I would love to see a site where people on the left, right and center could come together to discuss the issues in a calm and principled manner. Help us start that site.:)
They do that to everyone who disagrees with them. IMHO they act more or less like a left-wing Bill O'Reilly. They're worse. Bill O'Reilly isn't always a complete douche. They are.
Ehh. McCain may be a turnaround. Wait at least for the convention; I'm pretty sure there will be a "look, you fuckers, we are playing this game MY WAY" moment there.
If not--well, he's still got my vote. Obama is a dangerous, dangerous idiot when it comes to policy, but he's got a good smile and a Shatnerian style of speaking in front of a camera to dredge him up some votes.
For example, how will McCain save Social Security? No one knows. It's not one of his issues. How will Obama do it? He'll raise taxes and increase the age for receiving benefits. It's not a warm fuzzy answer, but a rare honest one. That may be an honest answer, but it remains retarded.
Look: Social Security is fucked. It is not recoverable; too many years of robbing it to pay for other crap have put it into a death spiral The sooner we kill it with fire, the sooner young people like me will stop having to pay into a system that will never pay us back.
What we need to do now is say "as of 2014, no more people will be added to the Social Security rolls." And as of 2017, we all stop paying for it.
Liberal fucktards are big on "fairness," aren't they? Where's the "fairness" in making people like me pay for something we'll never, ever, ever get?
You really can't be that naive. Assuming that's the case, he'd still kiss their fucking asses for 4 years to get a second term. Not really. Assume he tells them to fuck off and goes back to genuine conservative principles. Further assume he does a damn good job. What the hell are they going to do, run a candidate against the sitting President? They're not that stupid. The Republicans will fall in line behind the sitting President. They can't not, if they want to win.
Besides, we'd have scaremongering of "what if Hillary wins?!" to keep them toeing his line.
It is possible that he thinks this is the only way to get elected, and he wants to get elected. Which is why I'm reserving judgement on voting for McCain (although he'd have to start biting heads off babies to make me vote for "58 States" Obama, so I'm biased). I'm still thinking he's going to come out at the convention and make the neoconservative idiots very, very mad. If not, I might vote Mickey Mouse.
Dishonest Politicking - You're kidding, right? You are trying to say that Obama is more inflammatory in his remarks than McCain? Have you ever watched side-by-side a comparison of how Obama talks about McCain and how McCain talks about Obama? Have you listened to Obama rant about "Bush's third term"? That alone puts Obama in the "fucking dishonest scumbag" camp, because anyone who has a clue will see that it's untrue.
I'm pretty sure McCain is playing "go along to get along" to get another crack at the White House. I'm expecting to see him revert to true form at the convention and say "oh no, folks, *I* am driving the bus now, toe *my* line." (If not, I'm still voting for him--third party candidates are worthless and Obama is scary.)
I just don't think McCain has changed as much as people think.
The whole point about open source is that profitability shifts from the vendor to the user --- ie it is the users who increase their profitability, vendors cease to exist or become consultants. Which is entirely retarded. What the GPL-drooling contingent doesn't understand is that vendors need to eat, too.
You say they should become consultants? Then their software needs to require consulting, right? So in other words, you want them to make the software suck enough that you need help maintaining and using it.
Oh, but you don't want it to suck? Well, then, I guess you want the vendors to starve.
New content for existing games on a regular basis is one. Why? Demanding the release of source code and not the release of all other assets is hypocritical (which is one of the things about just about all OSS projects that makes me laugh--you give away the code, but nothing necessary to use it!). One person buys it, everyone else gets it.
Access to an ever increasing pool of games for a monthly fee is another. I wouldn't participate in this one, I'd rather pay a one time fee to buy games that I want, but it might work. Not really, because in the GPL fantasyland the distributor would have to give away the source to those games as it hits the user's computer. I'm sure that would go over well: one person buys it, everyone gets it.
I mean, sure, if you want every game to be software as a service, great, GPL fantasyland for everyone. (Although MMOs would quickly descend to unplayable shit because of client hacks, too...)
Someday rms and his retarded following will realize that open source--oh, I'm sorry, FREE SOFTWARE--is not correct for everything and everyone. Hell, I write open source software. I also write closed source software. One of those two pays me about $4500 a year. The other pays me a considerably larger amount. I'll leave it to you to guess which is which, but here's a hint: I'm not making mere chump change off closed source.
All those games are being downloaded to the user's computer and so in your retarded GPL fantasyland would require code distribution--which means they'd make no money because others would take it and host them for free, or people would just run them off their own computers. You fail.
All of those positive features could be attained by not sucking and effecting HCI improvements that have become standard in...I don't know...the last two decades.
Er...MonoDevelop and SharpDevelop are basically the same codebase, only forked. I'd say that MD is considerably better than SD. I still hate it, but it's by no means a "pile of garbage"; it's gotten quite nice over the last six months or so.
The VS.NET tools are free for home use (Express editions) and relatively cheap for corporate use. Code written with VS.NET still works on other OSes via Mono (target.NET Framework 2.0 instead of 3.5 and you're fine). Why would you go with Java instead?
The "free or cheap" alternatives to the Adobe tools, though, aren't very good. The quality difference matters to a professional doing professional work.
SourceSafe isn't dead; saying this betrays ignorance of how people actually work with a suite of tools. VSS has actually gotten quite a bit better than it used to be and is used by virtually all large-scale teams that use Visual Studio primarily because the integration tools for SVN and Git completely suck.
For example, I use both Visual Studio and Eclipse (well, Zend Studio, but it's Eclipse wearing a funny hat). Eclipse is quite nice for my PHP development--not as nice as VS.PHP, but the difference in features between VS.PHP and Zend Studio is not enough to make me want to run out and buy VS.PHP. I'm sure Eclipse is okay for Java development.
Eclipse also has many large problems that have never been fixed despite it--gasp--being open source. Its version of IntelliSense has bugs up the ass, such as not always displaying private methods and member variables until you backspace and retype the object name (and if that was intentional, then somebody has some explaining to do as to where the hell their HCI guys were). These bugs are annoying enough that, despite Eclipse's arguably better features, I am less productive in Eclipse than I am in the closed source Visual Studio.
Right now, saying that open source tools are better than closed source tools is a joke. Even where OSS tools have more features, they almost invariably are kneecapped by a productivity-inhibiting interface. Closed-source software written by halfway intelligent people realize that productivity and user comfort come before all else, and write the code to that effect. Open source tools will never "kill" closed source tools until they are willing to actually spend some time figuring out what the user wants, not what the developer wants.
Sorry if you have to take one for the team while OS tools catch up to proprietary tools, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. You are fucking insane. I'm sorry, but that is fucking insane. I don't mean "weird," I mean "call the men in white coats, you're batshit nutty."
Open source tools are sometimes good. Eclipse, for example, is okay. Closed source tools are sometimes good. Visual Studio, for example, is very good.
Now why the fuck should I waste time--and I do in fact mean waste--so the little shitmongers like rms can say "FREE! FREE SOFTWARE FOR ALLLLLLLL!!!!!!!"?
Use the best tool for the job. "Free software" often has large downsides that require the outlay of more money (such as being less well adapted to the job, requiring extra time from the programmers--and that extra time is very likely to cost more than the outlay for a commercial tool). I understand that it gives you warm and fuzzies to be using free software exclusively, but expecting everyone else to is fucking insane.
Hardware-wise, it might be, but only because Apple don't make the low-end systems that form the majority of PC manufacturer's sales. Yes they do. They just price them out of the low-end market.
Slashdot Mirror
Ehh. McCain may be a turnaround. Wait at least for the convention; I'm pretty sure there will be a "look, you fuckers, we are playing this game MY WAY" moment there.
If not--well, he's still got my vote. Obama is a dangerous, dangerous idiot when it comes to policy, but he's got a good smile and a Shatnerian style of speaking in front of a camera to dredge him up some votes.
Pay teachers more when they stop completely fucking sucking.
Carrot and stick.
Some of us are moderate.
:)
Come join us.
Look: Social Security is fucked. It is not recoverable; too many years of robbing it to pay for other crap have put it into a death spiral The sooner we kill it with fire, the sooner young people like me will stop having to pay into a system that will never pay us back.
What we need to do now is say "as of 2014, no more people will be added to the Social Security rolls." And as of 2017, we all stop paying for it.
Liberal fucktards are big on "fairness," aren't they? Where's the "fairness" in making people like me pay for something we'll never, ever, ever get?
Ahahahah. Well said, sir. Well and truly fucking owned. The McCain haters must loooove you.
Correct.
Here's an interesting little article I wrote on my (very new) political blog site on this very issue: Republicans and Conservatives.
You're forgetting that Kosovo was a "military action" started by a Democrat president, and so totally okay by them.
Besides, we'd have scaremongering of "what if Hillary wins?!" to keep them toeing his line.
I'm pretty sure McCain is playing "go along to get along" to get another crack at the White House. I'm expecting to see him revert to true form at the convention and say "oh no, folks, *I* am driving the bus now, toe *my* line." (If not, I'm still voting for him--third party candidates are worthless and Obama is scary.)
I just don't think McCain has changed as much as people think.
Lots of places still do minimum limits, though. "Your transaction must be at least $3.00 to use a credit card here."
You say they should become consultants? Then their software needs to require consulting, right? So in other words, you want them to make the software suck enough that you need help maintaining and using it.
Oh, but you don't want it to suck? Well, then, I guess you want the vendors to starve.
I mean, sure, if you want every game to be software as a service, great, GPL fantasyland for everyone. (Although MMOs would quickly descend to unplayable shit because of client hacks, too...)
Someday rms and his retarded following will realize that open source--oh, I'm sorry, FREE SOFTWARE--is not correct for everything and everyone. Hell, I write open source software. I also write closed source software. One of those two pays me about $4500 a year. The other pays me a considerably larger amount. I'll leave it to you to guess which is which, but here's a hint: I'm not making mere chump change off closed source.
All those games are being downloaded to the user's computer and so in your retarded GPL fantasyland would require code distribution--which means they'd make no money because others would take it and host them for free, or people would just run them off their own computers. You fail.
All of those positive features could be attained by not sucking and effecting HCI improvements that have become standard in...I don't know...the last two decades.
Emacs is a pile of shit.
Er...MonoDevelop and SharpDevelop are basically the same codebase, only forked. I'd say that MD is considerably better than SD. I still hate it, but it's by no means a "pile of garbage"; it's gotten quite nice over the last six months or so.
.NET Framework 2.0 instead of 3.5 and you're fine). Why would you go with Java instead?
The VS.NET tools are free for home use (Express editions) and relatively cheap for corporate use. Code written with VS.NET still works on other OSes via Mono (target
The "free or cheap" alternatives to the Adobe tools, though, aren't very good. The quality difference matters to a professional doing professional work.
SourceSafe isn't dead; saying this betrays ignorance of how people actually work with a suite of tools. VSS has actually gotten quite a bit better than it used to be and is used by virtually all large-scale teams that use Visual Studio primarily because the integration tools for SVN and Git completely suck.
Very true.
For example, I use both Visual Studio and Eclipse (well, Zend Studio, but it's Eclipse wearing a funny hat). Eclipse is quite nice for my PHP development--not as nice as VS.PHP, but the difference in features between VS.PHP and Zend Studio is not enough to make me want to run out and buy VS.PHP. I'm sure Eclipse is okay for Java development.
Eclipse also has many large problems that have never been fixed despite it--gasp--being open source. Its version of IntelliSense has bugs up the ass, such as not always displaying private methods and member variables until you backspace and retype the object name (and if that was intentional, then somebody has some explaining to do as to where the hell their HCI guys were). These bugs are annoying enough that, despite Eclipse's arguably better features, I am less productive in Eclipse than I am in the closed source Visual Studio.
Right now, saying that open source tools are better than closed source tools is a joke. Even where OSS tools have more features, they almost invariably are kneecapped by a productivity-inhibiting interface. Closed-source software written by halfway intelligent people realize that productivity and user comfort come before all else, and write the code to that effect. Open source tools will never "kill" closed source tools until they are willing to actually spend some time figuring out what the user wants, not what the developer wants.
Ahahahahah. Brilliant post, sir. Just brilliant. Somebody mod this dude up.
Open source tools are sometimes good. Eclipse, for example, is okay. Closed source tools are sometimes good. Visual Studio, for example, is very good.
Now why the fuck should I waste time--and I do in fact mean waste--so the little shitmongers like rms can say "FREE! FREE SOFTWARE FOR ALLLLLLLL!!!!!!!"?
Use the best tool for the job. "Free software" often has large downsides that require the outlay of more money (such as being less well adapted to the job, requiring extra time from the programmers--and that extra time is very likely to cost more than the outlay for a commercial tool). I understand that it gives you warm and fuzzies to be using free software exclusively, but expecting everyone else to is fucking insane.
Go see a psychiatrist, you need help.