Comment and thanks for? (Score 3, Funny) 426
I'll never forget...
...where I was when I heard the news. So long...
and thanks for all the 100%-CPU-use times?
I'll never forget...
...where I was when I heard the news. So long...
and thanks for all the 100%-CPU-use times?
"Microsoft has confirmed that users of its instant messaging app will not be able to send each other links to popular torrent site The Pirate Bay, citing malware fears. 'We block instant messages if they contain malicious or spam URLs based on intelligence algorithms, third-party sources, and/or user complaints. Pirate Bay URLs were flagged by one or more of these and were consequently blocked,' Redmond told The Register in an emailed statement."
The worst malware I ever encountered is from microsoft (specifically windoze 95 and 98), I can remember the days, it took hours to get rid of all the problems and stuff it installed that I didn't want. I suppose they are also blocking all mentions of windoze 95/98?
So your solution is to never punish businesses instead?
Money punishments are pointless most of the time. The bosses should get punishment. A substantial decrease in pay, and if things are bad enough throw them them in jail, forbid them to be part of boards of any companies etc. That's punishment that will work!
Limited liability the way it works now gives 2 kinds of sociopaths a chance to wreak havoc: The actual sociopaths, and companies consisting of a-holes and sociopaths in the board and as directors who make the company act as a sociopath.
What's being done is as the OP said and which I said e.g. in a posting some time ago here about punishing a company (I think it was a story about Kodak), not useful.
3) Then the shipbuilding industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off. 4) Then the mining industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
I used these as as examples against the similar whining of airport Schiphol. I believe the whining (I mean the way it's being done and who is being blamed) about declining profits shows the attitude in a company. In Schiphol as wist most businesses related to airtravel industry they have some sort of superiority complex and believe it their God-given right to annoy people with noise, not to have to pay taxes, not to have to pay sound insulation etc.
With the sound recordings there is something similar going on, they have a 'we are fantastic' attitude which is just ludicrous.
The decline of sales was already moaned about long before napster, as they have an attitude of 'enough is never enough'.
In NL, prices of CDs were high (much higher than records) when first introduced, it was said prices would go down when the cost came down. That never happened. Of course not. People like me remember that and buy little.
The music industry also reached a boom, from people who replaced their record/tape collections with CDs and the young generation with lots of money in the 1990s.
Both these sources dried up: The first had almost all what they wanted, the latter went for other stuff: Games, mobile phones, whatever.
For myself: I haven't bought music in a decade or so, I download some music, but very little. Most of what I liked, I already had (bought, loaned), so why buy anything? And yes, then sales will drop, not because of piracy but because of natural market development.
Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage
Pointing out the facts is not a 'systematic effort to influence the development of the law'. In fact it's been the MPAA and similar organisations that have been doing that, and the only ones who have been doing that, not by pointing out facts, but by describing their own fantasies (about how much they could earn, of course without thinking that if more money is spent on MPAA stuff, less is spent on other sectors in society) , and nightmares (about how much they're getting ripped off), and with their bribes (a.k.a. lobbying).
And of course these people don't even understand their clients: The obnoxious 'don't copy' ads at the start of DVDs is almost enough to make me want to 'pirate' stuff.
Accusing others of what they do themselves is something I found to be a typical trait of sociopaths in humans, and corporations are designed and geared to be exactly that, which shows the problems involved with corporations. Reduce liability: If a corporations spout such nonsense as this, they should be held in contempt of court, i.e. everyone responsible: The lawyers, and the entire board of directors etc.
I'm sorry... but these greedy fucking cunts need to be taken out back and horse-whipped!!!
This shows the moderation system on slashdot just doesn't work in some cases. This is not flamebait, this is a realistic depiction of what justice is supposed to be in cases like this!
Language might be a little unappropriate, but that's nothing when compared to the action of these sabam a-holes!
His whole response was a typical response of someone who doesn't understand the issues. Linking may still be a derivative work despite what the intention of the licence is. The FSF has been unwilling to clarify that this does not make a derivative work, and that it will take no legal action in such cases, last I heard. So this means that, no, the LGPL is not enough, if you want to absolutely sure. There's also the issue of bits of compilers and parts of headers getting compiled into the program.
The sad part is that the reply, while snarky, was correct. You seem to be stuck in "victim-mode" where you can't do what you want to do and refuse to look at alternatives.
Seriously, whining because you can't have your cake and eat it too is tiring.
It's really tiring those GPL advocates whining about supposed whining from others who just ask a question or don't think their preferred way of doing business can be done via GPL, no then they get accused of wanting to take other software for free and profiting from it, or that they are whining.
The rest of your comment was ok, but of course it has to be whiny and accusing again, as all GPL advocates seem to like doing.
A few months ago I made a good reply to a particularly inane posting by someone who didn't understand, but even worse, lied about various businesses don't use/don't want to use GPL software.
It's http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2618678&cid=38680252) where I replied to a nonsensical posting by 'causality (777677' which is full of disinformation and the response to my posting shows nothing but ignorance and distortion of the facts. That he gets modded to +5 twice shows the fanboys are at work.
So I will explain here in more detail, as this is the crap that GPL lovers do all the time. It explains also why my original response talked about enforcability of the GPL licence, but also to see how such a zealot distorts and/or just makes things up. Of course, not all of them are like that, but a lot of them...
It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back.
A lie, it's about using your software without having to give it all up for free and/or about not getting sued...
You see, some people are childish and the most visible mark of childishness is a sense of entitlement. This causes them to feel somehow cheated if you place a few conditions on code that is otherwise free, that no one is forcing them to use if the conditions don't suit them.
They are not complaining about free code, but that their code that cannot be used freely (on a given system) without having to rewrite more... This is why I gave my argument of the GPL becoming unenforcable once it gets over a certain threshold. But that obviously flies high above his head!
I think phrases like "you mean I have to actually HIRE my OWN PROGRAMMERS if I really must insist that everything be done exactly the way I want?!" are often uttered with outrage during their corporate meetings.
This is just childish nonsense, made up by him.
I mean hey, launching a commercial product with most of the work already done for you, for free, is a nice racket if you can get it.
That's not it and either he knows it, in which case he's a liar, or he hasn't even bothered to look up the reason why GPL software is not acceptable in various cases, in which case he is again making things up.
But if the developers intend to allow this, they wouldn't use GPL, they would use a BSD-type license.
By virtue of the previous sentence he implies the view that BSD licence is good to make a product ' with most of the work already done for you, for free' and ready to be exploited. This proves he is a Linux/GPL zealot.
For reasonable people, this is not a problem. Reasonable people think either "hey, this code is available for free and we have no problem complying with the license, so we can enjoy all the effort that has already been done for us and build on that", or they think "the terms of that license aren't compatible with our business model, or we're afraid of how a court may interpret them, so we can't use that code, oh well, this has not harmed us in any way so we really have no complaint".
Exactly, this is what developers do. Developers don't go complaining about GPL software because 'they have to write software themselves', but that they cannot use what they write themselves without undue burdens. So he is stating what is happening yet writing it in a way as if to imply that only reasonable people do that, and the people who prefer BSD software or require BSD software as they want to be absolutely sure there is not going to be an 'infection' from the GPL licence, are not reasonable. Nice twisting of words.
For everyone else, there is a need to demonize whatever it is that doesn't perfectly suit them even though they are under no obligation to use it. Sort of like the Puritannical types who want to shut down "offensive" shows that no one is making them watch and criminalize victimless behaviors among consenting adults that no one is forcing them to participate in. The mentality is never this direct and honest, and always covers itself up with a phony excuse, but if not for that its motto would be "it's not good enough that *I* don't do something I don't like, oh no, I have to make certain no one else can do it either!"
Here we come to something extremely funny: He rants about wanting to make sure others do as you do, but making sure others do as you do is exactly what the GPL does, and what the GPL was meant to do! This is another projection. Or actually a reversing of a perceived argument. Reversing arguments, accusing someone of doing something he/she does not do but which the accuser himself/herself does is what I found to be a typical trait of a sociopath. Therefore it would not surprise me in the least if this guy is a sociopath.
If you're going to be childish and call me names like "moron" and "zealot", you should least demonstrate a basic familiarity with the facts.
Funny, because I know the facts and he does not, he makes up false-facts. His original posting is full of them! Calling someone a moron or zealot (which I proved he is) is not childish, but then I suspect he barely has other words in his vocabulary than 'childish' to describe someone who disagrees with him.
If you feel a need to deal with things that way, it is a sure sign you are reacting emotionally and not proactively evaluating anything reasonably.
Ah yes, my response was a proper (and very deep, but he just didn't understand it) response to someone who lies, makes up facts, twists arguments, and he dares say my very well argued response is emotional? Hmm, very funny again!
Against anyone who remains reasonable, you are going to make yourself look foolish. Just for your future reference.
Funny, advice from someone who lies and makes up stuff about how not to look foolish!
and using less RAM
Who gives a shit if it uses a little bit more memory. I just bought 16GB of RAM for $75. It isn't 1991 anymore.
I don't like the bullshit upgrade schedule where they make a few minor improvements and call it a major new release. That's why I'll probably stay with 9 for a while. But there is no reason to stay with 3.6.
You have a very poor memory as in 1991 memory usage was not 300-500 MB just for a silly webbrowser.
And your argument that memory is cheap is true for DDR3, but if you've got a bit older machine like I have that's perefctly fine for everything I use it, using DDR2, it's a lot more expensive.
Memory use of applications and Xorg too is just insane these days. Even Xemacs that I often use, I've got one editing a html file and it uses 32 MB (and that's a low value, it's often 100MB). Why? What the hell does it all load and do compared to the mid-late 1990s where you could use it without hogging all RAM on a 32MB machine?
Always the arguments by people like you is 'memory is cheap', but it's not really. Not needing new memory is cheaper than new memory. Not needing to waste time on 'why the hell is my memory not enough any more' is better than wasting time on it. Sometimes you even need to upgrade your PC to get affordable new memory. That's the case esp. for a slightly older PC of my niece. Your argument is also the reason why developers don't seem to give a shit about memory footprint, whatever they claim. 300MB for browsing some webpages? Absolutely ludicrous. Thunderbird seems to have a complete built in webbrowser in it to display HTML stuff. Nuke all that crap and let it do emails! Then it wouldn't need 200-300MB.
It's a vicious circle of upgrades that are not really necessary as quickly as they would be if applications didn't load so much useless crap and do so much useless crap.
Those of you wondering, this article offers some answers to the question of why so many of these scams originate from this area."
No actually, it doesn't. Poverty is not a reason for scamming. It might be a reason for stealing food or other things. Scams show a particular mindset, and that the most common type of Nigerian scam has originated elsewhere is irrelevant. What matters is how many people do it, and the information I have is that scamming is commonplace in Nigerian culture, so they do it to themselves, not just to others with a 'lot' of money outside Nigeria. This means poverty has nothing to do with why they all seem to be Nigerians. Though I suppose, being a Nigerian, seeing some scammer from your country make a lot of money, might influence you to do the same thus giving a flood of such people, but as I said, it seems to be commonplace behaviour in Nigeria itself.
Just as with Richard Dawkins and the evolution vs creationism debate, there is no debate allowed. Either you accept the truths from the Scientific gods (Gleick and Dawkins) or you are exiled.
Somewhat agree with this.
Half the English academics involved in global warming have been found to be fudging the facts,
Bullshit. But you know what is a fact: All the global warming deniers are people who cannot reason, give bogus arguments and are usually paid for by groups who have an interest in keeping going on polluting.
We have a group here in the Netherlands called 'Groene rekenkamer' for example who provide a bunch of bullshit material so moronic, that the inhabitants of a mental asylum could not compete against them!
Slashdot is getting more and more such that the postings resemble those of a bunch of demented 5 year olds...
With the deniers here like Jane Q Public repeating their moronic crap over an over again, and learning nothing, it seems it's time for meta meta moderation: Keep repeating the same crap argument and your initial posts are valued at -1 lower each time. No lower limit!
One of 'Jane Q Public's latest pieces of 'insight':
Nobody on the "skeptical" side has been doing any "suppressing". I repeat: it has been the skeptics who have kept calling for open debate. It is the AGW proponents who claim "consensus" and that "the science is settled."
His so called skeptics aren't skeptics but deniers. They aren't interested in science and never give real arguments. They are the ones not interested in debate, or if they do debate give moronic arguments that no scientist is interested in. Debating with a moron isn't helping science therefore scientists are not interested in most of these 'skeptics'. The fact that the real scientists have a concensus doesn't mean there is no interest in discussions or new ideas or new viewpoints or new interpretations, not at all, it just means there is a concensus, and you better have damn good arguments if you are to convince them. Not the garbage quality arguments of 'skeptics'/deniers.
Because only one document is scanned. And the one document that's scanned is scanned almost a month after everything else. And the one document that's scanned a month after everything else is the only one that uses inflammatory language like preventing people from "teaching science". It looks fake to me. There's plenty of stuff in the documents that are basically acknowledged as real to let people know how they work, and who they support, and where their money comes from... but the hot, sexy stuff just isn't there. Does your organization work like this? Unsigned, undated memos to people who aren't listed are scanned in from printouts to be put in the corporate file even though everything else you generate goes direct to PDF?
If I were an dishonest organisation out to influence an manipulate then yes of course, all the saucy stuff would never be kept as PDFs only as hardcopy/eyes only.
So these arguments that it's a PDF from scans in my view make it not less real. Specific type of language is also meaningless because esp. in such documents which are 'inflammatory', people (the one/ones writing it) tend to write in their own style, not a 'house style'. Therefore the argument that this Megan McArdle gave is not an argument at all.
Unless you count a 90% reduction in trading costs as âoenothingâ.
Back in the day Market Makers would take $.125 to $.25 for every share traded. And woe to you if you were trying to sell more than 10k because then you would really be scalped. And then you had to add broker commissions on top of that.
I would rather pay high frequency traders $.01 a share and have a deep liquid market then go back to the good old days
(- infinite, moronic)
Who gives a damn what percentage some trader wanted? For one it's all mostly automated so fees should be very low now, and for another, if you don't need to/want to buy/sell frequently then the small charges are a non issue. They are only an issue if you want to trade a lot because you want to gamble on changes in values of stock. So the original poster was right, high freqeuncy trading is valueless and should be disallowed. It's gambling, and not just simple gambling, but gambling that destabilizes economies.
Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin
