Great! Does that mean we might see a 64-bit plug sooner rather than later? We've been waiting over 5 years! And hopefully a java web start (javaws) executable included in the 64-bit builds.
I think he was mainly talking about the REAL power inside corporations, i.e. CEOs and their direct servants All the more reason I don't believe those numbers. 0.9% of males is a lot of people. If we say that we're only talking about CEOs, CFOs, Senators, Governors, etc... well, I suspect we've just claimed that there are more psychopaths in positions of power than there are actual positions of power.
Thank you for that link--his books look interesting. I still think that the numbers don't work out--the original claim was that 0.9% of men are psychopaths and end up in positions of power in large corporations. That number just seems too high--if 50% of men and 50% of women work in business, and there is one manager for every five lower employees, then 45% of managers are psychopaths. That's why I don't buy the numbers as posted.
Do you have evidence for those statistics? They seem rather unbelievable. I'd believe that 1% of people are nuts--I've met a few. But to say that 90% end up in positions of power? You have to be good at what you do to end up having power.
And you say that psychopathy would be looked up to in these high places--I'm sure this is true in some cases, but I haven't worked for enough large companies to have a feel for whether this is really true. I think a little skepticism is the appropriate response to this type of claim.
*sigh*. You're so intent on arguing about morality that you haven't noticed I'm not arguing about morality, and don't care to. And by the way, I suspect that if we were to have an argument about morality (which we won't, not here), you and I would disagree fundamentally.
My sympathy to authors who feel that piracy of their works is the same as stealing, but that doesn't make it so. Perhaps these authors would like to think that if people couldn't pirate their work, they would buy it. That may be true most of the time, but it's not always. The thought of piracy only makes me feel guilty when I'm considering buying something. (That is, if I'm merely saving myself a trip to the library, I don't believe I'm causing anybody any harm.)
I understand how authors must feel about piracy, but it's "cheating", not stealing. It's people getting something that they shouldn't have, it's not people taking something from somebody else.
And if they simply believe that school-wide edicts are the simplest and most effective way to keep order? Is there something intrinsically wrong with a school-wide edict?
If it isn't worth paying for is it worth watching? I rent movies about once per year. I see a movie in the theaters about four times per year. That statistic isn't going to change based on my piracy of movies. I simply don't value them enough to pay for them very often, and I have other forms of entertainment.
So is it immoral? Maybe. Probably. But is it stealing? Nope. The MPAA's profits are not affected in any way by whether I pirate movies. It's more like "cheating".
*Speaking as someone who's been doing instructional tech work for more than a decade, Powerpoint is a tool of the devil. The first thing you need to say to yourself if you ever think about using it for more than projecting a few pictures is "No", then ago talk to your local IT guy and ask them for a better way. I like powerpoint because it's a way to stay on track, and it gives the audience something to focus on (that feels important, at least). Is there a better way to do this? (And if you're referring to better programs, might I ask which?)
And you can't hide what the patch fixes. Actually, I disagree. What if Microsoft obfuscated or encrypted executables the same way that (I've heard) Apple does? Then, any vulnerable executable could be fixed and re-encrypted, and the diff between the two versions would just look like garbage. To get the real data, one would need to break the (obfuscation-based) encryption, but that would take a few weeks (plenty of time for everyone that cares to patch themselves). This depends on Microsoft changing the encryption scheme frequently, like Apple does with iTunes.
I have never before been so entertained by a troll/weird off-topic story. But I loved this line:
He took apart the AIBO and used its quality Sony components to enhance the machete with a nuclear driven flaming mechanism
I find it highly insensitive that you have overlooked the deaf community. Surely they also wish to enjoy such magnificent web pages. So you're saying that when I add the soundtrack to my home page, I should have the musical notes going by in a flash animation?
Of course you're right, but maybe there are others like him on the same platform that are sufficiently sophisticated. Maybe there's a packager for his distro, if he's using Linux. Or maybe all it takes is a change (or ten) to a makefile.
If I can't get to the code, it really doesn't bother me. Just keep making the product better. Well, the omission in that line of thinking is, what happens when they decide not to support you? What happens if they decide not to fix some bug? What if they stop releasing for your architecture? (64-bit Windows is pretty unpopular, are there binary builds for that?)
However, as other comments imply, it doesn't seem that they are actually close sourcing anything, just declaring that certain new developments will be closed.
But sometimes Doctor's can know about interactions (assuming the patients tell them what they are taking/planning to take). You're right. At least, I would expect them to know about the common interactions.
P.S. Someone needs to fix Firefox's spell checker. Can't recognize Nardil, DXM, (OK understandable), serotonin or dextromethorphan (come on now...) I have that problem with all my open source spell-checkers (for other types of words). Maybe it just takes too many man-hours to do proper research about what words must be added?
(I'm replying to my own post.) I spoke to a GIMP developer, and I understand why they wouldn't benefit (at least, so they believe) from changing the name. Even if changing the name would be a win for people at big companies, they don't really see that as a useful advantage. GIMP has a very small dev team, and they wouldn't really benefit from corporate sponsorship or wider corporate acceptance. Also, I notice that nobody says that they are offended by the name. They merely say that they are worried about what other people will think.
In any case, if a name-changing fork won't really help the GIMP project, I'm not particularly interested in it. But somebody that's personally bothered by the name should launch that project and keep it sync'd. The name I like best that somebody has said is "Open Image Studio". If somebody wants to implement this, I would recommend applying for a page on sourceforge.net, and working on getting some decent build scripts with some 'sed s/gimp/OpenImageStudio/g' magic...
I've heard a lot of people complain about this. Why doesn't someone make a friendly fork, that essentially mirrors the source, but calls the project by any name other than "GIMP"? (Agreeing on such a name could be a start.) I hope this wouldn't piss off the developers, but it seems like it would be so easy to implement. It would be easy to install, especially if it got some support from the GIMP developers. Would devs be friendly to this idea? What would we call it?
Take the same example as the GPP, but do it at work. You have finished your work, so you sit at your desk, take a sheet of paper from the notepad paid for by your work, write a letter to someone with the pen provided by your work, put it in the envelope provided by your work, maybe even go so far as to use one stamp that was also provided by your work, drop it in the company mail shute, and send it.
In that case, is it OK for your employer to open the letter and read it before it leaves the building? No. I don't have all the answers, but in this case, the letter's sealed and there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy", so that makes it wrong to spy on it (legality aside). Likewise, it would be wrong for an employer to sneakily put in a proxy to do man-in-the-middle eavesdropping on SSL communications.
That's not a very good analogy... it doesn't take place at work. It doesn't take place during work hours. Finally, you aren't asking your employer to deliver the communication for you.
Stereotypes are not completely invalid. They are "heuristic approximations." So, though it's often not reasonable to make assumptions about an individual because they are part of a group, it's perfectly reasonable to make assumptions about the group as a whole.
This is not to say that all stereotypes are useful or valid for describing groups, but I see no reason to object to Peter's post.
Really? Suppose I'm used to yellow lights lasting 6 seconds, and I know I can get through the light in 5 seconds. Now the city changes the yellow light length to 3 seconds, without warning. Do I have a choice then? It's worse than that. If a yellow light is short enough, you will neither have enough time to break, nor to make it through the intersection. If the light is shortened sufficiently, anybody without powerful breaks or who is going a few MPH over the speed limit will have to run the red light.
The biggest risk is overdoses, probably, and a doctor will notice those, whereas a college student might say, "How much Ritalin do you take? 50mg? Okay, I'll take 100, just to be sure it works." (I don't know whether that's enough to overdose.) In other words, you're right, but for a more prosaic reason than the one you stated. (Though I have no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, for either your example or mine.)
I think your main point is right, but hopelessly obscured by the glare of a false implicit claim--that if Johnny has some weird interaction with Ritalin, a doctor would have known about it in advance and would have had the foresight not to prescribe him Ritalin.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry if I'm being unclear.
Thank you for that link--his books look interesting. I still think that the numbers don't work out--the original claim was that 0.9% of men are psychopaths and end up in positions of power in large corporations. That number just seems too high--if 50% of men and 50% of women work in business, and there is one manager for every five lower employees, then 45% of managers are psychopaths. That's why I don't buy the numbers as posted.
Do you have evidence for those statistics? They seem rather unbelievable. I'd believe that 1% of people are nuts--I've met a few. But to say that 90% end up in positions of power? You have to be good at what you do to end up having power.
And you say that psychopathy would be looked up to in these high places--I'm sure this is true in some cases, but I haven't worked for enough large companies to have a feel for whether this is really true. I think a little skepticism is the appropriate response to this type of claim.
*sigh*. You're so intent on arguing about morality that you haven't noticed I'm not arguing about morality, and don't care to. And by the way, I suspect that if we were to have an argument about morality (which we won't, not here), you and I would disagree fundamentally.
My sympathy to authors who feel that piracy of their works is the same as stealing, but that doesn't make it so. Perhaps these authors would like to think that if people couldn't pirate their work, they would buy it. That may be true most of the time, but it's not always. The thought of piracy only makes me feel guilty when I'm considering buying something. (That is, if I'm merely saving myself a trip to the library, I don't believe I'm causing anybody any harm.)
I understand how authors must feel about piracy, but it's "cheating", not stealing. It's people getting something that they shouldn't have, it's not people taking something from somebody else.
And if they simply believe that school-wide edicts are the simplest and most effective way to keep order? Is there something intrinsically wrong with a school-wide edict?
Yes, this is what I meant. You described it much better than me, though.
So is it immoral? Maybe. Probably. But is it stealing? Nope. The MPAA's profits are not affected in any way by whether I pirate movies. It's more like "cheating".
Of course you're right, but maybe there are others like him on the same platform that are sufficiently sophisticated. Maybe there's a packager for his distro, if he's using Linux. Or maybe all it takes is a change (or ten) to a makefile.
Just keep making the product better. Well, the omission in that line of thinking is, what happens when they decide not to support you? What happens if they decide not to fix some bug? What if they stop releasing for your architecture? (64-bit Windows is pretty unpopular, are there binary builds for that?)
However, as other comments imply, it doesn't seem that they are actually close sourcing anything, just declaring that certain new developments will be closed.
But sometimes Doctor's can know about interactions (assuming the patients tell them what they are taking/planning to take). You're right. At least, I would expect them to know about the common interactions. P.S. Someone needs to fix Firefox's spell checker. Can't recognize Nardil, DXM, (OK understandable), serotonin or dextromethorphan (come on now...) I have that problem with all my open source spell-checkers (for other types of words). Maybe it just takes too many man-hours to do proper research about what words must be added?
(I'm replying to my own post.) I spoke to a GIMP developer, and I understand why they wouldn't benefit (at least, so they believe) from changing the name. Even if changing the name would be a win for people at big companies, they don't really see that as a useful advantage. GIMP has a very small dev team, and they wouldn't really benefit from corporate sponsorship or wider corporate acceptance. Also, I notice that nobody says that they are offended by the name. They merely say that they are worried about what other people will think.
In any case, if a name-changing fork won't really help the GIMP project, I'm not particularly interested in it. But somebody that's personally bothered by the name should launch that project and keep it sync'd. The name I like best that somebody has said is "Open Image Studio". If somebody wants to implement this, I would recommend applying for a page on sourceforge.net, and working on getting some decent build scripts with some 'sed s/gimp/OpenImageStudio/g' magic...
I've heard a lot of people complain about this. Why doesn't someone make a friendly fork, that essentially mirrors the source, but calls the project by any name other than "GIMP"? (Agreeing on such a name could be a start.) I hope this wouldn't piss off the developers, but it seems like it would be so easy to implement. It would be easy to install, especially if it got some support from the GIMP developers. Would devs be friendly to this idea? What would we call it?
In that case, is it OK for your employer to open the letter and read it before it leaves the building? No. I don't have all the answers, but in this case, the letter's sealed and there's a "reasonable expectation of privacy", so that makes it wrong to spy on it (legality aside). Likewise, it would be wrong for an employer to sneakily put in a proxy to do man-in-the-middle eavesdropping on SSL communications.
That's not a very good analogy... it doesn't take place at work. It doesn't take place during work hours. Finally, you aren't asking your employer to deliver the communication for you.
Stereotypes are not completely invalid. They are "heuristic approximations." So, though it's often not reasonable to make assumptions about an individual because they are part of a group, it's perfectly reasonable to make assumptions about the group as a whole.
This is not to say that all stereotypes are useful or valid for describing groups, but I see no reason to object to Peter's post.
I brake my native language.
Really? Suppose I'm used to yellow lights lasting 6 seconds, and I know I can get through the light in 5 seconds. Now the city changes the yellow light length to 3 seconds, without warning. Do I have a choice then? It's worse than that. If a yellow light is short enough, you will neither have enough time to break, nor to make it through the intersection. If the light is shortened sufficiently, anybody without powerful breaks or who is going a few MPH over the speed limit will have to run the red light.
The biggest risk is overdoses, probably, and a doctor will notice those, whereas a college student might say, "How much Ritalin do you take? 50mg? Okay, I'll take 100, just to be sure it works." (I don't know whether that's enough to overdose.) In other words, you're right, but for a more prosaic reason than the one you stated. (Though I have no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, for either your example or mine.)
I think your main point is right, but hopelessly obscured by the glare of a false implicit claim--that if Johnny has some weird interaction with Ritalin, a doctor would have known about it in advance and would have had the foresight not to prescribe him Ritalin.