-starter for proposals and contracts; needless to say, BSD is a stretch and the GPL doesn't even have a snowball's chance in the Sahara.
Apple supports the "industry" but that is not relevant here. Apple supported the individuals who developed the code they used in exactly the way those developers asked them to. They have kept it open in that people can see it and suggest modifications/fixes which is a huge step up on some other possibilities. It also keeps them in step with the rest of the industry. Because they have some of the same underlying code it means developers can target both OS X and FreeBSD more easily with less work.
Please explain how that's not relevant when that's the entire point of my guilt-trip ridden comment? I'm appealing to a common sense of decency, where if you borrow something you give it back the same way you got it or better. So, supporting the "industry" is indeed the entire point of my comment. Do go on... oh wait, you did anyway. So it was, in fact, relevant.
So let me get this straight here. You are still clinging to the notion that Apple has kept "it" open, where "it" is Darwin and "it" can't be built as delivered? Go try to do something useful and update Darwin to FreeBSD 6. Your efforts will fall on deaf ears.
If you have a beef, bring it up with the people who wrote the code and licensed it via a BSD license. They did all the work and make all the rules. Your assumption that the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.
Your assumption that I am assuming the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.
Oh wait, what's that? News flash, Apple borrows FreeBSD code to base their kernel on and what does the Open Source community get for it? Damn generous? The BSD license doesn't force you to keep the source open, but for fuck's sake, you got it for free. Thousands upon thousands of man hours developing, honing, refactoring code. For free. In the blink of an eye. You're saying you wouldn't at all feel obligated to support the industry that provided you with the basis of your entire wildly popular operating system?
Why pay the premium on Apple hardware if you have no intentions of running the OS? As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to run one of the BSDs, you ought to do it on primary supported platforms. For example, not Apple hardware.
I agree that something like Approval Voting ought to be considered. A long time ago I toyed with the idea of having a vote that could be one of three options, which could be cast for each candidate. One option to represent each state of a voter's knowledge or opinion. One for approval. One for disapproval. And one for no preference.
If you break down all the possible outcomes for a few three or more party elections, this seems to work out well, even with polarity in voter pool (they cancel each other out proportionally to the majority). It also accurately represents a non-idealized system where people are often ignorant or indifferent to a particular candidate which should be reflected in the outcome of a robust voting scheme. This is not as well represented in any dualistic voting scheme which assumes well informed voters and legitimate candidates because you will have a problem where two similar candidates will poison each other's voting pool by getting people to only vote for one and not the other--this is mentioned as an issue for Approval Voting on Wikipedia. In a three party system, this usually causes the least desirable candidate to win the election. Can't say that's ever happened before...
That's wrong. Most of the pre-orders were done via a drawing. So unless you're lucky and won the drawing (yeah, the PS3 is a little more popular than the Wii and a little less plentiful on the release;) for a pre-order, the only sure-fire way to get a PS3 is to start waiting at the places that are doing first come, first serve.
If Salesforce is in business because they have proprietary data formats, they will go under sooner or later unless they start relying more than just a format to keep their customers. Hence the honesty that Eric Schmidt was talking about. Isn't there a free marketeer somewhere around here to take this up? =)
I'd say this problem is pretty easily fixed by having a sanity check on the database. As long as the count for B goes up by 1 after you click "vote for B", it's done and verified. All the better if you can go back later and double check the reading and verify the integrity of your vote and the database.
The key problems that I can think of are as follows:
- Voter anonymity (to the counters and to peers)
- Voter validity (i.e. alive, registered, citizen, etc)
- Efficiency (i.e. low cost)
- Flexibility (to rectify tampering on-the-fly)
- Visibility (to ensure accountability of the administrators)
There may be more, or maybe there should be less. All of these goals are achievable. What's the problem with finishing the design process and bringing all of these goals to fruition?
Maybe a bit fanboy, but he has a point. Why'd you post AC? Open standard (if not open source) is CLEARLY the way to go for secure electronic voting.
I've posted my thoughts about this before and I definitely think this can be done from a technical standpoint. The limitations are purely social and political, not from a lack of capability or technology. One such problem is coercion. Though, even in the system we have now, with a little effort it's not hard to force people into "proving" who they voted for... whether you use a disposable camera, a cellphone camera, a digital camera, pencil shading over the punch-holes, an exit poll, or whatever... even the status quo is susceptible to coercion. So the question then becomes which system is best equipped to deal with this scenario assuming we want people to "fix" the injustice? Clearly, the electronic version would be flexible and robust enough to deal with recounts and disputes without the costly effort of paying people to store/ship/handle/recount paper votes.
Your last comment is funny. I don't believe my vote will be counted correctly, no one will be able to prove I ever even voted, and it's already far too complex for me [the average voter] to understand and believe in. =)
More seriously, if you limit the places to vote/check (like a library) security is less of an issue.
The only way I see to make voting fair and accurate is to be able to access, or "view" your vote as it was counted during and post election. With just one simple requirement per vote: a living, registered voter.
Sure, say someone hacks the DB. So what? People go back and check how their vote was counted, tabulate the results on their own home PC if they wanted (heck we can recount so fast your head will spin), and if it's different... well then you've got a problem. Deal with it. At this point it'd probably pay to have good logs and receipts. Nothing impossible.
Heck, with all the money being spent on voting machines, why not spend it on bringing the internet to everyone, buying computers for libraries and generally Making the World a Better Place(tm)? Inevitably some Republicans (and Dell) will get rich, but on the whole it's probably worth the price for true democracy. What gives?
I was mostly being facetious. I do realize that a moderate Libertarian is not the same as fanatic Libertarian. I was using the post as a catharsis for my angst against the fanatical types (see fp).
On a more serious note, I'd rather the partisan bullshit went and the real issues came out... we spend so much time parading about and coloring our feathers that it seems the actual issues of effectively dealing with the problems of today just aren't important. I am an engineer. I care about the problem, the solution (design), and the implementation. I don't give a shit about Reblican, Democrat, Anarchist, Libertarian, Conservative, Neo-Nazi, Liberal, Green, somebody's feelings, etc. because as long as we care about how something "looks" and not the underlying structure there will be no progress. So long as politicians are stuck with posturing and low-brow "your mother wears army boots" BS, they will never, and I mean NEVER, have a reason to support each other in the recognition of a problem, the design of a solution, or even the implementation of the solution (how many times can you think of the Democrats or Republicans poisoning a bill by making it too costly to enforce or implement a good idea because the other side came up with it?). Oh what about patriotism, you say? Patriotism is for fascists. Loving your country might do it, but where's the money in that? It's a wonder anything gets done at all around here.
Libertarianism is so dualistic it makes Nietzsche cry. It's a great idea, in theory, but in practice it just cannot work. There is no such thing as a free market, ever. Hence the need for government with something so flawed as capitalism. What's that, you are on the verge of death and I can save your life but only if you pay me millions of dollars? Oh, is that okay with you? So you prefer death or serious permanent injury to cash? What the hell do libertarians think about all day when it comes to the reality of something so simple as health care? Oh golly gee, I wish this was a free market, then everything would be perfect! To which I say this: if you can't feel Smiths Invisible Hand up your ass yet, I can easily replace it with my boot, which, as it turns out, regulates modern markets better than your Invisible Hand ever will./rant
Sorry for the angst, but I have too many smart friends who are enamored with the free market scam. It's all just some whiny conservative propaganda for removing pesky government regulations so they can make more money. Greed. For all it's worth, I hope they choke on their money.
Exactly. It seems some don't understand what is meant when people say "louder". Since we're not all sound engineers, I would venture a guess that what the layman (myself included) means by "louder" is that the perceived sense of the volume of the sound is comparatively greater. Therefore we may not be talking about loudness in dB, but the dynamic range of the content.
It's not so hard to imagine that in a TV show or a movie you'd like a wide range of quiet ambient sounds up to the roaring explosions typical of Hollywood. It is also not hard to imagine that an advertisement would want to adjust to volume levels (or the usage of the dynamic range) so that the annoying salesman speaks at the sound level that would be more appropriate for explosions, earthquakes, etc.
Is this louder in dB? Probably not. Is it louder as in my ears are bleeding and I'm canceling my cable service in favor of YouTube.com and mininova.org. Yes. Definitely.
I have perused all the comments so far and still, no one seems to care what these acronyms mean. It's usually considered good form to use the full title of something if you are only going to type it once in your article. Heaven forbid you type an extra 10 characters for clarity.
Collectible Card Game (CCG) For those who can't spell (CCQ)
Magic the Gathering (MtG)
Mikoyan-Gurevich [design team] (MiG)
Upper Deck Entertainment (UDE)
WoW, I thought knowing the acronyms might lead to some deeper insight into the topic. OMGROFLBBQ, it doesn't mean jack!
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry troll. I don't really care what you're saying because, clearly, all you're trying to do is piss on what others enjoy. No matter what anyone says you will not open your mind to the possibility of being wrong, thus there is no point in discussing anything of relevance or logic with your kind. Of course you may refute this as well with some anecdote or funny words, but it will never satisfy anyone who knows how flawed the spoken and written languages are with regard to absolute truth. The word is only ever cousin to the deed, so why persist in misunderstanding people and not trying to find truth in what people say but only point out how your presumptions of what they said is wrong? Do you like posting this style of comment?
/. PS3 troll (I hate name-calling/labeling, but this is how you're acting, friend):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206976&cid=168 78650 8 76782
8 88114 8 84896
I wonder if you're one of those people that is incapable of allowing other people to enjoy things in life, and as a result stop enjoying things yourself? Who knows, who cares. Certainly I do, but that will never be appropriately communicated. I find myself wanting to respond to your trolled up post line-by-line, but since you didn't return me the favor you technically lose the argument. You totally skipped over the relevance of communicating excitement, enthusiasm, etc. on slashdot; my points on corporate culture; etc. And as such, your arguing is nothing but froth in a sea of FUD.
Aha! You're just an average every day
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=206976&cid=16
P.S. Though parking lots have cameras, that didn't stop people from being robbed for walking out of Target last year with an Xbox 360. The problem is real and, although you don't understand or accept the motivation, perhaps you ought to try. Down play it and piss on us all you want, it won't make you or anyone else better for it.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=207086&cid=16
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=207086&cid=16
Get a grip.
I'm proud of my group and how we conducted ourselves in line. We took up what slack we could and filled in the void leadership that Target's management provided as best we could. Granted the arrangement was not optimal, we made it work safely and effectively. The average customers were not affected in any direct manner, especially not in a negative way. Those were our goals and they were achieved to the lowest detectable limit of dissatisfaction: Target's employees. I can't help prospective customers who are afraid of queues. Sorry, don't go to a retail store if you're afraid of people.
It's okay, Guppy06's a PS3 line troll.
Yes, exactly!
So what are you going to do with it? Sell it, keep it, or play it then sell it?
Looking back on a few of the pictures, it does look a little humorous. Of course that's probably because now I'm warm and 3 to 4 layers of clothing lighter. =)
"Inane?" They're a retail store, not a campground! If anything, you should just be happy that you were allowed to loiter outside the store to begin with, as your presence no doubt had an intimidating effect on the store's more legitimate customers. The people in the lines I saw differed from the people I see on streetcorners holding their cardboard signs only by degree.
Agreed, they are no campground. I much prefer the wooded forests of Red River Gorge, KY than to the slabs of concrete at shopping plazas. However, it was upper 30 degree weather and raining. With no indoors allowed for guaranteed line spots (it was only 8 people) like some of the 24 hour Walmarts did, this presents a unique situation: lose your line spot or suffer from hypothermia. In all reality, if we hadn't banded together to do trips inside while saving others' spots there would be at the least frostbite and at the worst, well, you can imagine. If you don't believe me, try some traditional alpine mountaineering. Fun stuff if you like self-induced misery, the cold, and more misery. As far as the big picture is concerned, which hurts their public image more more, a bunch of frozen kids going to the ER because some exec decided that tents really don't add to the exterior decor of the building or simply allowing the circus to stay for a couple of days?
As far as the "more legitimate customers", I don't see what's so insignificant about 8 people about to drop 5 grand in less than 15 minutes. Not to mention the last minute supplies that many buy at such locations.
Granted, we didn't look like much more than vagabonds trying to play PS2 and Gamecube out in the cold. Even so, the customers were on the whole much more accepting of us than you or I might have thought beforehand. Most people cheered us on or were curious in passing. Sure it may have been intimidating to some, but for the most part I saw smiles, enthusiasm, and kindness in general from these so-called "more legitimate customers". So say what you will about defending Target's policies on such things (why you'd stick up for these execs is beyond me), the fact of the matter is that a lot of corporate policies reek of commandments from on high where nothing is questioned, nothing is feasible in the stated form, and you avoid responsibility and accountability at all costs. This strikes me as wasteful and randomly worth mentioning.
"Along with that, no official rules for the line from Target (read this as ass covering)"
No, read it as "Not their fucking job."
Please explain your logic. I don't see how the rules under which my standing outside for 2 days in front of their store for the future release of a product that they are carrying is neither "their fucking job" or, more appropriately, "their fucking" responsibility. How is it not "their fucking" job to administrate the line? Clearly, it ought to be an every man for himself situation with no rules, no allies, no cops, and no order. Because clearly, that's what works out best for everyone. Who else, then, is more appropriate, less biased, and better placed to administrate the line than the store at which you're lined up at? So, I disagree: their ass covering is for the sake of negating liability at other people's expense. Namely, the consumer. Again, why defend this behavior? It's like telling people it's okay to not be responsible for something if they just announce loudly and often they are not responsible for it. Enron... option backdating... what?
And after Monday? After next week? Next month? Next year? Will the insanity you participated in still have been worth it once the novelty has worn off?
Wow... Sorry for my enthusiasm, I'll get that fixed right away. I'm really really sorry I posted some of my excitement. Um... as far as your literal question goes, that's entirely up to me and how I use my console. The novelty of Halo C/E and Halo 2 have long since worn off, but yet somehow I still enjoy every moment I play them. I didn't buy the PS3 on a whim
Haha... yeah, waiting in line put me a little behind on a few projects. As an engineer, my boss doesn't care about the hours off so long as I get caught back up. It's worth a little sweat to have a PS3. =)
I was first in line at a local Target. It started around 330pm Wednesday and filled up by 6pm, and since I got to run the line the way I wanted I still got to go to work and others got to take miderms, go to class, etc. Even so, it was stressful to deal with the hordes of people so desperate that, if provoked, would forcefully take someone's place. The potential for profit drove most of the idiocy. Also, everyone in the line was there to make a profit except for possibly myself--I haven't decided yet.
The worst part of it was dealing with the corporate nature of Target. The employees were fine and enthusiastic, but the corporate policies were inane. For instance, no tents while they're open (8am to 10pm) with the lows being ~34F and soaking wet. Along with that, no official rules for the line from Target (read this as ass covering) so no waiting inside and no official list guaranteed even after the known slots had been filled--meaning you have to aggressively yet legally assert your place in line with an onslaught of douchebags trying to take your spot when you get up to take a piss.
Would I do it again? Probably not. Am I glad to have a PS3, HELL YES! After work today is going to be insane!
The adoption of the network stack in Windows from BSD licensed code is a success as far as advocates of the BSD code are concerned. It is in no way open. For some reason a lot of people who are GPL advocates see it as a failure and a reason why BSD licensing is flawed, as though it was not doing exactly what the developers intended.
h ings-ought-to-be comment. Feel free to "correct" me in saying that Apple's doing a damn fine job with the Darwin project. Please. Because as much as I'd rather Darwin succeeded with flying colors, I just don't see that as where it's going. Especially in light of such open source projects like FreeBSD. Darwin has no hopes of being a standalone OS anymore and although that may not mean anything to you, that is a crushing reality to a lot of people who had hoped for and had worked for that. It didn't help that Apple led them on.
This entire argument is based upon your notion of what a success is. That is entirely subjective and not a point worth arguing.
I understand and I agree that this is a success insofar as the BSD developers are concerned. My comments are and have been, strictly speaking, my opinion concerning Apple's claims for open source and how I "believe" in a different religion. So, when you say my argument is based upon my notion of what success is, you ought to realize that yes, I'm writing my opinion on Apple's open source effectiveness and how it falls short of how the BSDs do it. Why would you think elsewise? It's a I'm-frustrated-so-let's-vent-and-talk-about-how-t
I think that collaboration between a given user of some code and other users and the community can be very valuable. That does not, however, mean it is the goal of licensing code.
I'm not sure who you're arguing against here about licensing. We are on the same page as far as I'm concerned with that topic.
Apple doesn't keep Darwin open so that they can get collaboration from hobbyists. They keep it open as a way to aid developers for OS X make things work better on OS X and understand bugs.
And now we get to the meat of our disagreement. Are the volunteer developers for FreeBSD nothing more than hobbyists to you? Is the spirit of BSD solely to be open source to aid developers for their respective platforms? Clearly, it is not. The BSDs are best served in a fashion similar to how they currently serve the public. And I have been saying this entire time that should Apple ever lower itself to supporting a project such as FreeBSD, Good Things(tm) will happen and they as well as others will benefit greatly from such efforts. To say we have the Darwin sources just to aid development for OS X and understand bugs is not what Apple led us to believe Darwin was. If you don't believe me, why don't you do me a favor and read up a bit at opendarwin.org before it closes completely. Then, if you can tell me with a straight face and with no reservations that Apple is honoring the BSDs with Darwin I will buy you a beer for your efforts.
That may not be what you wish they would do, but that does not make it antithetical to the goals of those who licensed their code as BSD in the first place.
Right. The primary goals were served, but there is more to be had. And that is more along the lines of libre software, as you mentioned. I think the rest of your post was based on a simple misunderstandings which really aren't worth dragging out much further. We are both being overly literal and argumentative when we out to be figurative and general. Sure, let's argue about details, but first let's at least agree to what we're talking about. It's almost like we're picking apart the words and not really listening to each other.
That's about all I've got to say really. If you're ever in Ohio you ought to at least try and get that free beer. At least the conversation will be interesting.
Cheers
The "Open Source Community" and specifically the developers who wrote the BSD licensed code Apple adopted for their OS got exactly what they asked for. They got their code more widely used and on a lot more desktops than they could otherwise have hoped for. They helped define the standard, promoted interoperability, and gained in reputation.
For the most part, I agree that this is the purpose most BSDs choose to serve. However, it is my most humble and honest opinion that the BSDs are successful due in part to the openness that they have achieved. Take for instance "make buildworld". That is open, whereas "darwinbuild" as a build system hack (and a good one at that) to get around Apple's proprietary distributed build system is clearly not. In the "spirit" of open source, giving someone the code is only half the battle. Providing them with the tools to contribute and supporting that in a sustainable manner is, in my opinion, one of the most important technical goals of OSS.
You seem to be of the opinion that those who developed the code were morons. They intended to license their code as GPL, but they were just too dumb, or they copy and pasted the wrong thing or some such thing. They really wanted the code to remain open to all, even if that made companies like Apple choose something else. I submit that you're assuming that the "community" should ethically be able to restrict code and keep it open, even when the developers who put in all the hard work specifically licensed it otherwise.
You seem to be of the stock of people who like to put words in other people's mouthes. ?!? Come on, when did I say anyone was a moron? I have the utmost respect for the developers of the BSDs (and even a few at Apple). I'm merely pointing out in a rather dramatic style that taking from BSD without giving back is not cool, though legal. I understand the license doesn't require anything but recognition of the original authors, however that does not mean that you should make effectively proprietary software out of it and then get to parade it about as OSS! Apple says they are open source, and they are in the strictest sense of the notion, but they are not behind it (yet?).
The purpose of these comments are to spread awareness of the issue, and for anyone who gives a damn to speak up and leave some feedback at apple.com. They are not to bash BSD developers or the BSD licenses. I have an unfortunately pristine picture of what a corporate legal department considers a non-starter for proposals and contracts; needless to say, BSD is a stretch and the GPL doesn't even have a snowball's chance in the Sahara.
Apple supports the "industry" but that is not relevant here. Apple supported the individuals who developed the code they used in exactly the way those developers asked them to. They have kept it open in that people can see it and suggest modifications/fixes which is a huge step up on some other possibilities. It also keeps them in step with the rest of the industry. Because they have some of the same underlying code it means developers can target both OS X and FreeBSD more easily with less work.
Please explain how that's not relevant when that's the entire point of my guilt-trip ridden comment? I'm appealing to a common sense of decency, where if you borrow something you give it back the same way you got it or better. So, supporting the "industry" is indeed the entire point of my comment. Do go on... oh wait, you did anyway. So it was, in fact, relevant.
So let me get this straight here. You are still clinging to the notion that Apple has kept "it" open, where "it" is Darwin and "it" can't be built as delivered? Go try to do something useful and update Darwin to FreeBSD 6. Your efforts will fall on deaf ears.
If you have a beef, bring it up with the people who wrote the code and licensed it via a BSD license. They did all the work and make all the rules. Your assumption that the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.
Your assumption that I am assuming the rules they chose are wrong is presumptuous.
Cheers
Oh wait, what's that? News flash, Apple borrows FreeBSD code to base their kernel on and what does the Open Source community get for it? Damn generous? The BSD license doesn't force you to keep the source open, but for fuck's sake, you got it for free. Thousands upon thousands of man hours developing, honing, refactoring code. For free. In the blink of an eye. You're saying you wouldn't at all feel obligated to support the industry that provided you with the basis of your entire wildly popular operating system?
Why pay the premium on Apple hardware if you have no intentions of running the OS? As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to run one of the BSDs, you ought to do it on primary supported platforms. For example, not Apple hardware.
I agree that something like Approval Voting ought to be considered. A long time ago I toyed with the idea of having a vote that could be one of three options, which could be cast for each candidate. One option to represent each state of a voter's knowledge or opinion. One for approval. One for disapproval. And one for no preference.
If you break down all the possible outcomes for a few three or more party elections, this seems to work out well, even with polarity in voter pool (they cancel each other out proportionally to the majority). It also accurately represents a non-idealized system where people are often ignorant or indifferent to a particular candidate which should be reflected in the outcome of a robust voting scheme. This is not as well represented in any dualistic voting scheme which assumes well informed voters and legitimate candidates because you will have a problem where two similar candidates will poison each other's voting pool by getting people to only vote for one and not the other--this is mentioned as an issue for Approval Voting on Wikipedia. In a three party system, this usually causes the least desirable candidate to win the election. Can't say that's ever happened before...
That's wrong. Most of the pre-orders were done via a drawing. So unless you're lucky and won the drawing (yeah, the PS3 is a little more popular than the Wii and a little less plentiful on the release ;) for a pre-order, the only sure-fire way to get a PS3 is to start waiting at the places that are doing first come, first serve.
If Salesforce is in business because they have proprietary data formats, they will go under sooner or later unless they start relying more than just a format to keep their customers. Hence the honesty that Eric Schmidt was talking about. Isn't there a free marketeer somewhere around here to take this up? =)
Have Flexibility promotes a Robust solution. Nevertheless, point taken.
I'd say this problem is pretty easily fixed by having a sanity check on the database. As long as the count for B goes up by 1 after you click "vote for B", it's done and verified. All the better if you can go back later and double check the reading and verify the integrity of your vote and the database.
Why try to solve it all in one post?
The key problems that I can think of are as follows:
- Voter anonymity (to the counters and to peers)
- Voter validity (i.e. alive, registered, citizen, etc)
- Efficiency (i.e. low cost)
- Flexibility (to rectify tampering on-the-fly)
- Visibility (to ensure accountability of the administrators)
There may be more, or maybe there should be less. All of these goals are achievable. What's the problem with finishing the design process and bringing all of these goals to fruition?
Maybe a bit fanboy, but he has a point. Why'd you post AC? Open standard (if not open source) is CLEARLY the way to go for secure electronic voting.
I've posted my thoughts about this before and I definitely think this can be done from a technical standpoint. The limitations are purely social and political, not from a lack of capability or technology. One such problem is coercion. Though, even in the system we have now, with a little effort it's not hard to force people into "proving" who they voted for... whether you use a disposable camera, a cellphone camera, a digital camera, pencil shading over the punch-holes, an exit poll, or whatever... even the status quo is susceptible to coercion. So the question then becomes which system is best equipped to deal with this scenario assuming we want people to "fix" the injustice? Clearly, the electronic version would be flexible and robust enough to deal with recounts and disputes without the costly effort of paying people to store/ship/handle/recount paper votes.
Your last comment is funny. I don't believe my vote will be counted correctly, no one will be able to prove I ever even voted, and it's already far too complex for me [the average voter] to understand and believe in. =)
More seriously, if you limit the places to vote/check (like a library) security is less of an issue.
The only way I see to make voting fair and accurate is to be able to access, or "view" your vote as it was counted during and post election. With just one simple requirement per vote: a living, registered voter.
Sure, say someone hacks the DB. So what? People go back and check how their vote was counted, tabulate the results on their own home PC if they wanted (heck we can recount so fast your head will spin), and if it's different... well then you've got a problem. Deal with it. At this point it'd probably pay to have good logs and receipts. Nothing impossible.
Heck, with all the money being spent on voting machines, why not spend it on bringing the internet to everyone, buying computers for libraries and generally Making the World a Better Place(tm)? Inevitably some Republicans (and Dell) will get rich, but on the whole it's probably worth the price for true democracy. What gives?
I was mostly being facetious. I do realize that a moderate Libertarian is not the same as fanatic Libertarian. I was using the post as a catharsis for my angst against the fanatical types (see fp).
On a more serious note, I'd rather the partisan bullshit went and the real issues came out... we spend so much time parading about and coloring our feathers that it seems the actual issues of effectively dealing with the problems of today just aren't important. I am an engineer. I care about the problem, the solution (design), and the implementation. I don't give a shit about Reblican, Democrat, Anarchist, Libertarian, Conservative, Neo-Nazi, Liberal, Green, somebody's feelings, etc. because as long as we care about how something "looks" and not the underlying structure there will be no progress. So long as politicians are stuck with posturing and low-brow "your mother wears army boots" BS, they will never, and I mean NEVER, have a reason to support each other in the recognition of a problem, the design of a solution, or even the implementation of the solution (how many times can you think of the Democrats or Republicans poisoning a bill by making it too costly to enforce or implement a good idea because the other side came up with it?). Oh what about patriotism, you say? Patriotism is for fascists. Loving your country might do it, but where's the money in that? It's a wonder anything gets done at all around here.
Libertarianism is so dualistic it makes Nietzsche cry. It's a great idea, in theory, but in practice it just cannot work. There is no such thing as a free market, ever. Hence the need for government with something so flawed as capitalism. What's that, you are on the verge of death and I can save your life but only if you pay me millions of dollars? Oh, is that okay with you? So you prefer death or serious permanent injury to cash? What the hell do libertarians think about all day when it comes to the reality of something so simple as health care? Oh golly gee, I wish this was a free market, then everything would be perfect! To which I say this: if you can't feel Smiths Invisible Hand up your ass yet, I can easily replace it with my boot, which, as it turns out, regulates modern markets better than your Invisible Hand ever will. /rant
Sorry for the angst, but I have too many smart friends who are enamored with the free market scam. It's all just some whiny conservative propaganda for removing pesky government regulations so they can make more money. Greed. For all it's worth, I hope they choke on their money.
Exactly. It seems some don't understand what is meant when people say "louder". Since we're not all sound engineers, I would venture a guess that what the layman (myself included) means by "louder" is that the perceived sense of the volume of the sound is comparatively greater. Therefore we may not be talking about loudness in dB, but the dynamic range of the content.
It's not so hard to imagine that in a TV show or a movie you'd like a wide range of quiet ambient sounds up to the roaring explosions typical of Hollywood. It is also not hard to imagine that an advertisement would want to adjust to volume levels (or the usage of the dynamic range) so that the annoying salesman speaks at the sound level that would be more appropriate for explosions, earthquakes, etc.
Is this louder in dB? Probably not. Is it louder as in my ears are bleeding and I'm canceling my cable service in favor of YouTube.com and mininova.org. Yes. Definitely.
You are wrong. Ads are distinctly louder than the content you are trying to watch.
y Id=5632678
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
I have perused all the comments so far and still, no one seems to care what these acronyms mean. It's usually considered good form to use the full title of something if you are only going to type it once in your article. Heaven forbid you type an extra 10 characters for clarity.
Collectible Card Game (CCG) For those who can't spell (CCQ)
Magic the Gathering (MtG)
Mikoyan-Gurevich [design team] (MiG)
Upper Deck Entertainment (UDE)
WoW, I thought knowing the acronyms might lead to some deeper insight into the topic. OMGROFLBBQ, it doesn't mean jack!