topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Thursday May 22, 2025, 11:53 am
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Recent Posts

Pages: prev1 ... 251 252 253 254 255 [256] 257 258 259 260 261 ... 438next
6376
General Software Discussion / Re: CNET Download Installer Changes
« Last post by Renegade on December 15, 2011, 10:49 PM »
+1

I can only imagine the turmoil in some F/OSS projects right now. Seriously, once you throw money into a F/OSS project, it is pretty much done for. Any F/OSS project must be strictly non-commercial. The ones I've founded (with community participants) don't even accept donations, as that can be acrimonious. Who gets all the revenue from these bundles ... Well, dunno. Evenly dividing it in a way that is fair would be impossible, you'd never please everybody, and everyone would be left with a sour taste in their mouth.

Freeware is more concerning for me. Soon everything will be freeware with strings attached -- strings attached that the average Joe doesn't understand are bad for society as a whole. The practice should be outlawed, though I can't imagine how you'd draft a bill outlawing such. I consider *all bundles malware because they violate user intent*. That's my personal opinion as of today. Maybe I'm forced to change my opinion in the years to come, or maybe people will start waking up and quit being so darn greedy. And, yes, I do call it greedy if you freely give something away, then want to profit from it. If you want to profit, don't make it free.

Hehehe~! I think it would be harder for us to be more diametrically opposed on this topic~! :D

For some FOSS software, let's say GPL for the sake of argument, I don't see why the authors shouldn't get paid somehow.

There's more than one way to make money, and if you're doing it above board, then I don't see a problem.

At the end of the day, are you hurting people? Are you taking advantage of them?

End users need to assume some kind of responsibility too though. I think it's a cop out to say that users don't understand blah blah blah. If you're going to use a chainsaw, and you don't know how to use one, and you cut your leg off, well who do you have to blame? The chainsaw? hardly.

Same for computers. There's a certain minimum amount of knowledge that you need to have to use one competently. If you don't know what an installer is, and can't read the EULA and installation screens... Well... sheesh. Like if I give someone a chocolate bar, and they stick it in their ear, how the heck do I get blamed because they don't know what their mouth is for?

Yeah... you need to be careful to make sure that you're being upfront and honest about things, but sheesh... There's only so much that you can do without just doing silly things. e.g. You don't want to have 5 extra screens that all say, "Are you sure? Like, really sure?", "Totally and 100% sure?", "Last chance..." ;D

There are some scummy people out there doing scummy things. But there are also good ones as well. It's pretty much case by case.

There are lots of software authors that write malware. But that doesn't make all software authors bad people. Socrates has a beard. Socrates is mortal. Therefore all mortals have beards.


Now, regarding this:

If you want to profit, don't make it free.

The why not ban virtually all web sites? If people want to profit from them, they can convert them to subscription sites. Let's start with banning Google or labeling it as malware...

Ok. That's a bit ridiculous (although the way personal information is collected now does make you wonder...), but I think you get the point.

People scream bloody murder about virtually everything done in the desktop world, but you can have a virtual mass murder spree on the web, and nobody bats an eyelash.

Kill one and you're a murderer. Kill a thousand and you're a hero.

There needs to be some kind of balance.




6377
Living Room / Re: NAS Recommendations?
« Last post by Renegade on December 15, 2011, 07:43 AM »
Jeez... I think I'm glad I've waited. That MicroServer looks slick.
6378
Living Room / Re: Don't be a free user?
« Last post by Renegade on December 15, 2011, 02:05 AM »
+1 for that blog post.

6379
Living Room / Re: Lawyer Professional Standards - HILARIOUS~!
« Last post by Renegade on December 14, 2011, 05:22 AM »
legal membership bodies in most countries seems to have the potential to "get in behind" and support their members better than any trade union.

I find this really insidious - I used to be a teacher in the UK and UK law now required teachers to be members of the state sponsored professional body - even to the point that the state pay the fees for teachers in full-time permanent contracts (it always annoyed me that I worked mostly on temporary contracts so I had to pay the bill personally).

Most professional bodies are little more than trade unions by another name - except that conservative politicians perceive them differently and encourage them (mainly because they become rich and power conservative bodies).

The main difference is that a trade union should (and I emphasise should because it rarely happens) represent their members' interests - in fact they usually represent some sort of political agenda more than their members, and are often part of the gravy-train syndrome.

Professional bodies are supposed to represent their profession - but what that boils down to is protecting the reputation of all lawyers/doctors etc (delete as appropriate) so that they end up defending almost any behaviour to avoid a scandal. It takes some extreme behaviour to get professional bodies to admit that a member has done something wrong and sanction them.

Ultimate both started from good and similar places but both have become corrupt because they are dominated by people who want power.


I must admit... I have a problem with some professional organisations. e.g. I fail to understand how legal "bar associations" are little more than criminal guilds. Similarly for the analogues in the medical professions. They seem seedy and underhanded to me. They are very far from appropriate in an open and free society. Ooops. Our society is neither open nor free. My bad. :P ;D

I don't believe that medical guilds should represent their members' interests first. They *should* represent the well being of the "patient". But I suppose that's just my naive idealism.

Then again, I also think doctors should be paid for patients' good health, and not their bad health, which is what happens now.

So, just write me off as a kook or loon there, as my ideas are simply incompatible with what we have now.


But back on topic, sort of...


I suppose that it would be preferable for professional organizations to actually take an ethical stand, but then again, ethics is a big field and encompasses a lot. I can perfectly well see why the lawyer wasn't "punished" because the organization needs to limit what it applies to.

e.g. Is it "immoral" or "unethical" or "unprofessional" for a lawyer to be gay, or a gambling addict, or to have an abortion, or drink a lot, or...

So, that gets very murky very quickly.


For this instance, I can well see why no action was taken against the lawyer as he wasn't convicted of a criminal offense. Still... it seems bizarre.

I think this sort of illustrates how "rules" and "laws" have limits and can fail us in horrible ways.

I remember playing games when I was a kid, and I'd know the rules of the game inside and outside and upside down, and man... Did I ever abuse them. (Old role playing games like AD&D or Rifts/Palladium.) At some point, the rules just stop working.


6380
Easier said than done for most people.

This may be another thing that is lost without context. These players are rich.


Ooops. I thought the comment was referring to regular people.

6381
Living Room / $1.6 Million for Original Apple Contract
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 11:54 PM »
Quite a bit of cash:

http://www.bloomberg...on-at-sotheby-s.html

A three-page contract that established Apple Computer Co. (AAPL) sold for $1.59 million at Sotheby’s (BID) in New York today, soaring past the presale estimate of $100,000 to $150,000.

6382
Living Room / Re: Kicked Off the Plane for Games
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 11:16 PM »
According to an Air Canada long haul pilot, the rules surrounding cell phone use have nothing to do with navigation equipment interference and everything to do with revenue. Remember the hyper expensive seat-back phones that used to be on airplanes? He posted about this on a Hewlett-Packard calculator forum that I used to frequent a lot, but of course I cannot find the post!


I hate that when I can't find a reference... It's so frustrating!

But I'll take your word for it. It certainly seems "reasonable" as it sort of fit in with the whole infinite growth craze. :D


Regarding Alec Baldwin and Team America - that wasn't him! He read the script and VOLUNTEERED to do his own voice but was turned down. Can't remember where I read that...

Interesting... That seems bizarre...

6383
Living Room / Re: However big the problem, the solution is...Bagger 288!
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 10:30 PM »
Very cute! :)

That thing is simply monstrous!
6384
It's also truly sad that despite the fact that this link has recently been posted and discussed thoroughly in a recent DC topic, we still have people here posting this: "Who else gets to ignore the law?" although to be fair to Renegade, I don't really know if you read it. I just feel like you say you're curious but then...you're not. Despite potentially new information to you, you never adjust your views. You ask it like a lawyer who have sniffed a potential rich client. (I'm not saying you are but it just seems that way.)

I did read that link. I rather enjoyed it. (I used to play AD&D - LE was one of my favourites to play!)

I suppose I'm just missing the point.

Part of that is probably because I just don't see how any kind of particulars or details matter if we're all supposed to be governed under the rule of law. Meh... I just don't get it.

...because the employees can always leave.

Easier said than done for most people. A corporation acts under the direction of a single mind, e.g. the board or CEO, while for employees, you need to coordinate everyone to make that effective. Given how labour unions have been in decline, it's basically empty. Yeah... it's possible. But then again, the glass of milk that shattered on my floor could spontaneously fall up back onto the table and reassemble itself into it's nice, beautiful original form. I won't bet on either. :D

Anyways, that's an entirely different topic.

I think this thread has pretty much run its course for me. I just don't get it.




6385
Living Room / Re: UK Police Test 'Temporarily Blinding' LASER
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 09:49 PM »
I thought the boys in blue with pointy hats were supposed to arrest flashers!
-cranioscopical (December 13, 2011, 09:45 PM)

I don't think they're that bright~! :P
6386
Living Room / Re: Lawyer Professional Standards - HILARIOUS~!
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 09:13 PM »
I can see the distinction between a "professional" and a "personal" capacity/conduct, but still... Meh... Whatever. They can make any rules that they want.

It's just funny to see the brutal disparity between the two brought to light.

I wonder if anything will change because of it...  :huh:
6387
Living Room / Re: UK Police Test 'Temporarily Blinding' LASER
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 08:12 PM »
The only real way to deal with civil disturbance is to get to the root of the problem rather than deal exclusively with the symptoms and manifestations that folllow from it. Because once the cop toys come out of the box, any hope for a peaceful and constructive outcome is pretty much lost.

I made a "demotivational" for that:

Super_Simple_resized_John_F_Kennedy_Revolution-2_512x624.jpg

Sigh...

But it does kind of sound like a form of accelerated sungazing (2)... :P



6388
Developer's Corner / Re: Is Clojure the next C ?
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 08:06 PM »
"The next C"? What's wrong with the existing C?

Hehehe~! :D

It seems like language enthusiasts are always looking for a new language for one reason or another.
6389
Developer's Corner / Re: Is Clojure the next C ?
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 07:41 PM »
Meh... Not sure.

Software languages (or many at least) have innovated with structures and logic expressions, but I think he's trying to point to something else. What that is? Well, not entirely sure. I think it's that lack of innovation/paradigm shift that he's talking about, and without it, it's kind of hard to point to.

At the heart of it, it seems to me that he wants a hardware agnostic language that uses all available resources.

For his comment:

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis tells us that our view of the world is strongly affected by the languages we use. When we think in a given language, that language acts as a filter. Concepts it can’t express are removed from our awareness. Our mode of expression constrains us to only those thoughts and concepts that can easily be expressed within it.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. Seems to work in both human and machine languages from what I've seen.

Dunno. I don't need to really worry about any of that stuff. I'm just a small fry. It is interesting though.

6390
Living Room / Re: Kicked Off the Plane for Games
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 07:19 PM »
Their plane, their rules. Seems very simple to me.

Well, yeah, but like sheesh... Can't we be moderately rational?

Would you eat at a restaurant that cranked the air conditioning so that you had to wear your coat, then they bitch at you for wearing your coat? You'd probably never go back.

There's no evidence at all about playing games crashing planes.

At some point I think it's ok to not be irrational in the airline industry.

Anyways, the whole thing is still funny, and I still feel sorry for Baldwin. Good that he stood up to the airline BS though. Maybe at some point they'll wake up and stop with the superstitious silliness.

6391
I really can't fathom what the complaint is here.

First, this has nothing to do with rich folks screwing the little guys. It's a completely private transaction. There aren't lobbyists here jockeying for favors to be enacted, creating regulations that each of us will be bound by. These are a group of entities that entered into a contractual agreement with a franchising body. In order to participate as a franchise, one must agree to work by the rules. That's all there is to it.

There is no element of force here, nobody is colluding or conspiring to the detriment of the man in the street -- indeed, that hypothetical man is completely unaffected by what has happened. The fact that you don't like how it affects the product -- the games of basketball championship -- is for them to decide. You might as well complain that McDonald's doesn't let its franchisees wear pink uniforms.

Are you looking for someone to be vetting all private contracts, and rejecting any that might encroach on the sporting entertainment enjoyment of the public?

The analogy with IBM and Oracle doesn't hold water. It's perfectly normal for someone becoming an employee of company X to sign a non-compete agreement as part of the terms of being hired. This prevents that person from going to work for Y or Z if they should leave X. None of us *want* to sign such an agreement, but it ought to be perfectly understandable why X would want you to do so. And you're free to find a job elsewhere if X's terms of employment don't sit well with you.


This is what I mean.

If I create an organization, and create an agreement, then I'm no longer bound by the law and can do whatever I want!?!?!

It seems to me that they are skirting around labour laws.

Where does that stop? Who else gets to ignore the law?


Meh... Whatever. I really don't care. Just curious.

6392
Living Room / Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 05:08 AM »
I reckon the Iranians would not consider this to be all that funny. It's probably a pretty serious business to them, never mind the US.
Déjà vu - 1960 U-2 incident

I reckon not! They know that they're going to be invaded soon, so that's not funny in the least.

It's just the sheer audacity of US officials to basically punch them in the face, then say that it's the Iranians that are being belligerent. It's just too much. I can't help but laugh.


6393
Living Room / Re: More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 04:30 AM »
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

1984

Hahahaha~! (Albeit, the truth there is rather dark. I suppose the only thing to do now is laugh.)

I punched you! You're provoking me now! :D

6394
Living Room / Re: Lawyer Professional Standards - HILARIOUS~!
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 04:29 AM »
We can always rationalise anything (away). That's the benefit of having an inconsistent belief system, which we all have! :)
6395
Living Room / More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 03:53 AM »
I nearly peed myself laughing at this:

http://www.usatoday....ama-drone/51855044/1


The Obama administration said it has delivered a formal request to Iran for the return of a U.S. surveillance drone captured by Iranian armed forces, but is not hopeful that Iran will comply.

...

President Obama said Monday that the U.S. wants the top-secret aircraft back. "We have asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," Obama said during a White House news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Monday.

In an interview broadcast live Monday night on Venezuelan state television, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said nothing to suggest his country would grant the U.S. request.

"The Americans have perhaps decided to give us this spy plane," Ahmadinejad said. "We now have control of this plane."


Touche!


"Given Iran's behavior to date we do not expect them to comply but we are dealing with all of these provocations and concerning actions taken by Iran in close concert with our closest allies and partners," she said.

Wait, hold on for a moment... The US is prepping for war with Iran, but it's IRAN that is PROVOKING the US?

Bwahahahahahahahaa~! ;D

You can't make this stuff up!


I just don't know... But it seems like the "real" news out there just gets crazier and crazier. I can't help but laugh hysterically!



6396
Living Room / Re: Lawyer Professional Standards - HILARIOUS~!
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 02:10 AM »
I find myself more and more as the devil's advocate or hopeless opposition but...

Assume that you hold a scuba diving license. You hit a cyclist and run away. The cyclist dies. Should your scuba diving license be revoked?

It's not OK to kill people, the lawyer in question will almost certainly be jailed for negligent homocide or something like that. And he will be in jail for a long time, but what does this event have to do with his law degree and success in bar exams?


Devil's advocate is the best one to be~! :D


Mr Rau sought legal advice on the board's decision after a public backlash over its finding that Eugene McGee was not unprofessional when he hit and killed Ian Humphrey in 2003, left the scene of the accident, made several phone calls and arranged legal representation before going to police.

...

McGee was not breath or blood-tested for alcohol after the crash and was later fined $3100 for driving without due care.

Killing cyclists is only a $3,100 fine.

Yeah... I know... I'm pandering to the populist drivel of oversimplifying and confusing issues. It's much funnier that way. ;D :P

But seriously, actually not breaking the law in major ways might be a bit of a standard that you'd want those in the judicial system to uphold. That could just be me though. :P

Sorry - I have a very difficult time approaching this topic with any semblance of seriousness. It's just so wonky.




6397
Living Room / Lawyer Professional Standards - HILARIOUS~!
« Last post by Renegade on December 13, 2011, 01:36 AM »
Ok, fair warning, you may very well pee your pants laughing. This is beyond hysterically funny...

http://www.theage.co...-20111208-1olce.html

SOUTH Australia's Attorney-General, John Rau, says he cannot do anything about a lawyer cleared of unprofessional conduct by the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board despite his killing a cyclist in a hit-and-run.

Just to be clear... This lawyer is driving. He hits a cyclist. The cyclist dies. He runs aways. He's not guilty of "unprofessional conduct".

Hmmm... What do you need to do to be guilty of "unprofessional conduct"? Kill someone? Ooops. Nope. It's ok to kill people~!

Bwahahahahahahahaa~! ;D

Like just how much worse does it need to be? Would serial killing or mass murder count? :P

I just can't stop laughing at how utterly ridiculous it all is~!

Killing people? Nope. That's ok~! WTF? Hahahahahah~! ;D



6398
Every problem in computing can be solved with an additional layer of abstraction.

Every problem in computing can introduce another problem with an additional layer of abstraction.

;D
6399
Did it go down again? I noticed more downtime.
6400
Living Room / Re: Kicked Off the Plane for Games
« Last post by Renegade on December 12, 2011, 02:50 PM »
This is funny:



Pages: prev1 ... 251 252 253 254 255 [256] 257 258 259 260 261 ... 438next