the 'other side' was the side which pumped SO many executive decisions and various bills to give way more power to the president than the senate and congress has already. little short of dictatorship.
they didnt hesitate from violating the constitution. and y ou think they would care about 'democrat majority' in the senate. oh go fuck off.
if you have forgotten, it was the 'other side' which prepared and cooked acta already.
internet is already a basic human right. it is THE means to access information. the 'pathetic' articles you reach on wikipedia by just typing a query to google can be only composed with days of work in a local library without the internet.
more over, most of the communication, and even governmental services are increasingly being conducted over the internet. therefore, being cut from internet is no different from being banned from government offices, services, and buying newspapers and watching tv, in some european countries.
its probably also why these stupid acta law wont pass in europe. Finland already guaranteed internet access (4mbit, if you call that basic) as a basic human right. no treaty will be able to overcome it.
the studio that produces a movie ALREADY makes profit most of the time in just the first day of screening of the movie. in a week, they go over 25% or 50% of their costs or more depending on the movie.
why the FUCK they should be able to continually make more money on the SAME product, despite they made a product and sold it for up to 50% profits in the first week of its operation already ? why the fuck should i continue to pay to see the same movie, if its to be on dvd, online or whatever ?
are car factories allowed to keep charging you on the car you buy ? every time ? without rendering you a new service/addition with it, or without giving you a new car ?
explain me, why the FUCK should content industries should be slighted favorably in that regard. and why the fuck should production industries, who produce and sell products ONE TIME to a customer, should have to keep producing a product every time they need to make a sale ?
Just as radiohead garnered more than 1 m in just a few hours, open source projects that are actually useful and revered by the public also gets donations to fuel their progress.
its as simple is it gets. if what you do benefits me $1, i pay $1. if it benefits me $50, i may pay $32 because it is as much as i can pay. but, i pay.
the current copyright and patent systems are however, are designed to monopolize an idea or a product, and push it from any price the monopolizer wants.
there is nothing competitive or free in it. or just.
i dont respect the laws that enforce an unjust system. doing so, is my basic human right.
just like saying 'people like you are as much problem as those pesky aristocrats. you are unashamedly breaking the law, which makes you the poster boy for royalists when they are pushing for ever more extreme measures' in 1789 in france, where the most important humanitarian revolution of human history was happening, in order to create the framework of the modern society we live in.
no. excuse me sir, but idiots like you are the real problem. you confer way too much importance to 'laws', and refrain from breaking them even if they are WRONG and UNJUST. even if not to give cause to the oppressors. therefore, the very oppressors who pass those laws and maintain them are able to maintain the status quo and resist justice.
well done. revel in your passivism. its as if he wasnt a poster boy, they wouldnt push for those extreme measures anyway.
you and me can know the difference in between a web developer and an offline software developer, and then a network administratior, and then a tech support guy, and then a sysadmin, but they dont.
i.t. is still a magical world that is rather incomprehensible and unimaginable to outsiders, or people who are not affiliated with tech. and it will, probably stay as such. our situation is no different than engineers at the start of 19th century.
there are few from outside with the required knack to be able to understand a bit of i.t., if not get familiar with it entirely. they happen to be generally smart people. of ages old and young. doesnt matter. but the rest, i.t. always be a place of magic, where things happen, somehow, and those who work in that field will appear as magicians to them.
im a customer, and the sad truth is some people talk bullshit in my name:
The sad truth is that Google and Microsoft care less about making cool products than they do about hurting each other,
google makes a lot of usable products that makes my personal and work life easier without much effort.
another sad truth is, microsoft makes defective products which i HAVE to use in my personal and work life, and I have to pay effort to keep them in working order.
Lyons, please either change your career, or stop bullshitting online in other people's name.
what the article underhandedly implies is it is useless trying to conserve energy. because, it spurs growth and it requires even more energy.
the stupidity here is that, it fails to take into account the concept of efficiency.
if energy is not conserved, growth will still continue, and just consume similar or more amount of energy, but producing LESS wealth/quality of living/'work' in the end.
"Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use."
this ?
and it provocates what, stupidity ? and makes a point of what, trivializing energy conservation ? i heard only a few more stupid things than this in my life.
lets not conserve energy then. because, it only spurs more growth and more energy use. lets go a mile of civilizational development whereas we could be able to go a mile and a half by conserving energy. yea.
lets do that, because, well, it is a 'provocative implication' of someone's theory. in another perspective, why conserve, whereas we are all going to die in the end anyway...
he is not playing devil's advocate. for doing that there has to be a 'devil' in the equation you can point to. here, there is none.
the example of vcrs is as solid as it can be. they are also tools for copyright infringement, just like how cars are tools and accessories to bank robberies.
so perhaps FooMobiles come attached to an immovable building, for example. But that does not mean you should go around recommending a Hummer for fuel efficiency.
in this case it does. for, this is software - one has to count in all factors. had the thing been only the source's modifiability, it would be debated. however it comes as a package:
I recommend you look at Joomla w/Virtuemart if you think that OSCommerce, of all things, is the easiest to modify. There's a lot of files, but almost all that's Joomla...virtuemart is in administrator/componants/com_virtumart/, and is 500 files _max_, and actually organized in directories.
There's also a Drupal solution that is apparently okay, but I don't know Drupal that well.
its not just source's modifiability as i said. oscommerce, by itself lacks a lot in that regard. HOWEVER, what matters is, all of its defects and advantages are known, and there are innumerable ready made modules to start from, even if one is doing an out of ordinary modification. thats the point.
as it stands now, i dont see osc letting go of its prominent status anytime soon, not even with the possible release of oscommerce 3. even then there will be hordes of stores that are heavily modified in osc 2, and it will be a bigger hassle and budget sink to upgrade to 3 than stay with 2. so, apparently, it is here to stay.
I can't even begin to comprehend how brain damaged a system takes longer to modify than OSCommerce would be.
simple. apparently it was purposefully done such to discourage 3rd party development.
there will be always lower layers with which people will need to work with, when the needs arise. it has never been different.
on top of that, every software develops its own characteristics and workings after they grow big enough. regardless of what level programming language they are written on.
the most blunt, straight example for this are the php 'scripts' of a few years ago. over years, they have developed and grown to such a level that they have become expertise areas in themselves, and in places like elance, rentacoder, those expertises are specifically being asked for, instead of being labeled as 'php developer'. you may see 'phpbb expert', 'oscommerce developer', 'drupal wiz' requests a lot more than straight 'php developer' requests and so on.
it seems that this doesnt change with platform, and always holds true.
currently it would be best to go with oscommerce. unfortunately, or maybe rather unfortunately, despite having deficiencies in a lot of fronts, it has a HUGE community. the number of contributions, modifications and whatnot are immense. there are wild implementations which totally wander off from the realm of shopping cart even. most important is this, because it has a huge community and a user base, there is also a huge developer base who can be hired for cheap to get work done on one's system. this is the major point.
there are a lot of would-be-good carts out there. but, just like any software, like in the case of linux / windows, software needs a big userbase and a developer base to take off and get ahead. because oscommerce was the first in many respects, rightfully or wrongfully, it is way ahead of the competition in regard to that respects.
another very important point is, oscommerce is already known and supported by almost all 3rd party service providers. authorize.net wont belittle you or stand clueless if you ask them some issue you are having while integrating their thing to your oscommerce store. WILL have a module out there that supports oscommerce. basically, everyone knows and supports oscommerce. even, some banks that give out merchant solutions stringently, and wanting to audit and test your site software before giving you their virtual pos will know and allow oscommerce without any hassles.
this is the current state of affairs. as a web developer, the code of oscommerce appears very crooked at times to my eyes. but, despite rather hating to work on it at the start due to my job, over time i learned to respect its strengths.
Apple wouldnt have had all those problems if they were smart enough to do that at the start. Instead, they fired their main vision guy, only to have to call him back in the end to save them.
look at how it worked for google. look at other similar examples.
these extraordinary successes are not happenstances. they happen because their creators have a vision and spirit. get them out of the equation, and the machine starts to falter.
institutional investors may stand away as much as they want from this by the way. actually, it would be better if they did so. for 'institutional investors' were the ones who fucked up global economy with that global hedge fund scam.
actually post here to clear up any misunderstandings about their procedures, if there are ?
if any of them are reading this, they should take up posting and explain themselves. for what we are reading here is really really not good.
and they shouldnt at all snob this place either - for there are hordes of I.T. people here who can break or make frameworks, projects, leave aside websites, with their collective (and sometimes individual) action.
i, for one, am a web developer for example. i also maintain numerous websites. in addition, i am a participant in various high volume profession and interest forums. sufficient number of these rightful negative reviews, and i may decide not to use wikipedia in any aspect of my work or personal life, stop giving links to it, even may stop using and giving support to any infrastructure that runs wikipedia, if things go that far. and switch to an alternative as soon as it comes up.
im just one person. but, there are many of us. and, 'the people', which seem to be getting snobbed by wikpedia, as the article points out, rule the web. never forget that.
there are hordes of subjects, especially from the field you gave, the world history, to be written yet. apparently you are not into history, if you were, you would know that following a particular history subject in detail through wikipedia always ends up with a dead end, a template article that is put there for the relevant subject, but noone contributed yet.
please lets not shit online without knowing. especially, about things you dont know about.
magento is shiny, looks good and whatnot, but the code seems to be done in a way to discourage external development and modification. it takes 2-3 times longer to do some modification to magento that it takes to do on other shopping cart software.
im suspecting this to be a new trend though. i noticed similar other software (non shopping cart) out there, which were open source, but coded in such a way that (as if to show your left ear with your right hand), it would become complicated and manually time consuming to modify, therefore discouraging 3rd party development.
we had some former clients jumping on magento bandwagon. things went well for them at the start. but as their needs for modification increased with passing time, they had to migrate their store to another cart because it became too expensive for them to fund modifications to their store software.
its rather that they keep default drivers a bit gimped down, so the average user wont fry his/her card and then attempt to sue them or clog support systems.
this time take care that no bird will drop bread into it, no snail will walk over its pathways, no clown will juggle near it, or no other absurd coincidence will impossibly happen to it to delay it...
Slashdot Mirror
the 'other side' was the side which pumped SO many executive decisions and various bills to give way more power to the president than the senate and congress has already. little short of dictatorship.
they didnt hesitate from violating the constitution. and y ou think they would care about 'democrat majority' in the senate. oh go fuck off.
if you have forgotten, it was the 'other side' which prepared and cooked acta already.
internet is already a basic human right. it is THE means to access information. the 'pathetic' articles you reach on wikipedia by just typing a query to google can be only composed with days of work in a local library without the internet.
more over, most of the communication, and even governmental services are increasingly being conducted over the internet. therefore, being cut from internet is no different from being banned from government offices, services, and buying newspapers and watching tv, in some european countries.
its probably also why these stupid acta law wont pass in europe. Finland already guaranteed internet access (4mbit, if you call that basic) as a basic human right. no treaty will be able to overcome it.
the studio that produces a movie ALREADY makes profit most of the time in just the first day of screening of the movie. in a week, they go over 25% or 50% of their costs or more depending on the movie.
why the FUCK they should be able to continually make more money on the SAME product, despite they made a product and sold it for up to 50% profits in the first week of its operation already ? why the fuck should i continue to pay to see the same movie, if its to be on dvd, online or whatever ?
are car factories allowed to keep charging you on the car you buy ? every time ? without rendering you a new service/addition with it, or without giving you a new car ?
explain me, why the FUCK should content industries should be slighted favorably in that regard. and why the fuck should production industries, who produce and sell products ONE TIME to a customer, should have to keep producing a product every time they need to make a sale ?
please now, stage is yours ....
for i have already posted in this discussion and cant use my points.
Just as radiohead garnered more than 1 m in just a few hours, open source projects that are actually useful and revered by the public also gets donations to fuel their progress.
its as simple is it gets. if what you do benefits me $1, i pay $1. if it benefits me $50, i may pay $32 because it is as much as i can pay. but, i pay.
the current copyright and patent systems are however, are designed to monopolize an idea or a product, and push it from any price the monopolizer wants.
there is nothing competitive or free in it. or just.
i dont respect the laws that enforce an unjust system. doing so, is my basic human right.
just like saying 'people like you are as much problem as those pesky aristocrats. you are unashamedly breaking the law, which makes you the poster boy for royalists when they are pushing for ever more extreme measures' in 1789 in france, where the most important humanitarian revolution of human history was happening, in order to create the framework of the modern society we live in.
no. excuse me sir, but idiots like you are the real problem. you confer way too much importance to 'laws', and refrain from breaking them even if they are WRONG and UNJUST. even if not to give cause to the oppressors. therefore, the very oppressors who pass those laws and maintain them are able to maintain the status quo and resist justice.
well done. revel in your passivism. its as if he wasnt a poster boy, they wouldnt push for those extreme measures anyway.
get used to it.
you and me can know the difference in between a web developer and an offline software developer, and then a network administratior, and then a tech support guy, and then a sysadmin, but they dont.
i.t. is still a magical world that is rather incomprehensible and unimaginable to outsiders, or people who are not affiliated with tech. and it will, probably stay as such. our situation is no different than engineers at the start of 19th century.
there are few from outside with the required knack to be able to understand a bit of i.t., if not get familiar with it entirely. they happen to be generally smart people. of ages old and young. doesnt matter. but the rest, i.t. always be a place of magic, where things happen, somehow, and those who work in that field will appear as magicians to them.
im a customer, and the sad truth is some people talk bullshit in my name :
The sad truth is that Google and Microsoft care less about making cool products than they do about hurting each other,
google makes a lot of usable products that makes my personal and work life easier without much effort.
another sad truth is, microsoft makes defective products which i HAVE to use in my personal and work life, and I have to pay effort to keep them in working order.
Lyons, please either change your career, or stop bullshitting online in other people's name.
irrelevant.
what the article underhandedly implies is it is useless trying to conserve energy. because, it spurs growth and it requires even more energy.
the stupidity here is that, it fails to take into account the concept of efficiency.
if energy is not conserved, growth will still continue, and just consume similar or more amount of energy, but producing LESS wealth/quality of living/'work' in the end.
you say ? you mean,
"Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use."
this ?
and it provocates what, stupidity ? and makes a point of what, trivializing energy conservation ? i heard only a few more stupid things than this in my life.
lets not conserve energy then. because, it only spurs more growth and more energy use. lets go a mile of civilizational development whereas we could be able to go a mile and a half by conserving energy. yea.
lets do that, because, well, it is a 'provocative implication' of someone's theory. in another perspective, why conserve, whereas we are all going to die in the end anyway ...
and you did.
the analogy is solid. spend a little more effort on understanding it, and you will succeed.
he is not playing devil's advocate. for doing that there has to be a 'devil' in the equation you can point to. here, there is none.
the example of vcrs is as solid as it can be. they are also tools for copyright infringement, just like how cars are tools and accessories to bank robberies.
so perhaps FooMobiles come attached to an immovable building, for example. But that does not mean you should go around recommending a Hummer for fuel efficiency.
in this case it does. for, this is software - one has to count in all factors. had the thing been only the source's modifiability, it would be debated. however it comes as a package :
I recommend you look at Joomla w/Virtuemart if you think that OSCommerce, of all things, is the easiest to modify. There's a lot of files, but almost all that's Joomla...virtuemart is in administrator/componants/com_virtumart/, and is 500 files _max_, and actually organized in directories.
There's also a Drupal solution that is apparently okay, but I don't know Drupal that well.
its not just source's modifiability as i said. oscommerce, by itself lacks a lot in that regard. HOWEVER, what matters is, all of its defects and advantages are known, and there are innumerable ready made modules to start from, even if one is doing an out of ordinary modification. thats the point.
as it stands now, i dont see osc letting go of its prominent status anytime soon, not even with the possible release of oscommerce 3. even then there will be hordes of stores that are heavily modified in osc 2, and it will be a bigger hassle and budget sink to upgrade to 3 than stay with 2. so, apparently, it is here to stay.
I can't even begin to comprehend how brain damaged a system takes longer to modify than OSCommerce would be.
simple. apparently it was purposefully done such to discourage 3rd party development.
there will be always lower layers with which people will need to work with, when the needs arise. it has never been different.
on top of that, every software develops its own characteristics and workings after they grow big enough. regardless of what level programming language they are written on.
the most blunt, straight example for this are the php 'scripts' of a few years ago. over years, they have developed and grown to such a level that they have become expertise areas in themselves, and in places like elance, rentacoder, those expertises are specifically being asked for, instead of being labeled as 'php developer'. you may see 'phpbb expert', 'oscommerce developer', 'drupal wiz' requests a lot more than straight 'php developer' requests and so on.
it seems that this doesnt change with platform, and always holds true.
fixed
currently it would be best to go with oscommerce. unfortunately, or maybe rather unfortunately, despite having deficiencies in a lot of fronts, it has a HUGE community. the number of contributions, modifications and whatnot are immense. there are wild implementations which totally wander off from the realm of shopping cart even. most important is this, because it has a huge community and a user base, there is also a huge developer base who can be hired for cheap to get work done on one's system. this is the major point.
there are a lot of would-be-good carts out there. but, just like any software, like in the case of linux / windows, software needs a big userbase and a developer base to take off and get ahead. because oscommerce was the first in many respects, rightfully or wrongfully, it is way ahead of the competition in regard to that respects.
another very important point is, oscommerce is already known and supported by almost all 3rd party service providers. authorize.net wont belittle you or stand clueless if you ask them some issue you are having while integrating their thing to your oscommerce store. WILL have a module out there that supports oscommerce. basically, everyone knows and supports oscommerce. even, some banks that give out merchant solutions stringently, and wanting to audit and test your site software before giving you their virtual pos will know and allow oscommerce without any hassles.
this is the current state of affairs. as a web developer, the code of oscommerce appears very crooked at times to my eyes. but, despite rather hating to work on it at the start due to my job, over time i learned to respect its strengths.
Apple wouldnt have had all those problems if they were smart enough to do that at the start. Instead, they fired their main vision guy, only to have to call him back in the end to save them.
look at how it worked for google. look at other similar examples.
these extraordinary successes are not happenstances. they happen because their creators have a vision and spirit. get them out of the equation, and the machine starts to falter.
institutional investors may stand away as much as they want from this by the way. actually, it would be better if they did so. for 'institutional investors' were the ones who fucked up global economy with that global hedge fund scam.
im dropping my support for obama.
actually post here to clear up any misunderstandings about their procedures, if there are ?
if any of them are reading this, they should take up posting and explain themselves. for what we are reading here is really really not good.
and they shouldnt at all snob this place either - for there are hordes of I.T. people here who can break or make frameworks, projects, leave aside websites, with their collective (and sometimes individual) action.
i, for one, am a web developer for example. i also maintain numerous websites. in addition, i am a participant in various high volume profession and interest forums. sufficient number of these rightful negative reviews, and i may decide not to use wikipedia in any aspect of my work or personal life, stop giving links to it, even may stop using and giving support to any infrastructure that runs wikipedia, if things go that far. and switch to an alternative as soon as it comes up.
im just one person. but, there are many of us. and, 'the people', which seem to be getting snobbed by wikpedia, as the article points out, rule the web. never forget that.
there are hordes of subjects, especially from the field you gave, the world history, to be written yet. apparently you are not into history, if you were, you would know that following a particular history subject in detail through wikipedia always ends up with a dead end, a template article that is put there for the relevant subject, but noone contributed yet.
please lets not shit online without knowing. especially, about things you dont know about.
this is what happened to many other attempts and projects in human history before, when they took the elitist route.
wikipedia was no different. it wasnt going to be an exception to the rule.
those who screwed up wikipedia, now sit and enjoy the shit you have done.
i work in the field. im a programmer.
magento is shiny, looks good and whatnot, but the code seems to be done in a way to discourage external development and modification. it takes 2-3 times longer to do some modification to magento that it takes to do on other shopping cart software.
im suspecting this to be a new trend though. i noticed similar other software (non shopping cart) out there, which were open source, but coded in such a way that (as if to show your left ear with your right hand), it would become complicated and manually time consuming to modify, therefore discouraging 3rd party development.
we had some former clients jumping on magento bandwagon. things went well for them at the start. but as their needs for modification increased with passing time, they had to migrate their store to another cart because it became too expensive for them to fund modifications to their store software.
its rather that they keep default drivers a bit gimped down, so the average user wont fry his/her card and then attempt to sue them or clog support systems.
defend against FBI, NSA, CIA, RIAA, DOJ, whatever.
show us how hard you defend our privacy, nomatter what, and it can be considered.
this time take care that no bird will drop bread into it, no snail will walk over its pathways, no clown will juggle near it, or no other absurd coincidence will impossibly happen to it to delay it ...