The earth is of finite size, and thus can only contain a finite amount of oil. (unless you believe that oil is produced somehow by the planet at a rate similar to our usage of it - an argument which I have seen but have never seen good evidence for). Mos tof the earths interior is not oil.
At some point, be it in 10 years or 1000 years, that reserve will run out. Now... plant based fuels (like bio-disel) get their energy from plant sugars, which are stored solar energy. Thus available as long as the sun is around.
Others (like fuel cells) are even more independant. They are produced by electricity usually, which can be made using solar energy, or by some bio-disel system, or geothermally.
Eventually we will stop getin glucky and finding more oil - because their wont be any more.
Better to be ready for that now, than sorry we weren't later.
why is the picture titled motorcycle I have to wonder. Ive seen that pic before, and it was described as a picture of someone who had something explode in his mouth.
Having fallen off a motorcycle at speed (not fun) I can tell you that alot of sliding and tumbling is involved. The wound doesn't look at all like it was caused by either of those. (the wound doesn't look "directional")
Oh well... its way off topic. Thats a good pic for kids to see. "This is why you don't put fireworks in your mouth".
That is a really poor quality photo touch up done by an immature person with the intention to shock you. Think of it as the internet equivalent of a flasher - and remember thats all good too!
Nothing wrong with immature people shocking. It can be good fun for those that are into it. Its all good.
> You just have to be honest about how things
> are: some people like to be whipped, f*ck
> animals, etc... Just always tell that most
> people are *not* like that.
Why do you have to tell them most people are not like that? Can't you just say that "sex is a very complex topic, and lots of people like lots of different things" - I think thats much more truthful myself.
Or use the analogy that sex is like cartoons. Not everyone likes every cartoon, and most people think that most cartoons arn't all that good. However, for every cartoon, theres a bunch of people that do like it alot:)
> The biggest problem with kids being online
> is the eventual freaks on chat/forums.
Hmmm theres alot of people, both online and in real life, who would be considered freaks and are completely harmless. Its the ones who apear normal that are the danger.
Much like in the real world, this is blown way out of proportion. Its really quite a rare occurance.
> And if they search for evil-things,
> well...then they knew it existed in the first
> place and you really should start to worry.
Nah, many kids are naturally curious or just like learning about "evil-things". It doesn't mean anything. Its often just more ammo for "grossing out" friends.
Kind of like the time I gave a friend of mine a floppy full of porn and purposfully made sure that one (just one) of the pictures on the disk was one of a woman sucking off a horse.
however, if most are psycological and not physiological, then alternative treatments need to be found. Taking large amounts of anti-inflamitories like ibprofin are not only bad for the stomac, but for the liver.
slightly hepatoxic medications are great for pains and inflamations... but if they are just being used as placeblos, then perhaps something better is in order?
knowing the real underlying cause of the pain is the first step in comming up with treatment plans that actually solve the problem, rather than just make the symptomes go away for a while.
There is quite a difference betweeh "fake" and "psycological".
A psycologically indiuced pain is just as real of a pain as one caused by physical ailments. It hurts just as much. The brain is where pain exists anyway - ALL "pain" - with or without a physical ailment - is "all in your head". The only differenc eis whether there is a real physiological reason for the pain or if pain and apparent physiology is caused .
They are simply reporting what they have found by gathering data. Perhaps you are outraged because you don't want to believe that this horrid pain could have come without physical ailment? Perhaps the social implications of problems "in your head" carries enough stigma that you immediatly dissmiss any such idea without giving the evidence a fair look? In short, perhaps you are biased in this case?
Would you like to explain how you tell the difference between pain caused by your brain, and pain caused by a real physiological ailment?
Perhaps you could explain it to lower leg amputees who have "phantom feet" pains? I ma sure they would love to hear it.
As for treatments... well, would you care to explain how you can tell the difference between real help and placeblo effect without conducting a double blind study first?
Your experience is valid, don't get me wrong. I don't mean to belittle your pain in any way. I just saying that this doesn't prove a physical ailment.
psycological pain is still real pain. The two are not mutually exclusive.
They did not say it was a hoax, nor did they say anything about malingering, except to point out that this is anything but that.
What they said is that typing on keyboards does not cause carpel tunnel and there is no aparent PHYSIOLOGICAL cause for "RSI". Rather, that it is a social psycological ailment.
As was specifically stated, psycological ailments like this are not "malingering" nor is the pain any "less real". Rather that the cause is completely psycological - it is not a permenant crippling disease.
That is true then, you can't go down to the packey and buy ya liquah on a sunday. Course, any true MA resident knows that you are suposed to buy your liquah in NH anyway, avoid the tax man.
I live in MA, and its quite easy to buy a beer on sundays. Well, for some definition of beer, you have to go to a bar. Ive yet to find a bar that serves much other than piss water. (not that I have been to many bars around here)
When the closest thing to a real beer you can find is guiness... I supose your right, it is at least hard to find beer on sundays here...
A sI remember the original issue is that they DID threaten to sue him. It was only AFTER he came out, withdrew the paper, and made statments hinting at this lawsuit comming that they "changed their tune" and said they "never intended to sue him"
If they never intended to sue him, then why did they threaten him with legal action? Is harrassment a standard policy of the SDMI lawyers? An accepted legal practice?
The fact is, they expected him to back down and shut up - just like everyone else that they are used to comming up against. They had no intention to sue him, because they never expected him to publish the paper after the first letter.
I applaud Felton. He got them to make the mistake he needed them to make. So what if he is risking less? Its fighting smart.
The RIAA is like all the other scaremongers. They go after the weak with threats of lawsuits and stop the opposition by scaring them into backing down. They would never let an issue get to court unless they knew they could win.
Felton is fighting back, forcing the issue into court. I think thats great.
Even more so...that noone uses PGP, sure, a few geeks do. Even those who have pgp and mailers that can use it tend not to use it. I prefer gpg myself)
The answer? PPS - the passive privacy system. There is a spec, but nothing implimented yet.
check out pps.sourceforge.net
Its a great little spec. The idea being that email clients can be made "PPS Aware" and will then use email headers to silently exchange keys and begin encrypting.
When 2 people with pps aware clients exchange mail - every email from the 3rd mail is encrypted (might be 4th) - passivly. Neither of them has to do anything special (unless they want to be paranoid about it - most wont).
Extra nice since it means that every mail becomes encrypted, no way to look at the traffic and say "here is where the juciey stuff begins".
Its really such a simple idea, its almost surprizing that noone has done it yet.
-Steve
However, according to the article he didn't use the radium directly. He used the Radium and berylium to create a neutron gun - after his americium and alluminum one proved too underpowered for his uses.
-Steve
Re:Imagine the tech support call from this kid?
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 1
Actually... it says in the article how he did it.
He told them he was working for a project for school.
How hard do you think it is?
"I am doing a project for school on how smoke detectors work, I want to take the plastic cover off and take a picture and label all of the parts, can you tell me how they work?"
SOmething like that is sure to yeild the info. Of course, I have opened a smoke detector, the amerecium is always in a small metal case that has markings on it saying "do not open" - not hard to figure out at all.
Actually... you would survive long enough to make it to the pod I imagine. Even if all the air is lost in the area you are in, you have at least until your body has depleted its oxygen enough that you pass out - kind of like being stuck under water - except without the pressure.
Probably a good 60 to 120 seconds before you pass out. COurse at that point you are kind of at the mercy of whoever may still be alive and able to help you.
As for tito....
kind of makes me picture a CEO visiting the construction site where their new office building is still being built. Climbing up girders to the 10th floor, pointing at an area that will someday be a conference room and asking a worker "so how many meetings have they had in there since this building started"
Yes its an absurd scene. However, its no more absurd than this tito guy crisitcizing the research being done on the incomplete space station.
Though, I doubt he is a dumb man. I bet he is shrewd. Maybe its the cynic in me but, I have a feeling he has something planned. Perhaps he has just bought himself some media attention with this stunt for something else?
This reminds me of one of the late comedian Bill Hicks routines.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing kill yourself. Just a little thought, I am just trying to plant seeds.... Seriously if you are do. No really, there is no rationalization for what you do, and you are satans little helpers. seriously, you are the ruiners of all things good"
How many is besides the point. If there are even a few, everyone benefits. It also means that a company could "pay someone to care".
Take this scenario. The fictional company Mickysoft releases "Widget", a great application for munging some sort of data or creating something or other.
Now lets say Foo inc starts using Widget. Years go by, and Mickeysoft goes out of buisness, or stops working on Widget. Now where is Foo inc. ?
Well if its proprietary, then Foo can try and coax mickeytsoft into doing them. They can pay Mickeysoft money to do whatever (add features, fix bugs etc) but - only if Mickeytsoft wants to do it. Maybe they can find a developer with the code and get permission to pay him directly to do it for them. Generally, if Mickeysoft isn't agreeable, they are SOL.
If its Free Software, then they can hand it to internal developers or hire any programmer that they want to add features or fix bugs.
The point is, they have more options. They are not stuck with whatever the original developers decided to give them. They have the ability to "adjust the recipe to suit their tastes".
Is it a bit idealistic? Yes it is. Its the belief that people and companies deserve to be able to do this sort of thing, that it is a fundamental right of a computer owner to have code and be able to audit and/or adjust any program thaqt they have, and to share them with other users.
However, as I think I have demoinstrated, this argument does have a practical side. Just because only one person in a thousand, or even one in a million will contribute back doesn't mean that their contribution isn't worthwhile. If push comes to shove, and the right people are interested, it can be made to happen.
The thing is.... "Free Software" is not a pragmatic idea. It is a moral idea. It is tied in to a belief in freedom, and the beleif that a person who owns a computer and runs instructions deserves to have the human readable code which those instructions were generated from, and furthermore, has the right to change those instructions and to distribute them to others.
When you drop the "moral argument" and take only the model of "how things work" that follows from that moral concept, then you have "Open Source", which promotes open source code and resdistribution for the advantages that it provides, rather than because of a belief that end users have a rightful claim to the code that their machines run.
While both advoicate very similar (and even sometimes the same) things. They are wildly different concepts. The point of view of a "Free Software" advocate, the GPL (or other free software license) *IS* for every company, just like not committing murder is for every company. (Thats not to say that propretary software is the equivalent of murder, but its similar, its a restriction on action that stems from moral arguments)
RMS is obviously a "Free Software" believer. This line of thinking regards companies that sell proprietary software as a government subsidised industry. They exist and are profitable ONLY because the government is willing to use the threat of force (which is really what all "legal actions" are - they all are backed up by the threat of police action on some level) to defend their buisness model. They are an abomination which profit from the people losing their rights.
As such it is not a "simple matter of economics" and anyone who thinks that it is will not understand RMS, as the heart of his philosophy is not economic, it is moral.
Open Source on the other hand is indeed a matter of economics. However the article was about RMS, and this is exactly why he always is careful to distance himself from the term "open source", it really is not the same thing.
Well I would have responded a week ago, but between vacation and a motorcycle accident, I have been busy.
The game is broken because the player's computer knows where other players are even when they are not in line of sight.
That makes it possible to cheat. End of story. There are many possibilities for this type of cheating, video driver foolishness is simply one of the many.
Hell, one could make a game sniffer that looks for this information and throws a "radar map" up on the screen.
If the information that the player himself isn't suposed to know is available to the client which is under his control, then the information is available to the player, if he is willing to be dishonest.
Whether its a simple video driver feature used to cheat, or an elaborate program that sniffs the network protocol and displays information sepratly from the main display, or its just a hacked client, its all the same. The game protocol is what allows cheating, anything other than fixing the protocol to not give out extra information is just adding a tiny band-aid to a huge gaping wound.
Often taking a short break and looking at something else, or doing something else. WOrking on a different problem for a bit, stuff like that (even stuff as simple as reading/.) can be very helpfull.
Its good for getting new perspective or helping forget how something was suposed to read. (you know you write something with a small error, then read it... but you read whats suposed to be there instead of what is?)
So I think that taking breaks is definitly work related.
Then again, I don't like workjing for people who are mor einterested in "non work related use" or such than whether the work i sgetting done. As long as its getting done right and on time, then its all good in my book.
Not everyone feels that way. I wont work for people who don't.
Then again, theres alot of crap that people put up with regularly on jobs that I just don't think the money is worth enough to put up with.
Course, there are some people who think that work and money are important and not just a game. Silly people they are.
As a sysadmin/programmer (who tries to release all of the tools he writes as free software - when he has time to think about doing so) I do have qualms with working with no-free software.
Its part of my job, and I like my job enough to put up with it. However, I have had alot of pain from dealing with such evils as license managers and whatnot.
I think that when I decide to leave this job, I may have to apply for a job with the fsf to do pennance.
Slashdot Mirror
mostly because you can only drill so deep.
The earth is of finite size, and thus can only contain a finite amount of oil. (unless you believe that oil is produced somehow by the planet at a rate similar to our usage of it - an argument which I have seen but have never seen good evidence for). Mos tof the earths interior is not oil.
At some point, be it in 10 years or 1000 years, that reserve will run out. Now... plant based fuels (like bio-disel) get their energy from plant sugars, which are stored solar energy. Thus available as long as the sun is around.
Others (like fuel cells) are even more independant. They are produced by electricity usually, which can be made using solar energy, or by some bio-disel system, or geothermally.
Eventually we will stop getin glucky and finding more oil - because their wont be any more.
Better to be ready for that now, than sorry we weren't later.
-Steve
hmmm After a few seconds most cats that I know would curl up and sleep, if they weren't already sleeping when they entered the box.
-Steve
hmmm interesting...
why is the picture titled motorcycle I have to wonder. Ive seen that pic before, and it was described as a picture of someone who had something explode in his mouth.
Having fallen off a motorcycle at speed (not fun) I can tell you that alot of sliding and tumbling is involved. The wound doesn't look at all like it was caused by either of those. (the wound doesn't look "directional")
Oh well... its way off topic. Thats a good pic for kids to see. "This is why you don't put fireworks in your mouth".
-Steve
Personally I would describe it...
That is a really poor quality photo touch up done by an immature person with the intention to shock you. Think of it as the internet equivalent of a flasher - and remember thats all good too!
Nothing wrong with immature people shocking. It can be good fun for those that are into it. Its all good.
-Steve
As silly as I think the goatse stuff is...
is the picture there REALLY so bad that you feel thge need to sheild yourself from it?
Hell I knew about it long before the slashdot crowd found it. Heh I thought it was funny myself.
Really people, its not that bad. Its just a picture. Stop complaining about it and maybe the trolls will stop posting links to it.
-Steve
> You just have to be honest about how things
:)
> are: some people like to be whipped, f*ck
> animals, etc... Just always tell that most
> people are *not* like that.
Why do you have to tell them most people are not like that? Can't you just say that "sex is a very complex topic, and lots of people like lots of different things" - I think thats much more truthful myself.
Or use the analogy that sex is like cartoons. Not everyone likes every cartoon, and most people think that most cartoons arn't all that good. However, for every cartoon, theres a bunch of people that do like it alot
> The biggest problem with kids being online
> is the eventual freaks on chat/forums.
Hmmm theres alot of people, both online and in real life, who would be considered freaks and are completely harmless. Its the ones who apear normal that are the danger.
Much like in the real world, this is blown way out of proportion. Its really quite a rare occurance.
> And if they search for evil-things,
> well...then they knew it existed in the first
> place and you really should start to worry.
Nah, many kids are naturally curious or just like learning about "evil-things". It doesn't mean anything. Its often just more ammo for "grossing out" friends.
Kind of like the time I gave a friend of mine a floppy full of porn and purposfully made sure that one (just one) of the pictures on the disk was one of a woman sucking off a horse.
-Steve
That is true...
however, if most are psycological and not physiological, then alternative treatments need to be found. Taking large amounts of anti-inflamitories like ibprofin are not only bad for the stomac, but for the liver.
slightly hepatoxic medications are great for pains and inflamations... but if they are just being used as placeblos, then perhaps something better is in order?
knowing the real underlying cause of the pain is the first step in comming up with treatment plans that actually solve the problem, rather than just make the symptomes go away for a while.
-Steve
well, I replied to the parent fo that post... in fact, I never evemn saw the post that /. says (via the parent link) was the parent.
as to why it says that, I have no clue.
The person who made the post that I responded to.
Your quote comes from another response to that same post. I was not replyin gto that one.
-Steve
There is quite a difference betweeh "fake" and "psycological".
A psycologically indiuced pain is just as real of a pain as one caused by physical ailments. It hurts just as much. The brain is where pain exists anyway - ALL "pain" - with or without a physical ailment - is "all in your head". The only differenc eis whether there is a real physiological reason for the pain or if pain and apparent physiology is caused .
They are simply reporting what they have found by gathering data. Perhaps you are outraged because you don't want to believe that this horrid pain could have come without physical ailment? Perhaps the social implications of problems "in your head" carries enough stigma that you immediatly dissmiss any such idea without giving the evidence a fair look? In short, perhaps you are biased in this case?
The law of fives is never wrong.
-Steve
Would you like to explain how you tell the difference between pain caused by your brain, and pain caused by a real physiological ailment?
Perhaps you could explain it to lower leg amputees who have "phantom feet" pains? I ma sure they would love to hear it.
As for treatments... well, would you care to explain how you can tell the difference between real help and placeblo effect without conducting a double blind study first?
Your experience is valid, don't get me wrong. I don't mean to belittle your pain in any way. I just saying that this doesn't prove a physical ailment.
psycological pain is still real pain. The two are not mutually exclusive.
-Steve
Did you read the aritle?
They did not say it was a hoax, nor did they say anything about malingering, except to point out that this is anything but that.
What they said is that typing on keyboards does not cause carpel tunnel and there is no aparent PHYSIOLOGICAL cause for "RSI". Rather, that it is a social psycological ailment.
As was specifically stated, psycological ailments like this are not "malingering" nor is the pain any "less real". Rather that the cause is completely psycological - it is not a permenant crippling disease.
-Steve
That is true then, you can't go down to the packey and buy ya liquah on a sunday. Course, any true MA resident knows that you are suposed to buy your liquah in NH anyway, avoid the tax man.
I live in MA, and its quite easy to buy a beer on sundays. Well, for some definition of beer, you have to go to a bar. Ive yet to find a bar that serves much other than piss water. (not that I have been to many bars around here)
When the closest thing to a real beer you can find is guiness... I supose your right, it is at least hard to find beer on sundays here...
-Steve
Oh really?
A sI remember the original issue is that they DID threaten to sue him. It was only AFTER he came out, withdrew the paper, and made statments hinting at this lawsuit comming that they "changed their tune" and said they "never intended to sue him"
If they never intended to sue him, then why did they threaten him with legal action? Is harrassment a standard policy of the SDMI lawyers? An accepted legal practice?
The fact is, they expected him to back down and shut up - just like everyone else that they are used to comming up against. They had no intention to sue him, because they never expected him to publish the paper after the first letter.
I applaud Felton. He got them to make the mistake he needed them to make. So what if he is risking less? Its fighting smart.
The RIAA is like all the other scaremongers. They go after the weak with threats of lawsuits and stop the opposition by scaring them into backing down. They would never let an issue get to court unless they knew they could win.
Felton is fighting back, forcing the issue into court. I think thats great.
-Steve
Even more so...that noone uses PGP, sure, a few geeks do. Even those who have pgp and mailers that can use it tend not to use it. I prefer gpg myself)
The answer? PPS - the passive privacy system. There is a spec, but nothing implimented yet.
check out pps.sourceforge.net
Its a great little spec. The idea being that email clients can be made "PPS Aware" and will then use email headers to silently exchange keys and begin encrypting.
When 2 people with pps aware clients exchange mail - every email from the 3rd mail is encrypted (might be 4th) - passivly. Neither of them has to do anything special (unless they want to be paranoid about it - most wont).
Extra nice since it means that every mail becomes encrypted, no way to look at the traffic and say "here is where the juciey stuff begins".
Its really such a simple idea, its almost surprizing that noone has done it yet.
-Steve
However, according to the article he didn't use the radium directly. He used the Radium and berylium to create a neutron gun - after his americium and alluminum one proved too underpowered for his uses.
-Steve
Actually... it says in the article how he did it.
He told them he was working for a project for school.
How hard do you think it is?
"I am doing a project for school on how smoke detectors work, I want to take the plastic cover off and take a picture and label all of the parts, can you tell me how they work?"
SOmething like that is sure to yeild the info. Of course, I have opened a smoke detector, the amerecium is always in a small metal case that has markings on it saying "do not open" - not hard to figure out at all.
-Steve
Actually... you would survive long enough to make it to the pod I imagine. Even if all the air is lost in the area you are in, you have at least until your body has depleted its oxygen enough that you pass out - kind of like being stuck under water - except without the pressure.
Probably a good 60 to 120 seconds before you pass out. COurse at that point you are kind of at the mercy of whoever may still be alive and able to help you.
As for tito....
kind of makes me picture a CEO visiting the construction site where their new office building is still being built. Climbing up girders to the 10th floor, pointing at an area that will someday be a conference room and asking a worker "so how many meetings have they had in there since this building started"
Yes its an absurd scene. However, its no more absurd than this tito guy crisitcizing the research being done on the incomplete space station.
Though, I doubt he is a dumb man. I bet he is shrewd. Maybe its the cynic in me but, I have a feeling he has something planned. Perhaps he has just bought himself some media attention with this stunt for something else?
Then again, maybe he just needed attention.
-Steve
This reminds me of one of the late comedian Bill Hicks routines.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing kill yourself. Just a little thought, I am just trying to plant seeds.... Seriously if you are do. No really, there is no rationalization for what you do, and you are satans little helpers. seriously, you are the ruiners of all things good"
Just planting seeds.
-Steve
How many is besides the point. If there are even a few, everyone benefits. It also means that a company could "pay someone to care".
Take this scenario. The fictional company Mickysoft releases "Widget", a great application for munging some sort of data or creating something or other.
Now lets say Foo inc starts using Widget. Years go by, and Mickeysoft goes out of buisness, or stops working on Widget. Now where is Foo inc. ?
Well if its proprietary, then Foo can try and coax mickeytsoft into doing them. They can pay Mickeysoft money to do whatever (add features, fix bugs etc) but - only if Mickeytsoft wants to do it. Maybe they can find a developer with the code and get permission to pay him directly to do it for them. Generally, if Mickeysoft isn't agreeable, they are SOL.
If its Free Software, then they can hand it to internal developers or hire any programmer that they want to add features or fix bugs.
The point is, they have more options. They are not stuck with whatever the original developers decided to give them. They have the ability to "adjust the recipe to suit their tastes".
Is it a bit idealistic? Yes it is. Its the belief that people and companies deserve to be able to do this sort of thing, that it is a fundamental right of a computer owner to have code and be able to audit and/or adjust any program thaqt they have, and to share them with other users.
However, as I think I have demoinstrated, this argument does have a practical side. Just because only one person in a thousand, or even one in a million will contribute back doesn't mean that their contribution isn't worthwhile. If push comes to shove, and the right people are interested, it can be made to happen.
-Steve
The thing is.... "Free Software" is not a pragmatic idea. It is a moral idea. It is tied in to a belief in freedom, and the beleif that a person who owns a computer and runs instructions deserves to have the human readable code which those instructions were generated from, and furthermore, has the right to change those instructions and to distribute them to others.
When you drop the "moral argument" and take only the model of "how things work" that follows from that moral concept, then you have "Open Source", which promotes open source code and resdistribution for the advantages that it provides, rather than because of a belief that end users have a rightful claim to the code that their machines run.
While both advoicate very similar (and even sometimes the same) things. They are wildly different concepts. The point of view of a "Free Software" advocate, the GPL (or other free software license) *IS* for every company, just like not committing murder is for every company. (Thats not to say that propretary software is the equivalent of murder, but its similar, its a restriction on action that stems from moral arguments)
RMS is obviously a "Free Software" believer. This line of thinking regards companies that sell proprietary software as a government subsidised industry. They exist and are profitable ONLY because the government is willing to use the threat of force (which is really what all "legal actions" are - they all are backed up by the threat of police action on some level) to defend their buisness model. They are an abomination which profit from the people losing their rights.
As such it is not a "simple matter of economics" and anyone who thinks that it is will not understand RMS, as the heart of his philosophy is not economic, it is moral.
Open Source on the other hand is indeed a matter of economics. However the article was about RMS, and this is exactly why he always is careful to distance himself from the term "open source", it really is not the same thing.
-Steve
Well I would have responded a week ago, but between vacation and a motorcycle accident, I have been busy.
The game is broken because the player's computer knows where other players are even when they are not in line of sight.
That makes it possible to cheat. End of story. There are many possibilities for this type of cheating, video driver foolishness is simply one of the many.
Hell, one could make a game sniffer that looks for this information and throws a "radar map" up on the screen.
If the information that the player himself isn't suposed to know is available to the client which is under his control, then the information is available to the player, if he is willing to be dishonest.
Whether its a simple video driver feature used to cheat, or an elaborate program that sniffs the network protocol and displays information sepratly from the main display, or its just a hacked client, its all the same. The game protocol is what allows cheating, anything other than fixing the protocol to not give out extra information is just adding a tiny band-aid to a huge gaping wound.
-Steve
Sure it is.
/.) can be very helpfull.
Often taking a short break and looking at something else, or doing something else. WOrking on a different problem for a bit, stuff like that (even stuff as simple as reading
Its good for getting new perspective or helping forget how something was suposed to read. (you know you write something with a small error, then read it... but you read whats suposed to be there instead of what is?)
So I think that taking breaks is definitly work related.
Then again, I don't like workjing for people who are mor einterested in "non work related use" or such than whether the work i sgetting done. As long as its getting done right and on time, then its all good in my book.
Not everyone feels that way. I wont work for people who don't.
Then again, theres alot of crap that people put up with regularly on jobs that I just don't think the money is worth enough to put up with.
Course, there are some people who think that work and money are important and not just a game. Silly people they are.
-Steve
-Steve
As a sysadmin/programmer (who tries to release all of the tools he writes as free software - when he has time to think about doing so) I do have qualms with working with no-free software.
Its part of my job, and I like my job enough to put up with it. However, I have had alot of pain from dealing with such evils as license managers and whatnot.
I think that when I decide to leave this job, I may have to apply for a job with the fsf to do pennance.
-Steve