Do you trust open-source software? Have you actually looked at the code to make sure that it isn't doing anything sneaky? You know that people can analyze the code and behavior of proprietary software as well, albeit with a little bit more difficulty. That's how all those exploits for Windows came about.
Then don't use the term "irrational", which means without logic or rationality. You could use instead "non-conscious" or "non-sentient" or even "non-intelligent".
I don't know that I'd call that "irrational". Emotions are quite rational, they just follow a different set of logical rules than other parts of the conscious brain. If you are going to propose that they are irrational, you are effectively proposing that they are random, which is certainly a strange thing to expect.
Bullshit. Big piles of it. Do you really think that it was open source that made people think they ought to test and review code? No. It is an unproven *assertion* by certain OSS folks that many eyes make bugs shallow. So far as I know, there have been no studies to back that up and there is no logic as to why that must be necessarily true.
Yeah, but his point is that this is *the* major feature of diaspora. How could it be missing from any release? It should be in there from the beginning, in the core architecture.
It hasn't been for a while. He did start it, but he hasn't done most of the work.
It's true that you can say that the current software isn't good enough and write your own. Sometimes you have enough resources and time to do that. And if so, good for you. But many times you don't. And while Linus started Git to have a good VCS for Linux, he didn't write his own compiler for Linux, or his own text editor that is custom-tuned for Linux, or even his own build system. Kbuild still uses make at the core. All of those other parts have their problems and warts and it'd be absurd to expect Linus and co. to write their own versions of all of them just so they can make the software exactly like they want it. We have a term for that kind of behavior: NIH syndrome and most folks consider it to be a bad thing.
Unfortunately, it's often prohibitive for you to fix every other piece of software out there that doesn't work the way you want it to, especially when it's quite enough just to deal with your own software.
You're talking about git submodules and I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the answer you'll receive from the kernel folks about that is a big fat "no". Maybe if Git had usable project hierarchies, things might be different.
Also to note: even Git can't fix stupid policy or stupid programming decisions.
Firebug is cool and all, but don't say that debugging JavaScript is easier than other languages. Have you actually used the VS debugger, or the one in Eclipse? Considerably more powerful and they work consistently.
Maybe you should stop going to websites that have hundreds of long-running animated gifs. Honestly, it's been a while since I've come across a site with enough frames in even one animated gif for me to take much notice, much less a pathological case like the one you are describing.
"The blood-letting isn't working! The patient is still sick! What should we do?"
"More blood-letting! The problem is that we simply haven't done enough blood-letting."
Face it: any solution that calls for an extreme, over-simplified answer is going to be wrong, period. The same is true for the crowd that says almost no government as it is for the crowd that says government solves everything.
So I take the company to court and...what are they going to tell him? The only thing they can tell him is not to pollute on my property. Easy enough for them to deal with. They'll still be polluting on other people's property. They'll probably be polluting the water supply to. Well, I don't own the water supply, the water company does. And if the water company doesn't care, then I just have to deal with it. Maybe it pollutes the food supply. I don't own the food supply, so I can't do anything about that either. I just have to hope there are alternative water and food supplies that aren't polluted. Of course, you'd probably tell me that I need to sue the food and water companies for not providing pollution-free food and water. So now they need to sue the polluting company. And we have to wait for all this to work out. And it only solves the issue once. Next time they pollute, we have to go through the rigamarole all over again. I'm now spending all my time suing people who try to pollute instead of doing something useful.
Or, we could just have government regulations and have a set of people who have the legal authority to monitor pollution and force those who pollute to stop. Now I don't have to spend all day suing people and tracing where the pollution came from to sue the right people. It just gets done. It also helps all those other people who otherwise would have to individually sue the polluters or their food and water supply companies. It's simply more efficient and it actually solves the problem from here on out. Or at least it's closer to a solution. Companies will still try to pollute, but instead of waiting for the pollution to become a problem, it can be nipped in the bud with inspections and monitoring that are legally forced to be on their property, not yours. See, by the time the pollution is on your property, it's too late. The damage has been done. It's an entirely reactive instead of proactive process.
It's all fun and good to make a microkernel government and it's really easy to point out problems with the existing government structures. But the microkernel government doesn't work because it distributes work that should be done by a common public trust (the government) and tries to place entities that don't actually have equal power and resources into a situation where they are considered to be of equal power and resources. It's me versus a company now, instead of the public versus a company. And the former is a much tougher battle to fight.
What we out to do, instead of stripping the government of everything that makes it useful, is to find ways to keep private interests from infecting the government and let it go back to being a public good. That's really what the problem is. If injecting some libertarian principles in the mix would help, I'm all for it. But let's not kid ourselves and think that the government-as-contract-enforcer is actually a workable system in anything approaching the real world.
Well, companies are polluting privately owned property too. I don't even know why you went on this government owned property business because it's just simply not true and is irrelevant.
See, the problem you are having is that there is an imbalance in power between a company and all the people affected by it, who may not even know they are being affected. Sure, a single owner might be able to do something, or they might not. I mean, is a single owner going to be able to enforce that he doesn't want pollution coming into his property? How? Is he going to stand around all day waiting for the company to pollute and then shoot them? What if they pollute on someone else's property and it runs off into his? Only collective will can force a company to stop polluting everywhere for everyone's benefit. And that collective will is called, you guessed it, government.
Whose fault is it that there were no viable alternatives? Any of the Unix vendors could have chosen to make a desktop Unix at the time. Or Apple could have had more reasonable prices and tried to conquer the PC market. But they didn't. Microsoft came in and fulfilled a need that nobody else really cared about, at least not to the level that Microsoft did. Aside from some unethical business practices here and there, such as the DR-DOS issue, and the IE bundling issue that got them in trouble with the DOJ, Microsoft won fair and square.
Those are all real conditions, if overdosed. When you meet someone who actually has the condition, you can tell there is something different about them. A real Asperger's "sufferer" definitely "feels" different. They aren't just assholes or socially awkward. It's like they just don't get it. Hard to explain, but definitely there.
You can't just say "that's common knowledge" and call it science. Everything must be tested. Even Galileo was dropping rocks and things off a tower to see how they'd fall. I'm sure if you were around back then posting on Il Slashdotto Vecchio, you'd be complaining about how much of a waste of time his work was.
Slashdot Mirror
It may also be that the driver infrastructure has changed significantly enough that porting DX10 to XP would be technically difficult and buggy.
Do you trust open-source software? Have you actually looked at the code to make sure that it isn't doing anything sneaky? You know that people can analyze the code and behavior of proprietary software as well, albeit with a little bit more difficulty. That's how all those exploits for Windows came about.
You have an awesome UID.
Then don't use the term "irrational", which means without logic or rationality. You could use instead "non-conscious" or "non-sentient" or even "non-intelligent".
I don't know that I'd call that "irrational". Emotions are quite rational, they just follow a different set of logical rules than other parts of the conscious brain. If you are going to propose that they are irrational, you are effectively proposing that they are random, which is certainly a strange thing to expect.
You don't have privacy if you don't have security. The former depends on the latter. Case closed.
a message in the subject line and continue it in the body
Bullshit. Big piles of it. Do you really think that it was open source that made people think they ought to test and review code? No. It is an unproven *assertion* by certain OSS folks that many eyes make bugs shallow. So far as I know, there have been no studies to back that up and there is no logic as to why that must be necessarily true.
Yeah, but his point is that this is *the* major feature of diaspora. How could it be missing from any release? It should be in there from the beginning, in the core architecture.
It hasn't been for a while. He did start it, but he hasn't done most of the work.
It's true that you can say that the current software isn't good enough and write your own. Sometimes you have enough resources and time to do that. And if so, good for you. But many times you don't. And while Linus started Git to have a good VCS for Linux, he didn't write his own compiler for Linux, or his own text editor that is custom-tuned for Linux, or even his own build system. Kbuild still uses make at the core. All of those other parts have their problems and warts and it'd be absurd to expect Linus and co. to write their own versions of all of them just so they can make the software exactly like they want it. We have a term for that kind of behavior: NIH syndrome and most folks consider it to be a bad thing.
Unfortunately, it's often prohibitive for you to fix every other piece of software out there that doesn't work the way you want it to, especially when it's quite enough just to deal with your own software.
You're talking about git submodules and I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the answer you'll receive from the kernel folks about that is a big fat "no". Maybe if Git had usable project hierarchies, things might be different.
Also to note: even Git can't fix stupid policy or stupid programming decisions.
Firebug is cool and all, but don't say that debugging JavaScript is easier than other languages. Have you actually used the VS debugger, or the one in Eclipse? Considerably more powerful and they work consistently.
Maybe you should stop going to websites that have hundreds of long-running animated gifs. Honestly, it's been a while since I've come across a site with enough frames in even one animated gif for me to take much notice, much less a pathological case like the one you are describing.
Would this just attract a bunch of pubescent, emo girls? They could be more dangerous than terrorists.
Only for some of the specialist. Primary care doctors are not living in luxury. The insurance companies and the hospitals are making bank, though.
"The blood-letting isn't working! The patient is still sick! What should we do?"
"More blood-letting! The problem is that we simply haven't done enough blood-letting."
Face it: any solution that calls for an extreme, over-simplified answer is going to be wrong, period. The same is true for the crowd that says almost no government as it is for the crowd that says government solves everything.
So I take the company to court and...what are they going to tell him? The only thing they can tell him is not to pollute on my property. Easy enough for them to deal with. They'll still be polluting on other people's property. They'll probably be polluting the water supply to. Well, I don't own the water supply, the water company does. And if the water company doesn't care, then I just have to deal with it. Maybe it pollutes the food supply. I don't own the food supply, so I can't do anything about that either. I just have to hope there are alternative water and food supplies that aren't polluted. Of course, you'd probably tell me that I need to sue the food and water companies for not providing pollution-free food and water. So now they need to sue the polluting company. And we have to wait for all this to work out. And it only solves the issue once. Next time they pollute, we have to go through the rigamarole all over again. I'm now spending all my time suing people who try to pollute instead of doing something useful.
Or, we could just have government regulations and have a set of people who have the legal authority to monitor pollution and force those who pollute to stop. Now I don't have to spend all day suing people and tracing where the pollution came from to sue the right people. It just gets done. It also helps all those other people who otherwise would have to individually sue the polluters or their food and water supply companies. It's simply more efficient and it actually solves the problem from here on out. Or at least it's closer to a solution. Companies will still try to pollute, but instead of waiting for the pollution to become a problem, it can be nipped in the bud with inspections and monitoring that are legally forced to be on their property, not yours. See, by the time the pollution is on your property, it's too late. The damage has been done. It's an entirely reactive instead of proactive process.
It's all fun and good to make a microkernel government and it's really easy to point out problems with the existing government structures. But the microkernel government doesn't work because it distributes work that should be done by a common public trust (the government) and tries to place entities that don't actually have equal power and resources into a situation where they are considered to be of equal power and resources. It's me versus a company now, instead of the public versus a company. And the former is a much tougher battle to fight.
What we out to do, instead of stripping the government of everything that makes it useful, is to find ways to keep private interests from infecting the government and let it go back to being a public good. That's really what the problem is. If injecting some libertarian principles in the mix would help, I'm all for it. But let's not kid ourselves and think that the government-as-contract-enforcer is actually a workable system in anything approaching the real world.
Well, companies are polluting privately owned property too. I don't even know why you went on this government owned property business because it's just simply not true and is irrelevant.
See, the problem you are having is that there is an imbalance in power between a company and all the people affected by it, who may not even know they are being affected. Sure, a single owner might be able to do something, or they might not. I mean, is a single owner going to be able to enforce that he doesn't want pollution coming into his property? How? Is he going to stand around all day waiting for the company to pollute and then shoot them? What if they pollute on someone else's property and it runs off into his? Only collective will can force a company to stop polluting everywhere for everyone's benefit. And that collective will is called, you guessed it, government.
Competition can't solve pollution. Only regulations can. Competition had its chance and still has its chance and companies are STILL polluting.
Whose fault is it that there were no viable alternatives? Any of the Unix vendors could have chosen to make a desktop Unix at the time. Or Apple could have had more reasonable prices and tried to conquer the PC market. But they didn't. Microsoft came in and fulfilled a need that nobody else really cared about, at least not to the level that Microsoft did. Aside from some unethical business practices here and there, such as the DR-DOS issue, and the IE bundling issue that got them in trouble with the DOJ, Microsoft won fair and square.
It is lossless. It's the same language, just a different representation.
Those are all real conditions, if overdosed. When you meet someone who actually has the condition, you can tell there is something different about them. A real Asperger's "sufferer" definitely "feels" different. They aren't just assholes or socially awkward. It's like they just don't get it. Hard to explain, but definitely there.
No, "less talkative" does not automatically mean "socially awkward". Those phrases by themselves state two different, albeit related things.
You can't just say "that's common knowledge" and call it science. Everything must be tested. Even Galileo was dropping rocks and things off a tower to see how they'd fall. I'm sure if you were around back then posting on Il Slashdotto Vecchio, you'd be complaining about how much of a waste of time his work was.