He's very strange.
From his essay: For example, guess what root "commune" and "communism" share.
But I think it's trolling? I'm confused. this essay is just a little too much to be believable.
Actually, I don't think he's a troll, just an idiot with an abnormally low sense of the concept of making symbolic references in art. Also, this is from the "duhh C++ sux ass wtfomglol" essay:
I took the AP Computer Science A course as my computer class in the year 2001-2002.
AP (Advanced Placement) classes are taken in high school, usually junior or senior year. So that means that this guy is less than a year out of high school- at most- and is probably 18 or 19. Assuming those texts are serious, the level of intelligence involved here can easily be attributed to his age (for example, he obviously knows who Stalin and Marx were, but cannot recognize the distinction between, say, Soviet Socialism and Marx's actual theories.)
And yeah, I hate to revert to the "kids are dumb" blanket statement, but it's true. (And I'm not being ageist, either; I'm not much older than him.)
I've come across him a few times before, and he really has a brain the size of a peanut. But you have to love it when Bjarne Stroustrup replies to him, "Thanks. I hope you feel better after having demonstrated your ignorance and bad manners."
Human stupidity is truly endless.
How long is it since this first got aired, 4? 5? years.
I can't think of anything humorous to say about it now, I could then.
It's new to me. Recall that I've been as out of the loop on these topics as I could possibly manage.
And I read http://www.portalofevil.com to keep up with such things. This site is worthy of them.
He must be taking the piss. Real kooks can't spell or format Web pages.
So is there a story behind why the Mozilla logo is done in the classic style of those Stalinist propaganda posters, complete with star and factory? Given the origin of the name, I would have expected something more anime-ish. Or is it like the traditionally dull band-name story: "there were lots of drawings, but then someone drew that, and it looked cool so we used it"?
That would be telling.
Mozilla was conceived as Godzilla-like Mosaic killer. By the same token, was mozilla.org conceived as IE killer back in 1998? Now, what would a monopolist with an enormous asset base possibly find threatening?
I'm only guessing here, but I find it very curious that Steve Ballmer has recently compared the open-source movement to communism when speaking of its competitive threat to Microsoft. I think the heat is on and the message has arrived.
At first I also thought he was serious. Then I read a few more articles(including the letter to Bjarne), and decided it is flame-bait. But then I kept reading and realised that he just might be serious. Scary.
At least his spelling seems up to scratch ?!?
speaking of which.. how do I look up the status of the http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html">relicensing project?
Look in your nearest trashcan, empty it on the ground, paint some of it blue, some of it red, some of it red, blue and purple, scoop most of it back into the trashcan and leave alone.
Actually thats a great idea for a movie. Nazi goosestepping dinosaurs! Get Speilberg to make it.
And by the way, what exactly is the definition of "A pretty damn accurate paraphrase"isn't paraphrasing, by definition, inaccurate?
Actually, by definition, a paraphrase is saying "the same thing", in different words - if a paraphrase is inaccurate, it's no longer a paraphrase. While definitions do allow for "free" rendering, the defining characteristic of aparaphrase is that the *meaning* remains the same, it's merely the expression that is (in theory) clearer.
So you're right, in that "accurate paraphrase" is dubious english, but only because it is (in theory) tautological, rather than oxymoronic.
However, given that rephrasing certainly can (and often does) alter meaning, it's reasonable to suggest that paraphrases never mean *quite* the same thing as the original, and therefore not entirely unreasonable to offer opinions as to the accuracy (or otherwise) of an alleged paraphrase.("That's not a paraphrase, it's a misrepresentation.")
I think it's the same bloke who's been plonked by most everyone in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
There's a new one every September...