Then I figured out how to set up a router using an old Gateway PC so I could share my DSL connection back when the ISPs thought they could force us to pay for more than one single DSL connection to a single house.
In the case of a term that has been used for three hundred years, and which is unlikely to cause any confusion, the only people who complain are those who dislike English for the exact reason that has made it so popular; its ability to evolve and adopt neologisms.
English: the Original Open Source Programming Language.
I did read the parent. It wasn't clear to me either from the post he made or the one he was referring to which OS he was commenting on. Re-reading it, though, it is clear I didn't read it well enough the first time around.
Most hardware compatibility? Try installing it on anything but an x86, then get back to me.
Try installing what on anything other than x86? Linux? I'm using it on a dual-core x86_64 laptop right now. Runs quite well and I can even use the media control buttons. Crazy, that.
You're not a webmaster unless you maintain the web server.
If you maintain a web server you're a sys admin.
Personally, I prefer the term web developer. I don't care about the semantics of HTML/CSS vs scripting/coding because if you are in the profession, you damn well better know some scripting/coding. Otherwise all you're doing is writing a static page and you shouldn't be doing it for more than yourself. Once you know some scripting you know code. Once you know code you are a developer. Be it entry level, senior, guru, whatever.
Whatever they're doing, it's not working too well. Sure, they manage to serve the pages, but the user experience is confusing and it seems to take them forever to roll out new and improved versions.
That has little to do with the infrastructure and more to do with the site design. Please don't blame the sys engineers/admins for the poor interface design.
It is understood that morals play a role in the creation of laws. Every society has values that are generally accepted by the population. These values are encapsulated in the laws which are created. However, once a law is in effect, individual morality has no place in its interpretation. Even when a person feels a law is wrong it has to be shown that it is wrong on a societal scale not just in the eyes of the individual in order for change to be effected.
For this reason, we have groups of people who have been entrusted to enforce the laws as they are written, to interpret the laws as they are written, and to determine if those laws are, in fact, written correctly. The most recent example I can think of is the gaming bill vetoed by the Utah governor.
We can't just go deciding for ourselves that a law is wrong. We can make a case to change it and hope to convince enough people that society needs the change but, as citizens, we have to abide by it even while working to change it. Continuing with my example, while Jack Thompson is working to change laws, it is being shown over and over again that just because he thinks they are morally wrong, they aren't legally wrong (or at least, he hasn't convinced enough people that they are morally wrong).
Therein lies the issue. I'm drawing distinction between the legal aspect and the moral aspect. My moral opinion plays little role whether a law is right or wrong as far as the courts go. However, if I am accused of something which I do feel is wrong, I have legal recourse to try to change it. But, while my actions for change would be ongoing, the statute as it is currently written will continue to be enforced because at the time, it is the right interpretation.
I'm not arguing the morality of it. I'm arguing the societal civility of it. You abide by the law because that is what it is. Society requires that you abide by it lest anarchy ensue. If you attempt to change it, you still abide by it until the changes are in effect else you suffer the consequences of standing laws. Because that is what is right whether you agree with it or not.
On the contrary, it is right because it is the law. When the law changes then the current state will be wrong and the new one will be right. If you want something else to be right, change the law.
This isn't a matter of closing the barn door after the horse already left. It is a matter of finding the people responsible for letting the horse run away in the first place. Just because you dislike the law doesn't make it wrong.
I was with you until you got a bit too serious and concerned about how professionalism was destroyed by the simple act of assigning a name from a TV show.
I wonder when Microsoft is going to start suing all the websites that have started doing this. I know of this one and Rooster Teeth off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if this is an experiment in the methods that Linux distros use: provide the OS for free and charge for service contracts.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not so I'm going to err on the side of: Heaven forbid your sys admin know what he or she is doing.
Then I figured out how to set up a router using an old Gateway PC so I could share my DSL connection back when the ISPs thought they could force us to pay for more than one single DSL connection to a single house.
In the case of a term that has been used for three hundred years, and which is unlikely to cause any confusion, the only people who complain are those who dislike English for the exact reason that has made it so popular; its ability to evolve and adopt neologisms.
English: the Original Open Source Programming Language.
The vast majority of people who wanted to play this game had no alternative but to download it.
You're basing this on what data? And at what point does not having a brick and mortar store make illegally downloading the game legitimate?
(Pirating is stealing shit on the high seas, and murdering people!)
Really? You're going to get into semantics this late in the game?
I don't find it particularly scary. It's more retarded than anything. It is an example of pure outlandishness and I don't see it going too far.
I did read the parent. It wasn't clear to me either from the post he made or the one he was referring to which OS he was commenting on. Re-reading it, though, it is clear I didn't read it well enough the first time around.
Most hardware compatibility? Try installing it on anything but an x86, then get back to me.
Try installing what on anything other than x86? Linux? I'm using it on a dual-core x86_64 laptop right now. Runs quite well and I can even use the media control buttons. Crazy, that.
You're not a webmaster unless you maintain the web server.
If you maintain a web server you're a sys admin.
Personally, I prefer the term web developer. I don't care about the semantics of HTML/CSS vs scripting/coding because if you are in the profession, you damn well better know some scripting/coding. Otherwise all you're doing is writing a static page and you shouldn't be doing it for more than yourself. Once you know some scripting you know code. Once you know code you are a developer. Be it entry level, senior, guru, whatever.
Whatever they're doing, it's not working too well. Sure, they manage to serve the pages, but the user experience is confusing and it seems to take them forever to roll out new and improved versions.
That has little to do with the infrastructure and more to do with the site design. Please don't blame the sys engineers/admins for the poor interface design.
Seconded.
One guide
And another for ripping straight to MPEG4
Try running DVDFab under WINE.
How is this offtopic?
If there is a technologically viable reason...
...DON'T FUCK WITH BASEBALL.
I don't get it.
I thought your mum was from StarWars
Ah, if only I had the modpoints to reward you for the LOLs I got from this.
Just don't get caught.
It is understood that morals play a role in the creation of laws. Every society has values that are generally accepted by the population. These values are encapsulated in the laws which are created. However, once a law is in effect, individual morality has no place in its interpretation. Even when a person feels a law is wrong it has to be shown that it is wrong on a societal scale not just in the eyes of the individual in order for change to be effected.
For this reason, we have groups of people who have been entrusted to enforce the laws as they are written, to interpret the laws as they are written, and to determine if those laws are, in fact, written correctly. The most recent example I can think of is the gaming bill vetoed by the Utah governor.
We can't just go deciding for ourselves that a law is wrong. We can make a case to change it and hope to convince enough people that society needs the change but, as citizens, we have to abide by it even while working to change it. Continuing with my example, while Jack Thompson is working to change laws, it is being shown over and over again that just because he thinks they are morally wrong, they aren't legally wrong (or at least, he hasn't convinced enough people that they are morally wrong).
Therein lies the issue. I'm drawing distinction between the legal aspect and the moral aspect. My moral opinion plays little role whether a law is right or wrong as far as the courts go. However, if I am accused of something which I do feel is wrong, I have legal recourse to try to change it. But, while my actions for change would be ongoing, the statute as it is currently written will continue to be enforced because at the time, it is the right interpretation.
I'm not arguing the morality of it. I'm arguing the societal civility of it. You abide by the law because that is what it is. Society requires that you abide by it lest anarchy ensue. If you attempt to change it, you still abide by it until the changes are in effect else you suffer the consequences of standing laws. Because that is what is right whether you agree with it or not.
On the contrary, it is right because it is the law. When the law changes then the current state will be wrong and the new one will be right. If you want something else to be right, change the law.
This isn't a matter of closing the barn door after the horse already left. It is a matter of finding the people responsible for letting the horse run away in the first place. Just because you dislike the law doesn't make it wrong.
Because really in 2 months very few of those that voted Cobert are going to care one way or the other about it
In two months, no one is going to care so it is all moot anyway.
This isn't an April Fool's joke. It broke over a week ago.
I was with you until you got a bit too serious and concerned about how professionalism was destroyed by the simple act of assigning a name from a TV show.
I'll bite. Gimme my achievement.
I wonder when Microsoft is going to start suing all the websites that have started doing this. I know of this one and Rooster Teeth off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.
What does that come out to?