Slashdot Mirror

Exactly.

Star Trek was better when it was Star Trek: a show about exploration and pontificating on the human condition, occasionally using aliens as caricatures of our own extremes. And sure, it got a little smug and pretentious at times, but such is life.

Star Wars was always the pulpy sci-fi action franchise with whiz-bang lasers, and damsels in distress, knights and knaves, evil wizards and all the silly stuff that's fun, but much less meaningful in the long run.

These days, both are trying to be Star Wars, and frankly, Star Wars is better at it.

Dictionaries memorialize common usage as an aid to readers. They offer no opinion on the correctness of word choices.

The inverse meaning of literally is common, but incorrect. Note that I am not normally in the prescriptive camp of linguistics. I do not consider formations that merely make one sound like an idiot to be incorrect, but I do consider formations that lose information to be incorrect.

Consider the present case. "wrote the book" is an expression that can mean either "wrote the book" or "knows enough that he could write a book". The use of the word "literally" could help distinguish the two cases here, but is instead used as an intensifier. Considering that the cliche in question is already quite superlative, adding an intensifier seems inflationary, and it actually diminishes her stature in the minds of the reader, as he will inevitably be disappointed when he finds out that the claim isn't true.*

Granted, the author of this is directly quoting someone, but should have chosen a different quote.

On a side note, I'm a bit surprised by the comments here. Was the slashdot readership not generally aware that large scale batch computation in the age before electronic computers was done by hordes of people (mostly women) called "computers"? It came up a couple of times in Cryptonomicon.

And what is with the sudden push to present the sexism of the recent past in comic book terms? (See Agent Carter, or Aquarius for examples of mustache-twirling melodrama-villain sexism. Mad Men has a bit too, but the other shows really turned it up to 11.) My theory is that actual sexism has become such a foreign concept in the modern west that writers today don't understand it at all, so they have to resort to caricature.

* I can't find a book by her, and nothing I've seen claims that she made significant contributions to any specific actual book. Anyone have a citation?

The oldest modern (=mentions using radar) textbook on the subject that I'm aware of is Fundamentals of Astrodynamics, published in 1971, and based on unstructured materials (including plenty of NASA papers) that the Air Force Academy had been collecting and using since around 1959.

You are a laughable caricature, a bad stereotype. You are some middle-class kid playing the low-IQ gansta' role to try and intimidate your 'friends.' You are not very good at it.

The person you are trying to convince of this garbage is yourself, and again, not very good at it. You are clearly a Racist and a Bigot though. Oh and you forgot to use the N-word repeatedly. Clearly a Poser.

Look up Neil Degrasse Tyson to show you how a MAN acts, rather than a spoiled child crying for his momma'. Otherwise, enjoy your life of poverty.

That especially includes the #OnlyBlackLivesMatter thugs.

Thanks for proving everything I said about you alt-right weenies being lost in the weeds and out of touch with normal, healthy political views.

Maybe you should get out of your own echo chamber for a bit, you daft stormfag. Get some opinions from people who actually disagree with you for a change you, huge cuck.

I'm here, so I already am; because between the two of us I'm by far the better person. Then again alt-right scum like you barely qualify as "people" to begin with!

"stormfag", "cuck", "I'm by far the better person"

Damn, you're almost a caricature of a leftist. Have you ever actually done something responsible?

Close-minded, sheltered simps like you are why Detroit and Greece are bankrupt.

Not all conservatives believe this "we need more security" tripe anymore than all liberals think that all abortion should be legal up to the day of birth and the baby parts should then be sold to fund Planned Parenthood (and its employees).

I'm a fiscal conservative, gun owner, and I believe that Edward Snowden was a hero for what he did exposing that trash.

Too many citizens in this country need to stop labeling and stereotyping everyone else into some caricature silo - and need to start considering "the other side" and its views.

There is a saying in Russia, which says that Russians do not give away Russians.

This is a cliche statement, which reflects the mentality of how some of the Russians are taught and trained themselves to believe of anyting non Russian related. Here is the caricature of Russian mentality which summarizes how they want to view you: https://www.facebook.com/photo...

Jokes aside, in United States if somebody would want some law enforcement to give away their informers, we would say: screw you.

I'd expect quite a few on the left to "come out" against it - should it ever reach the point of being a requirement, enacted by law. I'm pretty friggen' far to the left of most any elected official (except maybe Bernie but I'm still to the left of him in some areas) and you can be damned sure that I'm against mandating these - ever.

I am not against them being researched nor am I against allowing people to choose such things. It's also important to note that I'm on the left for far different reasons than most elected officials, as well. However, I've typed that out enough times. Suffice to say, I'm an actual sane Libertarian and not the propagandized caricature. I'll elaborate if I must but Wikipedia has a fine article on the subject.

I'll assert that the vast majority of gun guys and girls aren't idiots. Yes, you're going to get some crazy in any population, but the caricature of anyone with a gun being some bruce willis cowboy wannabe is just that - a caricature.

In the gun store I go to, they simply don't sell to idiots - I've seem them kick people out of the store and refuse to sell to them because they were playing up some angry, macho bullshit. Now, perhaps you've been hanging out with lots of idiots with guns, and in that case, I highly suggest you choose better company.

I'm afraid I must do you a disservice and reply. Would that I could, I'd wait and do it later. Alas, I'm going to enter my "not thinking" state soon as I prepare to resign for the evening, it has been a few hectic days and I am old. However, I will both leave this tab open and give it more thought later and, perhaps, add some additional content as time allows.

I did want to touch on this before forgetting and letting it pass... I humbly disagree that such, the Libertarian as I know it, has ceased to exist. The reasons for this are twofold, perhaps more but two shall suffice, and they are: I do am not alone and may, in fact, still be in the majority among party members and I am not a coward.

Eh? Well... As near as I can tell? We, the people who were here that got the party started are still here and haven't actually changed our views except to refine them a little. Many of those that I associate with are similarly minded. I think the phase is, in common parlance, "the silent majority."

I am not afraid. Unlike, to use your feminist example, others - I'm not afraid of ostracism. I'm not afraid of harming the party as a whole to stand up against those who have tarnished our name and made our party a caricature. Unlike the feminists who were silent and feared retribution or causing harm to their movement while they were usurped by those not truly interested in equality? I've realized that I must fight - or suffer the same fate.

I had a bit of an internal dialogue and even had it externally. Some of it was right here on this site. The outcome of that dialogue was that I can do any one of a number of different things. I can call myself a "Classic Libertarian." I can call myself a "Socialist Libertarian." I can simply stop trying to let people know that sane Libertarians still exist. There are other choices... I've concluded that, for now, I will continue the struggle - if not lead it. I will fight the misuses of the name. I will take the time to help people (and I've had some success with this) realize that the Libertarian they're familiar with is a caricature. I will continue to toil, perhaps in vain, but I can not yet give up that fight. I am not a coward. There is little that can be done to me that will actually cause me harm.

It's tempting to quit. It's tempting to just let them have the name. It's tempting to just not respond and self-identify as a Classic or Socialist Libertarian. In fact, sometimes I do - but I try not to. Chances are, until a little while ago, you had no idea that this philosophy (by name, at least) existed and that there were adherents in the US. If nothing else, this has been noticed by one person. On top of that, in another sub-thread, I've interacted with another. Is it daunting, overwhelming, difficult, and possibly futile? Yup... But I'm a stubborn bastard and this word belongs to me. It is MY failing that it has reached this point. I should have spoken out years ago when things changed. I should have nipped this in the bud early on and both from within the party and publicly. I failed. I was derelict in my duties and this is a result of me not doing my job.

So, it's a lot of damned work but I'm trying. While that only covers one small part of your reply, I've not yet given enough thought to give a proper response to the rest. You've done me the favor of giving me an intelligent response, it would be remiss of me to not do the same. Hopefully, for now, the above will suffice and I'll give the additional aspects some thought and reply - if needed. However, I can not give up yet. I may... It's definitely a lot like work but it's rewarding at times when I get decent, intelligent, and thoughtful replies. One of my favorites is, "Wow, I had no idea. Thanks." Or similar... But I'm too stupid to give the rest of your comments any justice at the moment.

I am a fairly well known Libertarian. There's another who identified themselves as such in this thread. Those are the only two that I know of - though two others have posted, I'll let them name themselves or not, who identify as having a semi-Libertarian bent. All of us have clearly indicated a support for access to education by means of taxation. Two of us have questioned the validity of turning the education system into an exclusively for-profit endeavor. None of us have suggested removing access. None of us have used a derogatory (pejorative, really) acronym.

I can not speak for the gamergate people - I'm not entirely familiar with them nor do I pay attention to who sides on which side and who believes what or professes to believe what. It is of no concern to me and I'm too busy recollecting past statements from other users that are of more significance. Yes, i actually *do* look at the username of the poster and that sometimes sticks with me - especially if it is of things that interest me.

As the other identifies themselves as such, you can CTRL + F and search for "firethorn" and that's the other who identifies themselves. The others have either disclosed it in private or have opted to not mention it here. Some research will reveal them, if you wish.

Perhaps you should meet a Libertarian instead of believing the caricature is true? Instead of allowing someone else to paint you a picture, perhaps you can look yourself? Granted, we do have our share of lunatics in the party, the same can be said for most any group of people and, I admit, our lunatics are a special sort of stupid. The are not in the majority, they're just noisy and usually get the most attention because of this.

True and to join in with the AC below...

See, yes, you and I shortened "applications" to "apps" all those years ago. We were "installing apps" and "writing apps." We were "working with apps" and "managing apps."

Alas, today, they've gone and changed the common usage definition and what we call apps are now referred to by their full name - namely applications. Some of us are a bit more specific and we'll call them "phone apps" or "mobile apps." I think we're in the minority.

This appears to happen quite a bit. See the RC enthusiasts who are, through no fault of their own, no longer piloting RC model aircraft but are "drone operators."

Another example is I'm a Libertarian. Except, now that refers to the hard right instead of the loony left. I'm much more in common with a Socialist than I have in common with the caricature that most envision when I say that I'm a Libertarian. They automatically assume that I'm a Randian and it's a whole lot of work to show them the difference - they simply weren't alive, didn't know, or haven't learned that there's much more to it.

So, we're kind of old (some of us) and to us, apps is short for application. We difference them by saying mobile apps or even mobile applications. To others, probably too young or too uneducated, they aren't aware of the history and so they see "apps" and drop the "mobile" (which was, I think, in common usage earlier in time) and think that anything called an "app" is specifically for a mobile platform.

We can go with the flow, argue it, be confused, try to teach them, or just continue talking amongst ourselves. I try to reference them as "mobile apps" if need be. Given my distaste for most mobile platforms, that's seldom a concern. I've tried - I've bought quite a few tablets... I just can't appreciate the platform for anything other than consumption and I'm not even overly fond of that. Oddly, I don't mind my phone for some types of content consumption. I'll use it to read and even comment on a site. I have no use for a tablet. I'm going to try again with a Surface Pro but I am going to make sure that I can install Ubuntu on one before I bother wasting my time.

Then again, it will probably get used if I buy one. I bought one for the missus for the holiday and the kids seemed to both like them. I suspect that they'd abscond with one and make good use of it if I bought it and found that I didn't like it even with Ubuntu loaded. The missus prefers Linux these days but seems genuinely happy with the Surface. I've poked at it and I'm reasonably impressed with the speed, layout, display, and accuracy of the inputs. I'd still rather it have Ubuntu on it.

They have created the caricature that they think is Libertarianism and will not be swayed. The funny thing is, I've been a member of the party for a *very* long time. At one point in time, the Republicans were in power and we were portrayed, by the media, as the loony left. Now, we're the anarcho-capitalists on the right. Even though very few of us fit that description (and there are some) it's amusing to see the vast amounts of ignorance that is parroted by people who seem otherwise intelligent.

If you tell them a few things about your political ideology (and I have done this, many times, on this very site) and then let them opine - then tell them that you're a Libertarian then they're often quite astonished. Some simply refuse to believe it - no matter how many links you provide and what you give for proof, and they'll repeat the same stupid things a few days later - probably hoping you don't notice. Others get it and I've noticed that I've actually managed to show a few people that they are mistaken and they've made the effort to learn.

I hate to cite it but, well, the first five or so paragraphs on Wikipedia are actually pretty good. The whole article is pretty good but they really only need to read the first few paragraphs - just the opening four or five (I forget how many). Getting them to read it (I've had people tell me that they won't read it and they "know" what a Libertarian is) can be tough but, once you get that far, they might realize that they've been subjected to some biased media and some heavy propaganda.

Don't get me wrong, we've got some straight up fucking lunatics in the party - people that shouldn't be allowed to be in control of a household budget, never mind another human being. They don't represent the majority. They seem to think we're all Randians, extremists, anarchists, etc... They seem to all think we believe in some free market voodoo when, really, Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model.

It's unfortunate to see otherwise smart people being so vulnerable to propaganda when the information is right there and takes maybe 90 seconds to read and 30 seconds to digest well enough to actually understand. It's not even complicated. It is, however, rather encompassing so we do end up with a whole bunch of lunatics and kicking them out of the party or taking away their voice would be a bit antithetical.

As a lark, someone should start the American Authoritarian Party. "We know what's best for you, citizen. Do not raise alarm and be prepared to submit." We could then run parody caricatures who both look similar and can mimic candidates from the two major parties. I would actually donate to that party. It might be jarring enough to get noticed.

This part of the thread is like some kinda racist time machine. It's nearly 2016, folks. This kind of garbage is called what it is now. Conflating trained software engineers with call center support is another great example of the kind of demeaning bullshit Americans do to anyone foreign: collapsing them into a demeaning caricature. You both should feel ashamed. Doubly so because you're comically wrong and outdated.

First of all, outsourcing as a primary source for software has been on a sharp decline for years. A far greater problem is that the vast majority of services simply aren't writing code at all. They're buying 5-10 year old whitelabel software with confusing adapters to modern patterns or simply outsourcing entire products and then letting daily batch processes weld things together. A great example of this is most small banks and credit card providers in the US.

Second of all, there's no reason people from India can't make great software. Go to any laudable US Compsci program and you'll find people from that country in every grade bracket of every division, if you "require proof" that humans are humans. The business model is the problem, not someone's skin color or language. Outsourcing firms (of which there area LOT in South America now, by the way, so maybe it's time to listen to Trump's rhetoric?) aren't effective because their model is making payroll, not delivering great software to their clients. Many companies are realizing this, and converting to a contracting supply model, which makes a lot more sense in an environment where good talent is hard to find.

That didn't seem impolite at all. I thought it quite polite and I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you said. I'll address them in turn.

1. No, that establishes nothing though it does indicate a high probability of competency - the Foreign Legion is a rather respectable outfit but your participation means naught except, perhaps, competency.

2. I not only didn't say such, nor did I imply such. I specifically stated the ownership of property. Not the use of said property to do "whatever I wish." Let's try for honesty.

3. Yeah, that's called fear. You're scared that someone will access your firearms and use them in an inappropriate manner. It's a justifiable fear and you can act on that how you wish with your country.

4. That's well and good that you didn't personally bomb yourself into rubble but your country did and that's why you end up being afraid of things that go boom. It can be summed up as a cultural difference - up to and including the propensity for warring with your neighbors.

5. It's not undermining my argument. It's accepting that there are risks associated with freedoms. The fewer the restrictions you have, the greater the risks. Again, I'm not scared so I accept those risks. I don't deny them. I accept them, knowingly and well aware of the potential consequences.

6. Addiction? Hmm... Would you say you're addicted to your hobbies? I don't fawn or or obsess over firearms. To me they are either a tool or a source of entertainment. I don't think the United States needs more firearm regulation. I think the United States needs to enforce the regulations that they already have. I don't *think* I'm addicted to firearms.

It's not even the greatest enumerated right, in my opinion. If I'm addicted to anything it is liberty - a concept you should understand seeing as you were in the Foreign Legion. I'd be just as pissed if someone were trying to take away freedom of the press, to be secure in one's papers, or even religion - and I'm not even a religious person.

Now, the caricature that you seem to think I am does, unfortunately, exist in my country but they're not the majority. Even us firearm aficionados call them "gun nuts" and they do more harm then good, but they've a right to be who they are. The vast majority of us are safe, secure, knowledgeable, law-abiding, and are extremely unlikely to go shoot up a school, murder someone, or even handle our firearms in an unsafe manner. Knee-jerk responses based on fear are never the solution. Enforce the laws we've got and accept that bad things happen to otherwise good people. That's the price you pay for liberties.

Oh, and allowed to own a firearm and keep it in your home but you can't keep ammunition? Dude... Just buy a big stick at that point. Enacting laws to protect stupid people from themselves just means that knowledgeable people are further restricted for no cause of their own.

I do appreciate that you didn't trot out the tired line of "your murder rate is 3x our rate!" True but three times a small number is still a very small number.

I don't expect we'll ever agree on the matter. I have used both logic and reason to come to my conclusions. I'm not sure how many people would have to die before I changed my views on the subject, to be honest. Ownership of property and the ability to defend oneself are essential freedoms in my opinion. They're not the only ones (though I'd say property ownership is the cornerstone) and, as I said, I'd be just as irked if someone were trying to erode the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or any other enumerated right.

And, ah, the irony... I spent eight years in the Marines and hold a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics. I actually wrote lots of software until I was able to afford to hire professionals to do it for me. My business was traffic modeling (vehicular and pedestrian) and I sold and retired some eight years ago. I'm a bit older than you, born in 1957. I am a horrible programmer. That's how I ended up on Slashdot.

Actually, yes. And why? Well, I can't speak for other people but I can speak for me. In my case, it's because I am kind of tired of being lumped in with the caricatures. I, for one, pay my taxes - every penny that is owed is paid. I don't even make any great effort to avoid taxes even though I could, it's kind of easy. I didn't break any laws to get to where I am - I just worked hard as hell and got lucky. I don't kick dogs. I don't eat cats. I do actual investing these days and not short term HFT type crap through an investment house. I didn't steal your girlfriend. I donate tons of money to worthy causes. I didn't magically become a monster just because I accumulated some wealth.

By the way, if you want to write off a party then form a LLC and call it a promotion. Or just pay your taxes instead of wanting to be like the person you dislike. Only long term investments are taxed at 15%. You can access all the deductions, you probably have to be creative and lie and may go to jail but you can do it. However, if you're really a "star" then I suppose you can have a party with your friends and call it a promotional party - or, you can tell your friends about Widget 73 and call it a sales event. You'll want to get a LLC going first, keep good records, and probably hire both an accountant and lawyer or learn to do the paperwork yourself.

I am just disturbed, disgusted really, by a pillar of the freedom's we enjoy with software is so ready to take other people's freedoms because of his fear. I wonder what he has to say about the government backdooring encryption?

Wait, no I don't. I've since thought about it some more and I'll simply conclude that I was mistaken in my beliefs that he was actually concerned with freedom and I can safely discount anything more he says because he's now suspect. Any time he has fear as a motivation, he'll fall on the side of reductions of freedom. I can not respect that kind of person but I can respect that we have a different interpretation of freedom. So, I'll just ignore him. It won't change donation habits, it won't change how I feel about anyone else, it simply has made it so that I can no longer take him as anything other than a caricature.

You listen to some people and you get the idea that the business world is run by Gordon Geckos, that Hollywood caricatures of capitalist villains are the reality and the norm and that the greedy bastards who would do anything to take one dollar more control corporate America.

Studies show that the business world is run by psychopaths: CEOs higher on measurements of psychopathy than inmates at a hospital for the criminally insane.

I actually think Obamacare has done more good than harm, and I initially opposed it for a variety of reasons. That said, I don't see any necessary contradictions in being opposed to democrat sponsored reforms and buying drugs from Mexico.

It's not as if the only 2 possibilities are "support healthcare the way democrats want to do it" and "believe 100% in the system as it exists (i.e. buying medication in the US)"

I actually think one of the biggest problems in American politics is polarization. There is this assumption that you are either for A and against B or for B and against A. The idea of holding a nuanced position is unheard of. Politicians have simple positions because having a complex one means being attacked from 2/2 sides instead of just 1/2.

Furthermore, even if your parents are actually 1 dimensional conservative caricatures, ignoring big (Obama administration) government regulations that create an artificial monopoly (i.e. non free market) for American Pharmaceutical corporations seems like a right wing position.

It turns out that there are a few brands of radical conservatism that are occasionally at odds with one another. In this case it's being pro-free market vs. jingoism. But it actually gets more complicated, because classical liberalism actually embraced the free market. Then modern liberalism sort of abandoned the free market, and classical liberals got renamed to libertarians. And more recently republicans co-opted the libertarian label leaving people formerly labelled libertarians currently without a label.

But now through polarized lenses we boil that down to: Liberals support regulation of a greedy capitalist system that can not possible regulate itself, while conservatives believe all regulations on the market are socialist job killers.

You listen to some people and you get the idea that the business world is run by Gordon Geckos, that Hollywood caricatures of capitalist villains are the reality and the norm and that the greedy bastards who would do anything to take one dollar more control corporate America.

Then a person who is really like that actually shows up, and only then, by comparison, do we realize again that the others are not. Every few years some of these guys climb out from Hell to remind us of that. It is Martin Shkreli taking over from Enron accountants, Bernard Madoff and John Corzine.