It makes the government's eventual goal of controlling the internet that much easier if they have fewer entities to deal with. After all, that worked out so well with the financial system...
The boolean question "Can open source be profitable?" is "Yes."
The realistic and relevant non-boolean questions are "How often and how profitable?"
Your inability to distinquish between the relative importance of the two question categories is likely to cause you serious difficulties in the future.
...who basically use the code written for free by gullible kids. Yes, Red Hat is profitable. Feel free to name two other companies that make significant money on Open Source.
Out of the hundreds of companies I've been in contact with over the last decade, I know of one, small struggling company of 5 or so guys that makes it, barely, by configuring Plone (and excellent product, by the way). His wife runs a restaurant on the side. Some months she's more profitable than he is.
I have severe moral issues with people who think that morality is anything more than an arbitrary human construct largely defined by unconscious mental process shaped by evolution, thus making axiology a faux endeavor, you insensitive clod!
And Baron Jobs is not amused. Don't you serfs know better than to ridicule your betters? Now go, and till the internet to make me more profit lest I ship your puny job to India! Away! Away Peasant!
of these electric sheep? Ewe never know. Or did someone pull the wool over their eyes in a baaaaaaad way. Well, this was quite a yarn, but I'm feeling sheepish enough to lay down with a lion and a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Pointing a gun is not, but the guy that says "Hey, come here for a second. I wanna ask you a question." and pulls the gun on you when you're off the street is a bit more subtle and just the sort of thing Wilson's syndrome people are at risk for.
in seconds on a battlefield or a gunfight. The same genetic/neurological traits that contribute to irrational prejudice are the same ones that contribute to rational fear of others who might be dangerous to us. Since historically, false positives for avoidance weren't weeded out, you get the nut crazy fears along with the normal caution. I really don't know how you could separate out one from another. Both are largely based on behavioral and visual cues.
Still, I won't deny that I envy Wilson syndrome folks that one particular trait, if not the frequent vascular stenoses and other health problems that go with it.
and quit whining. If NASA had focused on space based power, zero-g fabrication industries, low or zero-g medical facilities, better and cheaper sattelite communications infrastructure and so on, would we even be having this debate?
Instead, NASA's old guard wants to continue with activities roughly equivalent to grabbing their genitalia and shouting "FIRST! UH! Uh! UH!"
NASA DOES need it's priorities shifted. It needs to grow up, and pointless manned missions to Mars or the Moon are not the way to do this.
Management eventually figured out that if you couldn't trust the guys you hired, you were screwed from go. More effective to treat your employees fairly in the first place. We stopped installing the service on new machines.
On the other hand, we may acquire inter dimensional travel by flying into a dryer. Of course, there's no predicting when, where or what color we would reappear as.
Slashdot Mirror
sharks with lasers.
I'm also from Texas and I'll have you know that I honor microbes daily!
Logic error. The "OR" should have been an "AND"
What is this "tator" addendum you speak of? BYT, I live in Houston.
Um, parallelization? Artificial intelligence? Genetic algorithms? There's still plenty there. The obvious stuff has been pretty well worked though.
I mean, it certainly couldn't be about lack of money, eh?
It makes the government's eventual goal of controlling the internet that much easier if they have fewer entities to deal with. After all, that worked out so well with the financial system...
Piffle. You're being literal, not realistic.
The boolean question "Can open source be profitable?" is "Yes."
The realistic and relevant non-boolean questions are "How often and how profitable?"
Your inability to distinquish between the relative importance of the two question categories is likely to cause you serious difficulties in the future.
Anyone?
But what's the proportion of profitable open source companies to the total of all software companies?
...who basically use the code written for free by gullible kids. Yes, Red Hat is profitable. Feel free to name two other companies that make significant money on Open Source.
Out of the hundreds of companies I've been in contact with over the last decade, I know of one, small struggling company of 5 or so guys that makes it, barely, by configuring Plone (and excellent product, by the way). His wife runs a restaurant on the side. Some months she's more profitable than he is.
(i.e. "Bribes"). Yeah, HP, how did that work out for you? Too bad they can't claw back your bonus for *that* move.
I have severe moral issues with people who think that morality is anything more than an arbitrary human construct largely defined by unconscious mental process shaped by evolution, thus making axiology a faux endeavor, you insensitive clod!
Just asking.....
And Baron Jobs is not amused. Don't you serfs know better than to ridicule your betters? Now go, and till the internet to make me more profit lest I ship your puny job to India! Away! Away Peasant!
If I had tried to ram that through, I'd have been lambasted.
And here I thought they were just salesmen.
of these electric sheep? Ewe never know. Or did someone pull the wool over their eyes in a baaaaaaad way. Well, this was quite a yarn, but I'm feeling sheepish enough to lay down with a lion and a wolf in sheep's clothing.
At least, that's when I start swearing uncontrollably.
Pointing a gun is not, but the guy that says "Hey, come here for a second. I wanna ask you a question." and pulls the gun on you when you're off the street is a bit more subtle and just the sort of thing Wilson's syndrome people are at risk for.
in seconds on a battlefield or a gunfight. The same genetic/neurological traits that contribute to irrational prejudice are the same ones that contribute to rational fear of others who might be dangerous to us. Since historically, false positives for avoidance weren't weeded out, you get the nut crazy fears along with the normal caution. I really don't know how you could separate out one from another. Both are largely based on behavioral and visual cues.
Still, I won't deny that I envy Wilson syndrome folks that one particular trait, if not the frequent vascular stenoses and other health problems that go with it.
and quit whining. If NASA had focused on space based power, zero-g fabrication industries, low or zero-g medical facilities, better and cheaper sattelite communications infrastructure and so on, would we even be having this debate?
Instead, NASA's old guard wants to continue with activities roughly equivalent to grabbing their genitalia and shouting "FIRST! UH! Uh! UH!"
NASA DOES need it's priorities shifted. It needs to grow up, and pointless manned missions to Mars or the Moon are not the way to do this.
Management eventually figured out that if you couldn't trust the guys you hired, you were screwed from go. More effective to treat your employees fairly in the first place. We stopped installing the service on new machines.
Fun to write though.
On the other hand, we may acquire inter dimensional travel by flying into a dryer. Of course, there's no predicting when, where or what color we would reappear as.
Can I patent this?