But Google doesn't make laptops or keyboards yet. Looking forward to a laptop that is housed at a Google datacenter, and which I can carry around with me, and use, remotely.
Yeah, I immediately had sympathy for Linus' position here. Even if one disagrees with the other developer's position, if you can't prove you're right, then you don't have standing to argue over it for a week. At that point, admit you're not going to change their mind, and do it their way. It takes less energy and causes fewer meltdowns.
Wait. Wait, wait, what? We're just going to let this pass unremarked? What the fuck does that mean? What bizarre creation myth did your parents tell you led to your existence? I cannot think of any rational way this is a metaphor for meeting and/or fucking your future wife.
"Make their money up"? You mean that onerous cost of using CPU cycles and a few bytes of bandwidth to automatically process my registration? The marginal cost of a new domain is like 0.000003 dollars.
You go with the ones who want faux school shootings. Why? Because it's a proven strategy: specifically a strategy of not getting in between people and the things people want, particularly when they're paying you for those things. It's like having a bouncer out at the loading dock, trying to break the nose of the guy delivering the stuff you want to stock your store with.
Apple is trying to be omnipotent, which is impossible, but in no sense is it a bind. It's just hubris. They can choose to "unbind" at any time and let people develop applications for their platform without a gatekeeper.
I'm deeply skeptical about the claim itself, but if it's true, the "cure for cancer" the submitter is stumbling around is a reference to radiotherapy for cancer. It's effective at killing cancer but, for obvious reasons, extraordinarily harsh on the rest of the body. If there were a way to heal the rest of the body while the cancer dies from the radiation, you have a cure for many kinds of cancer. Of course, even if the drug described does protect you from radiation damage, it probably protects the cancer cells too. But we'll see.
Font creators want a comically bad permission scheme to use their fonts. Since there's no standard in place and no implementation in place, that effectively means that every font foundry is going to go out of business trying to sell their offline-only fonts to people who can't use them where they really want to. Mark Pilgrim has it right: Fuck the Foundries.
On the contrary, in order to interpret the results scientifically, you have to have already used them and determined a basis for scoring. How this is classically done with the original Rorschach is a series of markings based on the contents of the respondent's answer. They also score things like whether you pick the card up, whether you turn it around, whether you give more than one answer, etc. Without a fixed means of scoring the blots, you don't have data, you just have hand-waving.
But there are other tests out there, with their own means of scoring. Some of them even try to generate random inputs.
the Rorshach ink blots. Oops, it seems I have exposed them to the public, I guess the whole debate is moot now.
Seriously though, there are a million associative tests, I didn't think anyone even used the original Rorschach any more except to discuss it in beginning psychology classes.
> If you want one and only one of something with no choice and no alternative > if your requirements are a little different there has always been Windows and the Mac.
They could be employed doing something worthwhile, instead. Such talented people would certainly have jobs anyway, and might be filling important engineering roles that benefit society directly, that are otherwise wanting right at this moment.
Really, that made your blood boil? A kid who's smart enough to be diplomatic about his talents?
Incidentally, I agree with him. I am pretty well-regarded in my field, but I've yet to meet any single adult who was dumber than I am about absolutely everything. People have their talents, their brains absorb the input those brains are given, and they derive a certain expertise about those things. He's good at astrophysics, I bet he sucks at raising a baby.
Then we *have* defined the game we're going to play ourselves. It just doesn't involve total desktop dominance. The problem is that nobody will really admit this. Linux is about choice and freedom first, and development will proceed in that fashion for the forseeable future because that has value to the people who actually develop Linux.
Canonical can choose to play a different game with Ubuntu (which I love, btw, and my entire team has it installed on our development computers). But Linux is not Canonical. If I were Canonical, playing the game Apple is playing might actually help a lot - narrowly define the hardware. As a commercial entity, they can choose to go that route.
Linux is not a commercial entity, it's more like a community with a kernel, and the community is already playing the game it wants to play.
So spy on your neighbors if you want their stuff, and their smokin hot wives. (What's up with him having to wait until she's naked though? The face not so good?)
> If people commit suicide by the hundreds,... then we leave the ban in place a little longer. Pretty soon everyone who was going to kill themselves has done so. Problem solved, gaming turned back on for everyone else.
I was actually very impressed with it, given the bad reviews I had glanced at before going. It was better than T3 by a country mile, and maybe better than T2 although there are a lot of fans of that movie. Comparing to T1 isn't really fair; if you watched them side by side you'd see how primitive T1 was, and I'm not just talking about special effects. Still, T1 had something, an ability to scare you and put you on the edge of your seat, an ability to make you think about the consequences of our technological reach.
T4 replaces thinking about consequences with thinking about hope. It's a different message, and it mostly works, not least because they put the scariness back into this movie. It was missing in T2 and T3, but the monsters in this one are genuinely impressive and terrifying. There's also a pretty good bit of world-building in this one, they construct a post-apocalypse Earth that is fairly believable, even smoothing over some of the logic problems raised by the earlier movies. And then, of course, the effects are well-done; calculated for maximum effect at keeping the suspense level high. Terrific sound editing, too.
One caveat: where the rants about bad writing ring true is in the dialog. You won't find much good dialog in the movie. The plot, while not complex, is at least compelling and has a couple of genuine surprises toward the end, but you have to separate good storytelling from bad scripting.
Not as good as star trek, but I'd give it a solid 7/10.
Except that's where you're wrong. The last person you trust is the person who made the software, or the car, or the drug. They have, shall we say, an incentive to be dishonest? The concept of independent third party is important, no less in software than anywhere else. The problem is that in software, the independent third-party is crippled, whereas car schematics and even drug formulations are published and reviewable by people who are both qualified and uninvolved.
The fact is that I do trust software makers, even Microsoft, to do their best to write high-quality software, but with the qualification that they have only a limited budget. The goal of high-quality is always in conflict with the goal of high-profit. Therefore, you need someone looking at it who doesn't have a profit motivation, either to promote or to skewer Microsoft for their software.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, my android phone is my mp3 player.
But Google doesn't make laptops or keyboards yet. Looking forward to a laptop that is housed at a Google datacenter, and which I can carry around with me, and use, remotely.
Who'd want to buy the house where the economy of Arizona died? I heard it was murdered.
Yeah, I immediately had sympathy for Linus' position here. Even if one disagrees with the other developer's position, if you can't prove you're right, then you don't have standing to argue over it for a week. At that point, admit you're not going to change their mind, and do it their way. It takes less energy and causes fewer meltdowns.
Two girls, one cup of HFCS?
> still a Hershey bar in your dad's back pocket.
Wait. Wait, wait, what? We're just going to let this pass unremarked? What the fuck does that mean? What bizarre creation myth did your parents tell you led to your existence? I cannot think of any rational way this is a metaphor for meeting and/or fucking your future wife.
C
"Make their money up"? You mean that onerous cost of using CPU cycles and a few bytes of bandwidth to automatically process my registration? The marginal cost of a new domain is like 0.000003 dollars.
You go with the ones who want faux school shootings. Why? Because it's a proven strategy: specifically a strategy of not getting in between people and the things people want, particularly when they're paying you for those things. It's like having a bouncer out at the loading dock, trying to break the nose of the guy delivering the stuff you want to stock your store with.
Apple is trying to be omnipotent, which is impossible, but in no sense is it a bind. It's just hubris. They can choose to "unbind" at any time and let people develop applications for their platform without a gatekeeper.
I'm deeply skeptical about the claim itself, but if it's true, the "cure for cancer" the submitter is stumbling around is a reference to radiotherapy for cancer. It's effective at killing cancer but, for obvious reasons, extraordinarily harsh on the rest of the body. If there were a way to heal the rest of the body while the cancer dies from the radiation, you have a cure for many kinds of cancer. Of course, even if the drug described does protect you from radiation damage, it probably protects the cancer cells too. But we'll see.
Font creators want a comically bad permission scheme to use their fonts. Since there's no standard in place and no implementation in place, that effectively means that every font foundry is going to go out of business trying to sell their offline-only fonts to people who can't use them where they really want to. Mark Pilgrim has it right: Fuck the Foundries.
On the contrary, in order to interpret the results scientifically, you have to have already used them and determined a basis for scoring. How this is classically done with the original Rorschach is a series of markings based on the contents of the respondent's answer. They also score things like whether you pick the card up, whether you turn it around, whether you give more than one answer, etc. Without a fixed means of scoring the blots, you don't have data, you just have hand-waving.
But there are other tests out there, with their own means of scoring. Some of them even try to generate random inputs.
the Rorshach ink blots. Oops, it seems I have exposed them to the public, I guess the whole debate is moot now.
Seriously though, there are a million associative tests, I didn't think anyone even used the original Rorschach any more except to discuss it in beginning psychology classes.
> If you want one and only one of something with no choice and no alternative
> if your requirements are a little different there has always been Windows and the Mac.
Argh!! Another choice!
Take one away. How about just Windows?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#Fallacy_of_the_argument
They could be employed doing something worthwhile, instead. Such talented people would certainly have jobs anyway, and might be filling important engineering roles that benefit society directly, that are otherwise wanting right at this moment.
People are buying vista, and then buying XP. Poor microsoft? Guess they'll never do that again?
You don't encourage game development by using NDAs.
Really, that made your blood boil? A kid who's smart enough to be diplomatic about his talents?
Incidentally, I agree with him. I am pretty well-regarded in my field, but I've yet to meet any single adult who was dumber than I am about absolutely everything. People have their talents, their brains absorb the input those brains are given, and they derive a certain expertise about those things. He's good at astrophysics, I bet he sucks at raising a baby.
The government did. At least, they printed it. They should get a cut of the money every time it changes hands. Oh, and by the way, they do.
Revenue: Question mark
Then we *have* defined the game we're going to play ourselves. It just doesn't involve total desktop dominance. The problem is that nobody will really admit this. Linux is about choice and freedom first, and development will proceed in that fashion for the forseeable future because that has value to the people who actually develop Linux.
Canonical can choose to play a different game with Ubuntu (which I love, btw, and my entire team has it installed on our development computers). But Linux is not Canonical. If I were Canonical, playing the game Apple is playing might actually help a lot - narrowly define the hardware. As a commercial entity, they can choose to go that route.
Linux is not a commercial entity, it's more like a community with a kernel, and the community is already playing the game it wants to play.
Uh, that's been possible for, like, 10 years now. When's that going to happen?
So spy on your neighbors if you want their stuff, and their smokin hot wives. (What's up with him having to wait until she's naked though? The face not so good?)
> If people commit suicide by the hundreds, ... then we leave the ban in place a little longer. Pretty soon everyone who was going to kill themselves has done so. Problem solved, gaming turned back on for everyone else.
I was actually very impressed with it, given the bad reviews I had glanced at before going. It was better than T3 by a country mile, and maybe better than T2 although there are a lot of fans of that movie. Comparing to T1 isn't really fair; if you watched them side by side you'd see how primitive T1 was, and I'm not just talking about special effects. Still, T1 had something, an ability to scare you and put you on the edge of your seat, an ability to make you think about the consequences of our technological reach.
T4 replaces thinking about consequences with thinking about hope. It's a different message, and it mostly works, not least because they put the scariness back into this movie. It was missing in T2 and T3, but the monsters in this one are genuinely impressive and terrifying. There's also a pretty good bit of world-building in this one, they construct a post-apocalypse Earth that is fairly believable, even smoothing over some of the logic problems raised by the earlier movies. And then, of course, the effects are well-done; calculated for maximum effect at keeping the suspense level high. Terrific sound editing, too.
One caveat: where the rants about bad writing ring true is in the dialog. You won't find much good dialog in the movie. The plot, while not complex, is at least compelling and has a couple of genuine surprises toward the end, but you have to separate good storytelling from bad scripting.
Not as good as star trek, but I'd give it a solid 7/10.
> I think to get proper Linux support hardware vendors would first need to learn that their job is to produce hardware, not software
They won't, until a very large segment of their market demands it. That means market share.
> They may as well just be paying MS.
Except that's where you're wrong. The last person you trust is the person who made the software, or the car, or the drug. They have, shall we say, an incentive to be dishonest? The concept of independent third party is important, no less in software than anywhere else. The problem is that in software, the independent third-party is crippled, whereas car schematics and even drug formulations are published and reviewable by people who are both qualified and uninvolved.
The fact is that I do trust software makers, even Microsoft, to do their best to write high-quality software, but with the qualification that they have only a limited budget. The goal of high-quality is always in conflict with the goal of high-profit. Therefore, you need someone looking at it who doesn't have a profit motivation, either to promote or to skewer Microsoft for their software.