Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Stunning. (Score 1) 227

Okay, if you want to nitpick over semantics, technically you are correct.

Semantics is when I tell you to go look up the meaning of semantics (the meaning of which you don't comprehend). Maybe you "meant" nitpicking and just got too emotionally attached to your own insistence that wget "needing to know if the directory exists" - which'd explain why you're now out on a limb with Shirley McLain trying to shift those goal posts to "shitty basis for a web crawler" - "not designed for that" (when wrong digress?). Neither of which I disagree with, their just not relevant to anything other than your ego.

While you're there looking up the difference between parenthisis and semantics, check the meaning of sophist argument, context, and recalcitrant.

As for what wget was designed for - you conflate wishful "thinking" on your part with the designs of Hrvoje and Giuseppe. A little arrogant don't you think?

Comment Re:Stunning. (Score 1) 227

(wget) "needing to know if the directory exists".

I did RTFM, and no, I'm not wrong

You expand beyond the quotes. So yes, you are wrong.

If a comment was directed at you I've quoted it, otherwise it's directed at the thread. But then - when it rains you shake your fist at the sky and cry "why rain on me?". Too much emotional content.

I do this stuff for a living, man.

I make stuffups like that for a living, man.

TFTFY (your comprehension skills are exceeded only by your vanity).

Comment Re:Beta sucks! (Score 1) 164

Down with Beta! Leave Classic, or we'll go to Hacker News!

You've made your case, though it's not the one you thought you were making. Now fuck off back to reddit or post some more comments on Youtuber.

And take your PCmalware plugs with you (I think you know where you can stick them).

P.S. don't take that the wrong way.

Comment Re: I'm male but... (Score 1) 545

Feel free to point to a single employment ad for open source code that "pays well."

g e s t a l t _ n _ p e p p e r d spells recalcitrant..

Look what I found on the "internet" (have you heard of it?)

  • http://www.indeed.com/q-Open-Source-Developer-jobs.html
  • https://osuosl.org/about/employment
  • http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/jobs/careers/software/open-source-developer.html
  • https://developers.google.com/jobs/

Now you can do your juvenile denial dance about "pays well". There used to be a test administered by doctors - they'd heat a spoon over a flame and offer it to a child, if they refused they were normal, if they grabbed it once they were an idiot, if they grabbed it twice they were a moron - do you remember it?. You've been grabbing that hot spoon your whole life. Don't take this the wrong way - but kill yourself. You're lowering the standards - on /. no less.

Comment Re: I'm male but... (Score 1) 545

Programming. Not "using." Whoosh!

Don't hurt yourself lugging those goal posts around (that's not what you wrote). So you're still an idiot - can't make an intelligent argument, can't write what you later claim you meant. Most of the Linux kernel (80%) code is written by well paid programmers, and many of us make good money writing code for Open Source software (more than M$ pays their wave programmers, which I why I don't work there anymore). Of course - if you knew anything about programming and how to read employment ads you'd know that.

Comment Re:I'm male but... (Score 1) 545

I too would like a strong role model for someone using it to make money. Anybody? Anybody?

That's the solution! You genius. Oh wait... maybe genius doesn't mean what I think it means, I'll have to check with the bloke who empties the septic tank 'cause he handles a lot of them. (sigh)

The answer to your moronic question - Google (have you heard of them?), EBay, Amazon, IBM, Sony, etc.

Comment Re:Weight-ist, and HIPAA violation (Score 2) 225

Wow. Bigoted and illegal in the US. And everyone says the USA is privacy invasive. If someone did that in the USA they would be sued for violation of medical privacy law.

What part of opt-in didn't you understand?

The bit that where it's likely to motivate fat lazy people - to make the effort required to request someone (else) motivate them.).

How about - compulsory weight checks outside fast food stores and supermarkets, in concert with compulsory liposuction? You could require fast food deliverers to have portable units - and make it part of a re-employment plan for TSA and NSA staff (they already have the necessary skills and motivations). Reduce health and public transport costs and create a viable biofuel program.

Just musing on my keyboard....

Comment You're doing it wrong (Score 2) 225

Instead of being lazy and sending texts - those obese public servants should ride a bike, or walk, to deliver the message. (or tax the hell out of sugar and fund health programs?)

Oh wait (weight?).... maybe it's only people who are not public servants who are morbidly obese.

Comment Re:Three hots and a flop. (Score 1) 133

I've never seen any empirical evidence that there is any truth to the claim whatsoever. And in fact, I think it's false.

Never seen as distinct from not found? Think as the result of reductive reasoning or just as a poor synonym for imagine?

I imagine that a government that is radically smaller than the largest organization it is supposed to regulate is incapable of regulating that organization because it can't keep up.

FTFY

Unless... government "regulation" effectively licenses monopolies that stops the market from self-regulating business.

I'm not sure if you're just a amateur sophist or a moron - but arguing that government regulation of business requires it to duplicate every single aspect of the business, therefore requiring the regulation process to match the size of business being regulated, is just, um, doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

For evidence, I point to the current state of affairs. I say, our bank regulators are understaffed. There should be more people with more government jobs specifically to regulate the banks, and because the part of the government that is supposed to do that job is so small, it's helpless to rein in behemoth multinational banks that can generate paper faster than a regulator can read it.

A selective interpretation that doesn't even allow for history is not evidence (it's just piss poor rationalisation). Government regulation of banks mostly amounts to stopping banks being competive. Historically government intervention was to remove the usury limitation that stopped banks charging more than 10% interest. Prior to that the loan sharks were the mob, now credit cards charge up to 30%. Those trillions "generated" are just transfers from Main St to Wall St, smoke and mirrors.

You want your small government? Forbid megacorporations. Forbid too-big-to-fail.

How do megacorporations exist without government - you know? Like American Fruit or West Indies Trading existing with the respective governments taking their money and supplying them with armies (probably some modern parallel but I can't any evidence with this box on my head). And excuse me for extrapolating but.. wouldn't the increased regulation to do that, um, increase government size. Not that I'm accusing you of sophism but... if it smells like a stawman sometimes you need to test if it's really straw (and my only tools are matches).

As for "forbid to fail/bail out my contributors" - just don't. It's that simple. If the government needs to intervene in business with funding it should own (nationalise) the business - not give/loan it money.

Slashdot Top Deals

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.

Working...