That's why I'm moderately excessive and I piss on all those excessively moderated bastard.
That's why I'm moderately excessive and I piss on all those excessively moderated bastard.
Harry Potter is not complete fiction : this is the story of a teenager who loose his parents and has a bad time. It happens. It's true.
Statistically, the probability of having a book that is 100% false, 100% pure non-sense is really low. Maybe the Voynich manuscript try to address this, just like David Lynch did for movies. So, of course, some parts of the Bible are not complete fiction.
And then? What is the conclusion?
You are implying that lawyers are part of the so-called "humans". While it's evident that religious zealots, dictators, maniacs, economists and murderers are humans, I'm still not convinced about lawyers and all my experience seems to prove that they are not.
indeed, I had the same feeling since a few months. What I find completely astonishing is the "no blog" policy.
I'm not a real wikipedia contributor but, sometimes, I correct a mistake or add an information I know. In the recent months, nearly all my edits were reverted because of "no source". And when I add a source, it's often a blog and deleted as "not acceptable, it's a blog". Worst : all blog references are now purchased and deleted. I was recently reading the french entry about freediving. For months, the external links section contained a few links to very interesting blogs about the subjet. I was really happy to find them and I would not have discovered them without wikipedia. Last week, I discovered than one link was dead so I removed it : immediatly after, an editor removed all the links with the comment "no blogs allowed". The article doesn't have an external links section anymore. What's the benefit of thatÂ???
There's also the "notability" problem.
Sometimes, when I look for something and don't find a page, I start it, putting the raw information IÂhave. So far it has always been deleted because "it was not notable" enough. I agree that it's often specialized and, if you are not interested by the subject, you might not knowing it. As an answer, I will provide links to articles speaking about the subject, links of blog created specifically for that matter. But no, those are blogs so it means the subject is not important enough. I even saw twice that I was not the first to try to create a given page. I know that it's specialized but Wikipedia even has pages for Porn actor !
In the end, I don't contribute anymore to wikipedia because :
1) It will be deleted anyway
2) It will raise the page I'm editing under the "veteran editor" radar and they will likely delete stuffs on that page or even remove the page completely (yes, it happened to me that the page I contributed after finding it was removed because "non notable" after my edit).
On the other hand, pages that haven't been touched since the 2007 golden era are pretty safe. Out-of-date, maybe, but at least safe.
"You're not just a sitting duck, y'know?"
You must be new hereâ¦
There's no need to judge TPB on a moral ground. There's no such thing as "good" or "bad".
It's just that your way of getting money is becoming obsolete. Just like candles manufacturers who fighted electricity, you are not relevant anymore in the current world.
Don't take me bad : you are right to do as much money as you can right now. But you must stay realistic : it won't stay like that forever :
1) A free software equivalent of your softwares might be created.
2) A big proprietary monopolistic vendor might do a software with the same features for half the price.
So, whatever you are doing, you know that it's a short term gain.
Now, let analyse your situation with your software being on TPB. Have you any evidence that it makes you loose money ?
If I told you that :
- 90% of people downloading your softwares would have never bought it anyway.
- 8% of those people weren't sure about your software and would have never bought it but after using the pirated version for more than one year, they choosed to buy an official version because "hey, it worth it".
- 2% of people wanted to buy the official version and stayed with the cracked one.
In this example, having your soft on TPB was a profit increase for you !
So please, just stop thinking with your guts and start using your brain. You have no evidence that file-sharing is bad for you. Not at all. Just an intuition driven by the music/software industry propganda.
Also, you know that it can't be stopped. It's an evolution. You can maybe make it a little slower (that's what RIAA is trying to do) but it will never be stopped. So, instead of crying, trying to slow evolution at all cost (conservative position), why not trying to take advantage of the future ?
"but that things follow mathematical laws so exactly. It's no wonder that no one twigged to this fact for so long"
It's not the universe that follows the mathematical rules. It's the mathematics that were designed to explain the universe. So of course it's wonderful how the mathematics are so fine-tuned to match the universe : that's why they exist in the first place !
Isn't it incredible that all falling apples are following Newton's law ?
Or, easier explanation : those who are very afraid to die are more likely to look for consolation in the religion and then to try to live longer.
So it's not a relation :
Pious -> Wants life-prolonging care
It's more :
X -> Pious and X -> Wants life-prolonging care
And I think (but that's my opinion) that X could be "Really afraid to die because feel bad with life")
There it is ! That's my stappler. I told them..that I wanted my stappler. I will not change my desk anymore.
Maybe Pessulus and Sabayon are not perfect for the poster needs (I never tried them) but the fact that they were not even mentionned in the article is the proof that the poster didn't even bothered to look for an alternative.
The fact that he talks about using "gconf" to lockdown stations makes me doubt a lot about his Linux admin capabilities.
Also, I believe that a migration to Linux done by admin who don't understand Linux as well as Windows will do more harm than good to the Linux perception.
So it's just another post : "OMG,Linux sucks because softwares on Linux don't have the same name as they have on Windows and that I will have to look for them on google but I'm tired."
Wikipedia-fr is already affected from a long time in this article :
It is stated that the "Fat_Gourg" has a fan club of thousands of people in France.
The fact is that the fact gourg started as a running joke on a website/forum after someone found this picture online. The game, between approximately 20 people, was to found the author of the picture. One of those 20 people was a regular wikipedia editor with a good record and created this page with false statement like "Thousand of people".
Ultimately, the fat gourg joke came to a journalist in UK who interviewed someone on the forum which, of course, putted some exageration and emphasis in his description. The journalist then wrote an article saying that "it was an huge phenomemon in France followed by thousands of people". This artcile was followed by a very small television reportage in the school of the child who drawed the Fat Gourg.
The article was then added as a source on Wikipedia.
I tried two or three times to correct that page but :
- a (otherwise) respected wikipedia editor which is part of the joke always undo my changes
- my version is now in conflict with all of the sources in the article (which are, in fact, comming from one and only one person)
So I look like a liar because Wikipedian the television and newspapers say something but, ultimately, nobody in France know about the Fat Gourg except a few tenth of people on a forum.
And yes, I feel that something is bad but I have no real solution.
Simple scientific procedure :
1) There's no scientific theory that would explain that our "spirit" still live after our death. At the opposite, we can easily conceive that our "spirit" (or soul or personnality or whatever you called it) use our brain as an hardware support and that destroying the hardware also destroy the spirtir/soul/...
2) There're are no fact that could lead us to think after-life exists (from a scientifical point of view)
3) There are no facts that could be explained in an easier way if we admit the existence of an after-life. Instead, it makes things a lot more complicated.
Any logical mind would infer that after-life do not exist (or has little chance to do) from one of those 3 points. So the 3 points together make it highly logical that we just die with our body.
I know that some will invoke traditions and culture, telling that, if people believe it or even have evidence, it might be true. Yeah, sure. Same apply for Little tooth fairy, santa claus, UFOs and God.
Yes because gurus should be able to learn new things.
The problem with proprietary solutions is not the cost : it's that you are tight by the balls !
If you have Oracle Gurus and you don't want to switch because of that, your gurus will become even more expert in Oracle only and you will hire only Oracle gurus making the situation even worse regarding an eventual migration.
You must always keep in mind that the question is not "Will the migration happen" but "When will it happen".
If you choose it deliberately, at least you have time, you can prepare, you can choose the best moment for it.
If not, you are just playing with fire and waiting for one of :
- Oracle change the licensing scheme for one that you cannot afford
- Oracle just declares bankrupcy (don't say it will never happen and look for examples of company that were "too big to fail")
- Oracle new version remove a feature that is essential to your business
- Oracle drop support for the version essential to your business
Of course those problem could happen with a free software product but :
1) There's a fairly good chance that the community could handle, at least for some time, a lot of the support
2) You can choose to support it yourself for your internal use and to correct/add what you need
In the worst case, it gives you a lot more time to prepare a migration and it makes your business solid and not "one-product-only" dependant.
Building a walking robot, the western way
1) Think it would be cool to have a walking robot 2) Thinking about a method to build a walking robot 3) Studying the physics behind the mechanism of a walking robot. 4) Call this a new field of science : "Walking mechanics". 5) Publish some papers about "Walking mechanics" 6) Make a conference with the experts of "Walking mechanics". 7) Try to make it popular to the public so you get fund. It's called vulgarisation. 8) Discover that, in order to further develop "Walking mechanics", you have to develop "Walking automation". 9) Repeat steps 4 t 8 for Walking automation 10) Repeat step 4 to 8 for "Walking sensors" 11) Try to generalize 12) Repeat step 4 to 8 for "Automation of movable devices" 13) repeat step 4 to 8 for "Transfer mathematics" 14) Abstract all your classes and use design patterns 15) Wait... forget 14, it's part of something else 16) Forget about robots and develop science for the sake of science 17) Get asked by a young child about a walking robot 18) Explain to the public/young child how the development of your "Field quantum mathematic" theory could allow us to have walking robots as soon as 2045
No building a walking robot, the Wu's way :
1) Think it would be cool to have a walking robot
2) Put together a few electric motors and some gears
3) Paint your walking robot according to your preference
So obviously, his robot sucks, the guy doesn't know nothing about sensors, feedback loop.
Things are not as simple as they seems at first. - Edward Thorp